Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article review/archive/February 2006

< Wikipedia:Featured article review | archive

This is the archive of Featured Article Removal Candidates for February 2006. For the active archive and list of previous archives, click here.


Kept status

edit

Matthew Brettingham

edit
Article is still a featured article.

Previous FARC

  • The article could use more inline cites as several statements need them. For example, "is referred to as a surveyor" and "was paid £112", as well as other statements, need inline cites.
  • The article leaves some questions about this person unanswered: Date of birth, date of death, how many children (one child seems low for that time), was he an architect for life or did he "retire"? and so on.
  • Also, the writing style does not conform to the manual of style: why is there a conclusion" section and a self-reference to the talk page? If there is enough disinformation about this guy bumping its way around to require a reference to the talk page, surely this would deserve a section in the article?

Nominate for removal for all of these reasons. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 20:04, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Again. Taking your points in reverse order: (iii) Perhaps "Conclusion" means "of his life" (it is the last section in a biographical article, after all). And the talk page self-reference could be handled more elegantly (would you prefer an inline citation? I'm not sure how you could add all of that information succinctly). Apart from those wrinkles, how does the "writing style does not conform to the manual of style"? The language and style are excellent. (ii) Dates of birth and death - (1699–1769). It may surprise you, but it can be difficult to find out the exact day when people were born or died - either the date is not recorded, or different date are recorded. See, for example, Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington. Ditto children, if they are not themselves notable, and/or died young (which is not unusual for that time). You will need to be a bit more spceific than "and so on". (i) Inline citations? For an obscure and uncontroversial architect who has been dead for over 230 years? -- ALoan (Talk) 20:43, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's the only in depth biography of him anywhere. All available information is present. Covers all the important points, and all facts in the article are contained in the references listed. If no more detailed information is available the so-be-it Giano | talk 22:44, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Although I agree the referencing could be improved somewhat, this is exactly the sort of article on a somewhat obscure subject that makes Wikipedia great. These articles ought to be encouraged. –Joke 00:38, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Picking at whether the footnotes are this way or that is not valid. The same is true of headings. Could it be smoothed and improved? Yes. Could it get a revision? Sure. Is it no longer an FA because of formatting issues? No. Geogre 03:20, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ouch - what do you mean by "a serious attempt isn't made soon to satisfy Criterion 2a"? What changes would you suggest? And which "more references" for this relatively obscure 18th century architect would you suggest? -- ALoan (Talk) 12:02, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Criterion 2a, Tony? Qué? "'Well written' means that the prose is compelling, even brilliant"? It is, you know. It's not the case that the way of writing that you like trumps all others. Are you planning to keep on sniping at everything Giano's written from the sidelines like this, merely because you haven't in the past gotten your own way about re-writing his prose to your specifications? Do you think this is a good thing for Wikipedia that you're doing? Bishonen | ノート 10:14, 3 March 2006 (UTC).[reply]
    • I don't look at who contributes, and yes, it was a bit lazy of me to make a generalisation above. If I'd realised that Giano et al had been major contributors, I'd have taken a closer look at the text; we've had something of a reconciliation, and I'm keen to assist rather than critique his work. So hold your horses, Bishonen, I'm not trying to snipe at everything Giano writes, and I'd be pleased if you didn't presume malice on my part. Tony 14:00, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Good heavens, you seem to be saying that you'll post wounding pronouncements like "Remove if a serious attempt isn't made soon to satisfy Criterion 2a" without first taking a closer look at the text. Wow. "A bit lazy" sounds like a really charitable way of describing that. Only users that you're for personal reasons "keen to assist" get the special favor of a close look? You know what, here's an idea: if you haven't looked closely, don't comment. Bishonen | ノート 15:24, 3 March 2006 (UTC).[reply]
        • Oh heck, get a life. My comment was meant in good faith. Tony 16:08, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I believe you when you say your comment was made in good faith, but Bishonen does have a point. Paul August ☎ 19:09, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Well, Tony seems to be saying that he does not like the prose style of this article, but he won't complain now because he has found out that it is one of Giano's. If he doesn't like it, please would he tell how it should be improved. It is apparent from his comments (mostly on WP:FAC) that Tony reads articles closely, and he often makes very good comments on matters of detail (I would be happier if he actually copyedited them rather than making the comments, but we all have a life to be getting on with, so we may as well have the comments so we know where we stand rather than being nicey-nicey to each other's faces and muttering under our breath...) -- ALoan (Talk) 19:28, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I bet ALoan when you were a child, you were one of those kids that always had to keep poking the hornet's nest with a stick. Tony has made it quite plain that he wishes he had never heard of this page, and I can't say I blame him. You have refuted the nomination itself very eloquently, so unless something go horribly adrift we have a consensus - so let Tony off the hook. Please? We have agreed to differ, and avoid each other and until this hiccup we have done a good job. Now, talking of the nominator where is she, I would like to know. I think I shall go and find out. Giano | talk 10:46, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, I've had a close look, and on this occasion, I have to say that you are all right and I am wrong. (I may even have put my initial comment on the wrong FARC page; the article seems to be very well written.) I've gone through the first few paras and made just a few minor changes, which I hope that you won't mind; I'll return to read the rest, unless you object. Keep.Tony 23:51, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --Terence Ong 11:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep DVD+ R/W 21:27, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong remove. I'm utterly confused about the above keep votes and proffered rationales. We're not voting on AfD, we're deciding whether this article is really the best we have to offer. On that score the answer is most certainly no. The article contains not a SINGLE inline citation (and hence fails WP:CITE and WP:V). The lead is far from conforming to WP:LEAD and the prose needs some serious work before it can be considered "brilliant". Mikker ... 02:16, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Footnotes are not required. Notes are not required. References are required, and those are provided: this article passes WP:CITE, and those who say otherwise are failing to understand something. The lead is satisfactory. The prose could be improved or not, but once we get past good and into what each of us considers "brilliant," we're in hopeless territory. I like periodic sentences, for example, but one person quick on "Object" and "remove" would get rid of all of those as not commensurate with corporate writing. Some people get confused by any complex sentence. Others get bored by simple sentences. The writing in this article is not poor, and therefore overriding the judgments of the FAC voters is inappropriate. (The status quo always has an inherent advantage; the burden of proof is always on the side wishing for change.) Nominator's burden not proved, so keep. Geogre 04:35, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retain. The article is an example of Wikipedia's better work. The view that it "fails WP:CITE and WP:V" arises from a misunderstanding of those documents. WP:V is an article space policy that states the necessity of including in the encyclopedia only those "[f]acts, viewpoints, theories, and arguments... [that] have already been published by reliable and reputable sources." Matthew Brettingham references 6 works related to British architecture. Which claims made in the article are not borne out by the sources? WP:CITE is a style guideline, stating why and when to use citations, and describing some methods of laying out inline citations should these be preferred. It does not compel the use of inline citations; it compels citations. Again, the requirement is met.

    I wonder if the confusion partly stems from not appreciating fully the differences in the magnitude and depth of research in different fields. For example, in the last 30 odd years, some 200,000 papers have been published on matters relating to the human immunodeficiency virus. [1] So if you write on HIV, it makes sense to use inline citations, particularly if you have access to the primary reports and can quote the precise studies which confirmed each fact of which you write. Other subjects may have very much less research devoted to them; all that is reliably known about them may have been published in a few papers or monographs. In that scenario, simply noting these sources under the references section should amply suffice. It would be ridiculous for Giano to fill the article with superscripted notes all pointing to the same one or two references.

    WP:LEAD provides a guideline on how to write the lead para(s). Essentially, the lead section should summarize the subject. The lead in Brettingham does. I can see that an extra sentence or two may be added without compromising it: if one feels strongly about this, the edit button is available.

    This article should retain its featured status, and its editors, our thanks. Regards —Encephalon 08:03, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I'm getting all the more confused. I've just re-read NPOV, WP:V, WP:CITE, WP:WIAFA and the talk of WIAFA to make sure I'm making some sense. It seems to me I am. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough: I'm not voting remove because the article doesn't use footnotes or Harvard or embedded html links (or whatever) I'm pro-removal because for a particular statement to be verifiable some indication needs to be provided of where the information comes from. WP:V says "facts, viewpoints, theories, and arguments may only be included in articles if they have already been published by reliable and reputable sources. Articles should cite these sources whenever possible." Fantastic. But how do we know particular statements have in fact been published by reputable sources if we're not told where the information comes from? If, for example, I say Henry Kissinger said "Bla bla blaaaa" and put "Whitehouse Years" (one of his memoirs) in the Reference section, is "bla bla blaaa" verifiable? In principle yes, but practically? (The doubter **could** re-read all 1400 pages of "Whitehouse Years" to check but that's hardly efficient). In fact, if I make a claim, provide no inline citation and simply point the the reference section the situation is much worse than that because there are often several books listed under references. Have a look at Henry_Kissinger#Bibliography (scroll down to "Memoirs"). There are six books mentioned, half of them with over 1200 pages. And "Bla bla blaaa" is verifiable? Why not just have a section saying "check a library"? Looking at Matthew Brettingham I'm left wondering where in the world the biographical information comes from. Can't be "Life in the English Country House" it seems. Ditto for "The Country House in Perspective". Is it in "Historic Houses"? Or "Matthew Brettingham and the County of Norfolk"? And since "The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it" (WP:V) a good deal of the info fails WP:V. Alternatively, maybe the article conforms to the letter of the requirements but it seems to me it violates the spirit. One of the biggest problems Wikipedia has is a perception that we’re not “authoratative” – a perception we can only combat by telling our readers where specifically our information comes from. Saying “oh, we’re not quite sure but we think it’s somewhere in one of these six books” simply doesn’t cut it in my opinion. Mikker ... 21:30, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree with this view. Really, it's understandable and still disappointing to see a whole collection of editors so vocally lining up behind this article, while in point of plain fact, if "we" are striving towards verifiability through the method of references, with inline citations and footnotes, then plainly, we need to actually use them and this article does not. I used to think that a bibliography was enough, which was naive. And I'm not making any new argument here, just realizing more fully the nature of anonymous writing and WP:V. For WP to get further than mega-blog status (which is fine, too), statements have to be better cited than pointing to hundreds or thousands of pages of source:
"Burlington was more of an idealist than an architect
"Brettingham's self-confidence may have been restored"
"Brettingham's principal contribution to architecture is perhaps the design of..."
All of that is great summary and presumably synthesis of the source material, and it may be a chore to support that style of writing without getting mired in inlines (notes would be their own substantial project to keep things uncluttered), but so be it. That's the challenge, no? As it is now, I cannot reasonable verify any of that without reading all of the References. We may never be able to implement this quality across hundreds of thousands of articles, but FA seems to be the place right now where we should try (and that's exactly what the FA criteria as for in clear language!). It is ridiculous not to apply the basic WP principles we've accepted, here of all places. Yes, Matthew Brettingham is interesting, well-written, believable, and an amazing article to have materialized out of nowhere on WP, but recognizing just that isn't the reason or purpose for FA. Ideally, we should be looking for articles that are approaching highest standards, not sweating to maintain the status of a handful, gathering to support, it seems to me here, only because it seems to be "good". It's a "when the going gets tough" kind of thing. It's easy to object to a terrible article, it's a lot harder to refuse a good article when it's simply not to the standards established and agreed upon.
On a more practical angle, I looked up "Matthew Brettingham" on Google. This article is the number one listing, same in Yahoo. That, I think, handles any notion that "demoting" this (or any) FA is somehow depriving anyone (except those who want the star) of anything. A good article is out there, the FIRST thing that the majority of online readers will find when searching. FA is, or should be, about something else, about being the best as defined by WP:NPOV-WP:V-WP:NOR. Else, the FA definition should change. We could have stars and featured categories for all kinds of things. --Tsavage 01:17, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. Staxringold 13:55, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment One of the reasons I said that this article needed inline cites was the fact that it was an obscure person hardly anyone has heard of. The fact that Matthew Brettingham is obscure means that the information is harder to verify. If someone were to get the article on, (just an example,) Michaëlle Jean featured, it be would easier to verify information about her because she is well known and the same information could well be at multiple sources. Matthew Brettingham is an obscure person and certainly not as well known as Michaëlle Jean. His article certainly requires inline cites to indicate where the information is from because the one source that a fact is taken from may be the only place to get that information. If it is a fat book, it does not become much easier to verify because the source may be buried deep within that source and be nowhere else, which makes it hard to verify. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 19:55, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The criticism made in the preceding is not of adequate verification and sourcing, but of citation style. Mikkerpikker asks:
But how do we know particular statements have in fact been published by reputable sources if we're not told where the information comes from? If, for example, I say Henry Kissinger said "Bla bla blaaaa" and put "Whitehouse Years" (one of his memoirs) in the Reference section, is "bla bla blaaa" verifiable? In principle yes, but practically? (The doubter **could** re-read all 1400 pages of "Whitehouse Years" to check but that's hardly efficient).
  • Wikipedia:Verifiability demands that what we write in Wikipedia only those "[f]acts, viewpoints, theories, and arguments... [that] have already been published by reliable and reputable sources." So if the claim "Blah blah blah", to use Mikker's charming example, is indeed to be found in White House years, then yes, "Blah blah blah" may certainly be said to be perfectly verifiable. The complaint is that it would be difficult, given White House years' ponderous length (1521pp), to identify the appropriate passages with speed. However, this is not an argument that speaks to verifiability, but to convenience. That doesn't mean it's unimportant, but it is critical for the purposes of this WP:FARC to be very clear that what is being criticized here is not the adequacy of verification.
  • It should also be noted that the supposed problem is little addressed by the use of an inline cite. Suppose the editor who wrote "Blah blah blah" used an inline citation for that claim.

    Using the Harvard reference style [Blah blah blah (Kissinger 1979)], the book will be noted in the References section as follows:

    Kissinger, H 1979, White House years, Little, Brown, Boston, MA.
  • Using the Vancouver style [Blah blah blah¹],
    1. Kissinger H. White House years. Boston: Little, Brown; 1979.
  • How would the relevant passage in the book be located any faster? You'll still have to "read the whole book"! The standard academic/scholarly citation conventions do not compel us to write the precise section/chapter/page/line number. Therefore most of the criticism laid out above rather miss the mark—the use of inline citations would not relieve the reader from doing what is expected of him in the first place: if more information is required, if he would like to engage the subject at a deeper level, if he is a scholar—he reads the book. (He could also use the index, of course ;-))
  • One fair point is that inline citations at least tell the reader which book to look in. However, as mentioned earlier, the utility of this is related to the number of references and the weight and nature of scholarly research girding the subject. If there are only a handful of sources (eg. <6-8), many authors, by long tradition, simply note the references at the bottom. If one is so inclined, one can be critical of this practice on WP—I daresay it would come as a surprise to scholars the world over to find that their conventional practice in academia does not quite cut the mustard on WP.
  • If it is held that this style of citation should spell the difference between a FA and a non-FA, then I fear Giano was not at all being unreasonable in making his 8 FARC nominations recently. Take a stroll through WP:FA. Raul will be faced with a lot more than 9 FARC noms. Augustan literature will have to go, I'm afraid—no inline cites. Colley Cibber—inadequately 'verified'. Orronoko. Peterborough Chronicle. Even The Cantos—bereft of superscripted numbers, it must be relieved of FA status. If this is what is to happen, I would suggest FA simply loses its meaning—perhaps one third of some of the finest articles ever written on WP will be "demoted". All for not having the right citation style. Do we want to do this, friends? —Encephalon 01:56, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'd like to point out the fact that the lack of inline cites was not the only reason I nominated this article for removal. I also brought up the writing style (such as the self reference and conclusion section) as well as missing informati9on (who gave Brettingham the £112? That was a lot of money back then. Did Brettingham "retire" or not?) These three reasons all together (but not individually) mean that this article is not a featured article. Or is someone going to say that we should accept self-references since people here seem to be perfectly willing to accept it here. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 22:02, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
regarding Encephalon's comment: I don't follow the reasoning behind "[convenience] is not an argument that speaks to verifiability". It would seem to me that verifiability is the policy and principle, citation is the general implementation, and convenience is a function of the actual citation method. You could say, "This is verifiable, check this section in this library," or "Check this book," or "check this chapter or page". Convenience is a matter of the chosen citation approach, not something entirely apart? Also, isn't there a practical measure to verifiability, if references are not reasonably easy to check, what real verifiability is there? Might as well point to the library.
"I daresay it would come as a surprise to scholars the world over to find that their conventional practice in academia does not quite cut the mustard on WP" is also unclear to me. The needs of WP seem to be obviously quite different from those of "academia". References in WP aren't only there to prove the work to a colleague or a professor, or to continue research, they are critically needed by all future WP editors, not only to verify the version at the time of insertion, but also to check future versions and to improve content, all by a wide range of people, with differing academic backgrounds and information skills. And, as articles continue to be edited, a set of general references will rapidly become meaningless. Quite a degree of convenience, to serve both of these purposes, would seem to be of paramount importance. This seems to be the way to ensure that "many eyeballs" can move forward. Else, perhaps shut the gates, allow lettered experts access only in their areas, and start locking down stable versions. A new WP.
Effective, reasonable day-to-day use of, particularly, inline citations is a big problem to work out, but I can't see how, without convenient and quite pinpoint sources, applied where logically needed, WP can progress past a simple collection of what everyone wants to write. We could wipe out any mandatory referencing, and WP would probably be just as valuable for a long time. But while the WP:V is policy through WP:CITE, how can the "best" articles, the Featured Articles (1 in 1,000) not adhere to it, and that means, sufficiently precise inline citations where reasonably requested to support specific assertions, regardless of topic.
It would seem to me that, if Matthew Brettingham isn't accessibly referenced to a reasonable level (not just to an undifferentiated list of books), then it simply doesn't fully meet current FA standards. What is the argument otherwise? --Tsavage 02:21, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The real question is what is a "reasonable level"? It seems to me that what you are really arguing for is a change in the FA criteria, or at least a change in how those criteria are to be interpreted. My experience has been that this article well satisfies the minimum requirements described at Wikipedia:What is a featured article, as currently interpreted. Although I am personally a strong supporter of verifiability, and favor highly specific and granular citation, applying these standards would currently leave us with very few FAs. And if we want to move toward such standards they should first be applied at FAC not FARC. — Paul August ☎ 06:01, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If I'm arguing for a change, then it's to remove the references requirements if this is a "keep", especially when additional citation has been requested (as this FARC nom does). Right now, and for the last couple of months at least, for better or for worse, inline citations are treated as a requirement in FA for all articles, so that would be how WP:V in FA is currently being interpreted.
FA says: "complemented where appropriate by inline citations" (see WP:CITE), which in turn says: "Sometimes — for example, when the article treats an uncontroversial or simple topic, and draws on a few, widely accepted general sources — it is sufficient to provide a 'References' section at the end of the article" — does that refer to, say, ice cream, also tadpole, also Matthew Brettingham? And, emphasis not added: "the most important thing is to enter comprehensive reference information — that is, enough information so that a reader can find the original source with relative ease." These are all quite broad and open to interpretation, but certainly support lack of inline citation as an actionable objection, if and when it's brought up. --Tsavage 06:30, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On Encephalon's comment:
  • We need to make a distinction between the metaphysical fact of verifiability (if "Bla bla blaaa" is in White House Years it's verifiable, if it isn't, it's not) and the epistemological issue of knowing whether or not something is verifiable. On your view, an addition is fine by WP:V if it could in principle be verified. But this seems strange to me: if I own the sole copy of a reputable source that says Kissinger once said Bla bla, and I let no one check it, is my claim that Kissinger said bla bla verifiable? Well, yes in principle (it is metaphysically true that...) but, no in practise (since it is epistemologically impossible for other editors to know whether it is verifiable or not). Obviously I chose an extreme example, but my point is that there is a connection between WP:V and WP:CITE - CITE helps us determine (epistemologically) whether the metaphysical condition of verifiability holds. It seems to me the burden of proof should lie with someone wanting to add text, not with those who oppose it. Direct inline citations are therefore necessary. Additionally, you'd have to cite page numbers in my opinion. Just having (Kissinger, 1979) is not adequate - it needs to be (Kissinger, 1979: 234) or whatever.
  • Encephalon says "The standard academic/scholarly citation conventions do not compel us to write the precise section/chapter/page/line number" and "I daresay it would come as a surprise to scholars the world over to find that their conventional practice in academia does not quite cut the mustard on WP." Firstly, I'm not so sure academic citation conventions do not require page numbers. I've penalised many an undergrad essay for not having page citations. Also, numerous journals at least in the social sciences (the only area I've had significant contact with the formal literature) require direct citations. (there are exceptions) That said, of course the "conventional practice in academia does not quite cut the mustard on WP" simply because we don't have the same layers of scrutiny as the academic world does. Scholarly articles are written by experts in the field (usually with the informal help of other experts) and then peer reviewed in detail by yet a third group of experts. As a result, I'm fairly willing to trust, say, Foreign Affairs without the use of specific inline citations. But WP, obviously, has none of these mechanisms - all we have is a bunch of keen volunteers who often are not experts. The only way we can judge the content of an article, then, is by looking at the sources. And to do that adequately - and therefore to write an adequate encyclopaedia - we need specific inline citations. Mikker ... 17:33, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Art competitions at the Olympic Games

edit
Article is still a featured article.

This is a pretty old featured article and it's simply no longer up to snuff according to current guidelines. It only has two sources and it doesn't even cite them inline in the text properly. It kind of reads more like a laundry list of various medals awarded for various competitions than a good high quality article. --Cyde Weys 04:38, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Remove. Two sources isn't nearly good enough for an article that size. - Mgm|(talk) 12:15, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove As per above. Two sources? Come on! --SpacemanAfrica 18:56, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - This is still a great article. Those 'two sources' are multipage in length and cover all the parts in the article well (one source is a 400 page book on exactly this topic!!). Since when has there been a requirement that we only use a whole bunch of small sources and shun the use of a smaller number of more substantial ones? The inline cite criterion was also added after this article was FAd. --mav 05:38, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ultimately, adding more refs would not hurt (and I strongly urge that anyone familiar with the material and the references use Inline Citations), and external links would be nice - but I am inclined to agree with Daniel that its about quality of references, not quantity. Consequently, I will not defeature this article based on references, unless the references provided are unreliable (which someone would need to definitively prove, by the way). As for the choppy prose noted by Cyde, it's not enough by itself to warrant defeaturing. I am not speedy keeping this article, however - if anyone can find further reason for removal, feel free to present it. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 06:54, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Inline citations" are still not a requirement, unless there has been a very recent change and I missed all of the discussion. References are a requirement, but they can be by "Harvard" style or footnotes or inline notes. Further, something like that is not enough to knock off an FA, and the people who put cookie cutters up to FA's are missing something (something really important). Geogre 03:23, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep one of the older FAs and per mav --Jaranda wat's sup 22:32, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove as per nominator, and because the writing is substandard. Here's an example:
"When the first post-war Olympic Games were held in war ravaged Belgium, art contests were again on the programme, although they were little more than a sideshow. This was different for the 1924 Summer Olympics in Paris. The contests were taken seriously for the first time, and 193 artists submitted works. Remarkably, this figure also includes three Soviet artists, even though the Soviet Union officially did not take part in the Olympic Games, which they considered to be a "bourgeois" festival.'
    • war-ravaged
    • sideshow comment might be POV, and in any case needs to be referenced
    • Paris sentence stubby, and needs to be smoothly integrated into the surrounding sentences
    • also includes—also is redundant
    • they is a problem

Tony 08:26, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: The above paragraph is of excellent standard. Business writing is ugly, business is tedious, and apparently we're having trouble understading intensifiers, typographic variation due to nation ("programme" is British; why not pick on that, too, as "war-ravaged" and "war ravaged" are not only an Atlantic case but also a choice in emphasis), ability of authors to read and represent their works fairly, and we cannot tell when the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics can be represented as a plural with validity, and, of course, most of all, because having the prose not fit one's Procrustean style sheet is not a valid reason to object to promotion of an article, much less a valid reason to wish to strip an article of its status. Geogre 23:24, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - it would be nice to have citations for some of the specific factual statements (for example: number of artists exhibited; that the Soviets considered the Games "bourgeois"; controversy over sales of works at Amsterdame; visitor numbers in LA) - if the two references are 400-page works, it would be nice to have page numbers. But these are only "nice to have"s not "must have"s for me. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:08, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

History of Greenland

edit
Article is still a featured article.

A great topic, but I am reluctantly nominating it for removal. It lacks citations and sources. Hydriotaphia 22:49, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Nice catch. It appears from the nom that there certainly were sources used, including a print source, so I've asked the original author to cite them properly. That should solve the problem. I would encourage people to exhaust every way to improve (or get other people to improve) an article before listing it on FARC. - Taxman Talk 10:04, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cat

edit
Article is still a featured article.

1. Wikipedia:Citing sources, Wikipedia:Verifiability

On 20 January Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) notified the user page of reference problems. No editor has responded or corrected the errors. There are 22 citations in the text and 26 footnotes, none of which align correctly. The first text citation is number 3, refers to a statement about Cyprus, and links to a note about spaying. If these were all corrected it would still be slim documentation for a 56k article. For example, the 47 line section about domestication has no citations.

2. WP:NPOV, WP:NOR

The "Feral cats" subsection gives a wholehearted endorsement of feral cat spay and release programs and fails to mention the related controversy. Legal summaries by the University of Florida law school and the Animal Legal and Historical Center conclude that these programs violate state and federal U.S. laws including the Endangered Species Act.[2] [3] At least three decades of peer reviewed research has studied cat predation of endangered species.
  • My attempt to resolve this informally might taint the nomination to some eyes: I have edited to the article exactly twice. In December I addressed a similar oversight at "Environmental issues." That met resistance. I posted these concerns to the talk page four days ago and received no response. This is a good article but not Wikipedia's best. Durova 04:07, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My good faith efforts to do so are recorded on the article talk page. Durova 19:18, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep References corrected by me to [4] style. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:23, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Sod the ickle tweety birds (which is what these supposed 'controversies' with allowing the existence of cats are always about). If you can fly and you get caught by something that can't, you lose at life. :-) Ok, seriously, Durova makes valid points, but I don't think a POV dispute and some technical problems overwhelm the fact that this article is comprehensive, well-written, generally well-referenced, has a good variety of illustrative pictures and is basically an enjoyable read. --Malthusian (talk)

Super Mario 64

edit
Article is still a featured article.

The article Super Mario 64 includes:

  1. Limited references concerning the history and the development of the game. The references in the article are not formatted correctly.
  2. Furthermore, there are no references concerning other aspects of the game. Example: Shifting Sand Land is somewhat reminiscent of Super Mario Bros. 3's Desert Land. Citation? The "Rumors" and "Impact" section requires citations as well.
  3. Far too many fair use images.
  4. The "basic controls" section could do with some trimming.
  5. Is the "remakes and sequels" section necessary?
  6. The spoiler warning is quite lengthy.
  7. The prose is awkward in certain areas.

—Eternal Equinox | talk 00:44, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Remove (I also objected when this was a FAC). However, I disagree with points #3 and #5 in your list. There may be aesthetical reasons for having fewer images, but there's no legal reason. I'd be concerned if we had one screenshot of each sector from each level, but whether we have 5 or 10 doesn't matter when they are used for informational purposes. Information on remakes and sequels definitely belongs. Fredrik Johansson - talk - contribs 01:02, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your point concerning #5. Therefore, I have scratched the comment. I do, however, believe that there are still too many fair use images. —Eternal Equinox | talk 20:44, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are only 2 fair use images, the rest are screenshots taken by the editor that uploaded them. Seraphim 23:33, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Which, BTW, are still fair use. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:40, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The only problems that you list that are valid, can be fixed in minutes. I'll agree the first paragraph needs more references, if I have time later I will find some, the history of the game is quite well known so it should not be difficult. Comparing levels doesn't need to have a reference, nobody is going to write down something obvious that goes without saying, the fact that Shifting sand land looks like and was influenced by Desert land is extremely obvious to anyone who has played both games. Even with that said, the existance of that line can be quickly removed, it's not a fundamental issue that should cause the page to lose its FA status. The vast majority of the images on the page are actually not "fair use" but public domain. If you look all but 2 are screenshots taken by the editor that uploaded them, they are listed as fair use only because it is a screenshot of a copyrighted game, the screenshots themselves are not under copyright, it's what's in the screenshots. Basic controls does not need trimming, it is listing mario's moves, it's not a technical listing of how to perform them (it doesn't say press A to jump, press B 3 times rapidly to do a punch punch kick combo). The spoiler section doesn't consist of actual plot or ending spoilers, it is simply a list of the 15 main courses, so I have removed it. I do not believe that any of your comments cannot be fixed in a very short amount of time. It would be a waste of time to have the article removed as a featured article, only to have it apply for featured article status again almost immediatly. Seraphim 23:23, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is limited information on the history and development of the article. (Please see The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask and The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker for examples.) The same articles can be accessed to see how to trim the lengthy, lengthy basic controls section. Every piece of information requires a citation — Shifting Sand Land having been influenced by Desert Land is not extremely obvious for someone who has never played the game before. I must also note that the prose is awkward in several places, sort of like the paragraph I am currently typing. The article features a heavy number of images. Even if the majority of them are public domain or licensed under fair use, do we really need to display every single one of them? Personally, I believe it is a bit excessive. A minimum of two should be removed. You need to realize that I have nominated this article here because I do not believe it adheres to featured article status; the objections should at least attempt to be resolved. —Eternal Equinox | talk 03:42, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine, resolving them is quite easy. Your complaints are that there should be 2 less images, the line drawing a comparison between a SM64 level and a SMB3 level needs to go, and the history section needs to be a bit bigger. The first 2 are a simple blanking away, you could do it yourself if you wanted to. You say the prose is awkward in several places, you can either fix them yourself or point them out here and i'll fix them. The history section is not too small, if you look at guidelines for videogame articles they are suppossed to be overviews, any indepth discussion is moved to the wikibooks project. The correct thing for you to have done, is to post a cleanup on the article, not jump the gun and try to remove it as a featured article, without ever discussing what you see wrong with it in the actual article. Seraphim 04:08, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I removed 2 screenshots, I moved the rumor section back to the talk page for improvement (which I agree was lacking any references), and I removed the comparison line, i'm looking for a screenshot of Desert world to put next to the screenshot of Dry Dry Desert when I find that it will be re-added. All we have left is for you to start fixing the "awkward prose" and we will be good to go. (you really should post a cleanup tag on the article and list them there instead of on here) Seraphim 04:56, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Your criticisms are unfounded at best. 1 & 2. Providing references for a level comparison is hardly necessary, and although more references would be nice, there's nothing wrong with the number currently contained in the article. Additionally, there is no "correct" reference format that all articles must adhere to. 3. As with all video game articles, screenshots are useful and necessary, and the number included is effective in portraying the game's aspects. 4. The "basic controls" section is the length required to effectively explain the controls, and I wonder if there is somewhere a "basic controls" yardstick by which one ought to judge such sections to determine if their length is appropriate. 5. Fredrik has already said it, but I find the inclusion of this point patently absurd. 6. I don't understand. Is there an ideal spoiler warning length? Should it not be as long as need be to explain the spoiler? 7. Please be more specific, or fix the prose yourself. This is hardly a reason to remove FA status. Andre (talk) 04:09, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Sure, this article could use some cleanup. However, the objections raised are not major enough to warrant FA removal, they should just be discussed and fixed if needed. This article appears to actually be in (somewhat) better condition that when it became featured from a rough glance, and has less fair use images to boot. I don't think the "Basic Controls" section is too long. As for the spoiler complaint, an editor recently removed the spoiler tags, but you essentially argued that everything within the tags was spoiler material. That should render point 6 moot. --Pagrashtak 04:21, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just to make it clear for people reading this, I am the editor that removed the spoiler tags. My reasoning was that the list of levels in a game does not contain Plot and or Game Ending secrets, which is what the spoiler tag is for. Seraphim 04:53, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Very good arguments. Therefore, I will delist the removal candidate nomination as long as speculation is removed from the article and a few other references are added. Actually, I too believe that it's a decent article with excellent all-around contributions. The principle reason why I nominated this article for removal is because speculation has to be proven — Shifting Sand Land may indeed have been influenced by Desert Land (or whatever its name is), but without a citation, this could have been added for entertainment purposes. Also, the prose requires some clean-up. —Eternal Equinox | talk 20:51, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article still lacks verifiable references and a more in depth look at its development. —Eternal Equinox | talk 23:18, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Super_Mario_64&oldid=7253914 is the version that was given featured article status. I see no history section, or references in the rumors section. Unless the FA requirements have changed I don't understand your argument. Seraphim 23:30, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I seriously doubt that version would be promoted today though. Officially, the FA requirements have not changed AFAIK, but there has been a definite increase on the level of scrutiny articles receive in FAC. For example, when the article first became a FA, none of the screenshots had the Fair use rationale. Anyway, there's nothing wrong with listing the article here, as it help reassert the quality of the article, and shines a spotlight on potential areas for improvement. Jacoplane 05:29, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How is it that this article was promoted to featured article status when it contained only two references? Only one of the footnotes cites its development while the other is a review. I am perplexed by how this was made a featured article. —Eternal Equinox | talk 23:49, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at it's FA nomination discussion here you can see that they decided that the reference section was not very important since alot of the article is a direct observation of playing the game. Seraphim 02:21, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This section of The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask lists eighteen verifiable references. The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker lists even more references with twenty-six. Surely there is nothing special about Super Mario 64 that enables it to list a mere two references. —Eternal Equinox | talk 02:51, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can list pages that even have more references then those. It doesn't matter. If you feel they should be featured articles nominate them. The fact that one article has a 30 paragraph long history section and 18 references does not mean it fits the featured article criteria (which does not require a certain number of references or a history section) any better then an article with no history and no references. Seraphim 03:03, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In regard to your comment about meeting the criteria, this article fails point 2C: "factually accurate" includes the supporting of facts with specific evidence and external citations (see Wikipedia:Verifiability). As I've noted above, there is nothing special that stands out about this article over Majora's Mask and The Wind Waker. It should list all of its references and/or citations in order to meet criteria 2C, which it currently does not. —Eternal Equinox | talk 03:29, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A good example would be that there is no reference for the game's supposed eleven million sales. —Eternal Equinox | talk 15:05, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone have any other comments? —Eternal Equinox | talk 15:12, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I read the whole thing, I thought it was a good article :/. Homestarmy 23:49, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove. Twelve "fair use" images. Aside from the "Development" section very little of the article relies upon prose. References lacking (ex. Many were inspired from real life; for example, one character is based on director Takashi Tezuka's wife who "is very quiet normally, but one day she exploded, maddened by all the time he spent at work. In the game, there is now a character who shrinks when Mario looks at it, but when Mario turns away, it will grow large and menacing." is unreferenced). While a good article, isn't the best of Wikipedia. Jkelly 05:56, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This article is very complete, slightly conversational but still a strong one. Also, the objections have been very constructively dealt with, and the article is much improved as as result. The remaining objections are not very strong, so it should be retained. Under the Rumors section, where in Zelda does the Luigi texture appear? I think people may want to know. - Judgesurreal777 00:38, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Omnipotence paradox

edit
Article is still a featured article.

After a Main Page exposure, this article went way downhill. Prose has become lists or vanished entirely, and what's left is far from "compelling" or "brilliant". It makes me sad. (Here's the version which was featured, as near as I can tell.) Yes, I'm the one who pushed it to get Featured in the first place, so I might be more miffed than usual since it was "my" text that got gutted. I'm not saying that I "owned" it or that the version I and a few others put together was the best possible; I'm just saying that what's sitting there now is not worthy to be Featured. Anville 07:11, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The link you provided seems to be linking to the current version, but anyway, you could put this on featured article review. If there's a consensus that the promoted version was superior, we could revert to it. Tuf-Kat 07:55, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
When I click on it, the link sends me to the "Revision as of 08:38, 29 November 2005".  ?? Anville 08:00, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, I was confused because both versions looked identical. It appears User:Carnildo reverted to the version you linked to. I think this is the diff and this is the old version. Tuf-Kat 08:34, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
After Carnildo's reversion, I edited the article to reflect the two or three positive changes which had been made in the interval. (A nice image was added, for example, near the end.) Whatever issues remain can probably be hashed out on the article's talk page, so I think I can withdraw my FARC nomination. I had planned to post this to FA Review, but in the process I checked its current state, and said current state horrified me so much I decided it needed immediate action. Anville 16:19, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can't this be reverted then? I mean, if it was once good enough, can't we revert it and then judge whether it still needs to be removed from its staus? Thethinredline 14:10, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's been reverted, and in fact improved somewhat since (not all the edits in the reverted period were detrimental). I don't think we need to wait the full two-week period, or whatever's left of it. Whom should I pester to have this entry's withdrawal expedited—Raul654? Anville 18:20, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removed status

edit

Gene

edit
Article is no longer a featured article.

Lacks inline citations and the only reference is Dawkins's "The Selfish Gene" (which is non-technical), the lead does not conform to WP:LEAD, neither "History" nor "Evolutionary concept of gene" are comprehensive. "Expression of molecular genes" is a list. Mikker ... 21:00, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Remove, the lead is bad, there are no citations for details that are original and relatively recent research. The text is jumbled and not comprehensive, there is dupliation of ideas, a confusion between which material is relevant to be discussed in terms of a "gene" rather that a genome, too much text is spent defining marginally relevant terms, and basic information is never given (one example is that ther article never mentions the diference between prokaryotic and eukaryotic genes); the discussion on what genes actually do is poorly constructed and not comprehensive (I'm not even sure what the section Types of genes is trying to convey), the same can be said of the discussion of gene evolution, there is no significant discussion of gene regulation. The article does a very poor job of the reader why genes are intersting and relevant. Specifically fails 2 (a), (b) and (c), 3 (a) and possibly 3 (b).--nixie 01:41, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove. The lead is too long, there are no inline citations, one reference, which is way too little for such an important topic. I have a feeling also that the history section is far from complete; see Genetics#Timeline_of_notable_discoveries. AndyZ 23:46, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is not an article about genetics, rather it is an article about the concept of a gene (genetics is far more complex than just genes), I think the history section is possibly on the better sections in this article.--nixie 01:52, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Human

edit
Article is no longer a featured article

The "psychology and human ethnology" section is dominated entirely by a discussion of psychoanalysis. The "spirituality, religion, mythology, and theology" section does not have any discussion of the comparative size of world religions (not even that Christianity and Islam are the largest and second largest). The "population" section says nothing about demography nor the Black Death (the biggest population drop in history), and lacks a desperately needed chart for illustration). The section on "race and ethnicity" fails to discuss ethnic groups and even fails to distinguish between races and ethnic groups. It also includes an image of the "five races" from the long-discredited Carleton Coon. The "body image" section makes an unsourced claim that "in every human culture, people adorn their bodies with tattoos, cosmetics, clothing, and jewellery" [emphasis mine]. Literature is not even mentioned in passing.

The article lacks any discussion about humans, violence, and armed conflict, and when I tried to insert even a sentence about this it was removed. Politics and government get no section. This is unacceptable for a featured article. Remove. Neutralitytalk 23:17, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.: What about food? There's nothing about what humans actually eat. At least a section should be about the diet, diversity of food, most common foods (rice, wheat, corn). Neutralitytalk 03:07, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
More: A politics section was added, but it focuses three sentences on semantics ("In Commonwealth English, the word "government" can also be used to refer only to the executive branch, in this context being a synonym for the word "administration" in American English (e.g. the Blair governement, the Bush Administration). In countries using the Westminster system, the governement (or party in governement) will also usually control the legislature") and doesn't mention political philosophy. A "war" section was added, but it doesn't address how humans are distinct from other animals in this regard, nor does it mention the beginnings of war. The psychology section still is completely made up of a discussion of Freudian/Jungian psychoanalysis, which is only a part of psychology. The section fails to even link behaviorism, cognitive psychology, and humanistic psychology–the other three major schools of thought in psychology. And there is nothing on communication, only aspects of communication. There is no mention of the human genome, which defines what a human is. And where is the section on human extinction? --Neutralitytalk 19:12, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What about disease? There should be some mention of the most common diseases, medicine, and sanitation. Neutralitytalk 19:18, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove. (Even though I fear it may be too soon since its elevation to featured status to consider its removal.) The introduction has been cleaned up noticeably, but most of the other objections appear to remain valid. I'm not sure if I agree with Neutrality's specific objections above, as some of them are too specific for this article. However, I absolutely agree that the omission of warfare from the culture section is a gaping hole. War is far more integral to humanity than most of the other cultural phenomena mentioned. Also, the article's quality is generally poor as noted in the talk page section linked above. It's too scatterbrained, trying to mention too many sub-topics rather than giving a concise summaries with links to associated articles when necessary. --Yath 05:19, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: the new, improved correction has been reverted to the poorer, older one. The article has degraded since its FARC nomination and really shouldn't be identified as an example of Wikipedia's best work. --Yath 19:30, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep of course, its far to soon to even consider this anyways, and the unresolved objections during the FAC process were ignored for being either non-specific, or to the articles detriment to address. Isn't there some sort of requirement that concerns be discussed on the article talk page prior to a FARC nomination? If not there certainly should be... I have included war, and addressed other concerns btw, have a look. Sam Spade 15:31, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but positive additions should of course not be removed. Please discuss any controversial reversions on the talk page and let's help it to remain a living article. — goethean ॐ 17:13, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove for three reasons. (1) Writing quality and content. This article is deficient in a large number of ways, with poorly-worded, unprofessional, and unhelpful writing occurring even from the very first sentence ("Human beings define themselves in biological, social, and spiritual terms."), which wrongly implies that the article is about how humanes define themselves rather than actually being about humans themselves. Many obvious facts about humans fail to be mentioned, many sections later in the article need clean-up and reorganization, and many trivial facts need to be moved to the hundreds of sub-articles Human has. (2) Citations and sources. There are very, very few inline citations in this article, and while this is certainly not a requirement for being Featured, it's highly recommended on WP:CITE for any controversial claims or statements an article makes. And an article as general and centrally important as human is obviously going to have tons of controversial statements, yet the introductory paragraphs, for example, don't cite a single source! (3) Practicality. History has proven that the best way to improve articles that need improving is to force them to go through the Featured Article process, and related processes (like WP:AID and WP:PR) that ultimately seek to get an article Featured. Thus, I see no downsides to removing a lacking article from being Featured, even though it is an impressive article with much useful information, many well-written paragraphs (though a number could use a fair amount of copyediting, trimming, clarifying, broadening, etc.); and I see a large number of potential benefits. I'm willing to possibly bruise a few talented and remarkably skilled editors' egos slightly, and perhaps get some more harsh, soul-rending criticism, by voting "Remove" here, if it means that the end product, human, will be all the better for it. And I think it does. -Silence 18:21, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wary Keep. The submitter brings up some very good points for expansion, and the article certainly should mention things like demography and the distribution and proportions of religions. However, we need to keep article size in mind. I'd like to see the proposed additions included in the article; but also, wherever possible, I think the subsections should be concentrated as much as possible down to the most important information available, with links to secondary articles being placed in each. (For example: Life cycle takes up more space than I believe it deserves in context of the rest of the article, and has no secondary article link.) If we were to include in detail every facet of human existence, this article would take up half of Wikipedia's server space. The article should be expanded, yes, but not carte blanche. Cheers. !mAtt™ 18:31, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Part of the problem with an article about Humans is that all over human history, sociology, biology, and technology could fit within the article. Obviously this is not possible and I feel that some of the items raised against the article (such as the omission of the black death) are silly considering these items have their own articles. The article can, of course, still be improved but it is worthy of being a FA.--Alabamaboy 01:36, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove. Many problems with the writing (2a), which are deeper than the language just at the clause level, and POV (2d). Here are some examples:
  • 'Juvenile males are called boys, adult males men, juvenile females girls, and adult females women.' Sorry, but that's not very profound, especially just after the lead.
  • At the top, humans are announced as seeing themselves in biological, social and spiritual terms. Apart from the dangers of imposing a culture-centric categorisation so prominently, there's no explicit treatment of the second category in the lead ('spiritual', like the other two terms, needs to appear again to clarify the structure of the lead).
  • again, in the lead, the self is characterised as being 'composed of co-operating and competing groups'. Sorry to be picky, but that's not good enough.
  • 'Humans are commonly referred to ... collectively as Man (capital M)'—unsure about the upper-case M, and more importantly, let's not glorify sexist terminology by placing it first.

It's all like that, and needs a thorough rewrite. I suggest that it be removed, reinvented and resubmitted to the FAC room.

Tony 23:41, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I dispute your objections as variously being non-actionable, or to the articles detriment if acted upon. Sam Spade 13:15, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid that a more specific defence is required. Tony 08:26, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove - Does not follow good Wikipedia:Summary style (FA requirement 5) by having 'main articles' that are a fraction of the size of the section they are 'summarizing'. Compare: Human biology and Human#biology. Too much bloat here are too little development of daughter articles. --mav 22:09, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a fine article and while bloat is some concern I'm willing in this case to accept the length. I see positive momentum and a comprehensive article on an enormously difficult subject to quantify. Most of the encyclopedia's entries could be considered a daughter article in this case. Marskell 12:55, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which is why it's so very, very important to make sure that this article is truly exceptional and extraordinarily stable, concise, and high-quality before we award it "Featured Article" status. We shouldn't go easy on the article and let it slide in a few areas just because its editors "mean well" or are "working hard", and certainly shouldn't because it's an important topic; just the opposite, it's much more important that we hold it to high standards. And, unfortunately, it doesn't come close to meeting any of those standards; it's unreferenced, disorganized, simply not comprehensive (even to a reasonable degree; noone here is asking for perfection, just for the level of quality), needs a thorough copyedit and several POV corrections, and needs both tightening (where trivial details are gone into in great length) and expansion (where important, obvious facts are completely ignored). It's come a long, long way, and has a long, long way to go before it's one of Wikipedia's best; that might let it qualify as a Good Article, but not as a Featured Article. The fact that it's such an important article makes it more important for it to be given the same clear, critical eye our other articles get. Right now, the votecount suggests that this isn't yet happening; it's being given a much less critical, objective, thorough analysis than numerous other FAs on less central topics have been given in the past, and that's unfortunate. -Silence 18:50, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Freemasonry

edit
Article is no longer a featured article.

Article fails WP:V and WP:NPOV. Specifically, edit war over the "anti-fremasonry" intro-paragraph is distressing - and it is ongoing after concerns raised on the talk page: [5] (post WP:V comments), [6] (post WP:V comments), [7] (pre WP:V comments). Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:07, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • What "anti-freemasonry" opening paragraph? Furthermore, the featured template clearly identifies the featured article as a previous version (with link), so what exactly is the point of removing the template off the page otgher than for the sake of your doing osmething to it? There is no claim that the present article is featured, and it doesn't change the fact that it was at one time featured. Also, what is the point of claiming removal based on V and NPOV violations after placing an "edit lock for reference re-edit" template on said article? MSJapan 17:26, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The paragraph in the diffs I provided. This is not the only failure of the article as it now stands. The template for previously featured articles is {{FormerFA}}. This article is far too long, lacks pictures or illustrative graphics throughout, and a host of other things that make it not featured anymore. It's not your fault that it's been driven to the dirt by problematic editors over the past few months, but it's not an example of the best of the best anymore. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:30, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree This article has changed since it was featured, and has been the subject of many edit wars. Ardenn 17:54, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree All you need to do is look at the difference[8] between the featured version of the article and the current article, and you can see they are completly different. It needs to reapply. Seraphim 18:04, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also i'd like to note that Freemasonry became a Featured article before the Criteria were established. Even in it's older state it was never checked against our current Featured article standards. Seraphim 20:09, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disagree. Why, suddenly, do some users think it's so NPOV? It hasn't changed so so much w/o citation of one kind or another. & it is, actually, fairly well cited, if one actually reads the Notes, See Also section, The External links, the Catagory:Freemasonry articles (& if one really wants to do their homework, Catagory:Freemasons), & especially if one goes through the 12 archived talk pages. This article didn't get to be featured by being bad, poorly cited, & it's no less cited now. There's a lot of hard work by a lot of people here. They often dispute eachother, & nearly as often come to terms & learn to compromise. This issue takes immense homework reading nearly endless pages & links to even discuss, but by all means, read away. Grye 09:42, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at the featured article version, and the current version they have 0 similiarites. (i put a diff link in my comment). Also just because something is cited doesn't mean it's NPOV. Seraphim 10:40, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The only merge issues This article suffers from is others merging into it. Nobody ever rightly said "This article should be merged into that one
'Your userpage article could suffer from NPOV if someone throws the tag on it. Grye 22:42, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Who put the NPOV tags on this article recently? When did the current ones first appear, like in the last month? Grye 22:49, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If they were not there now, I would reinsert them - "It is referred to in Macoy's Masonic Manual as "a beautiful system of morality veiled in allegory and illustrated by symbols."" - "Freemasonry uses an initiatory system of degrees to progressively explore ethical and philosophical issues, and that the system is less effective if the observer knows beforehand what will happen." It's "less effective" and that is an obvious fact? And that's just the intro. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hipocrite (talk • contribs)
  • Disagree - The article is just as good as any other FA, one of the reasons it suffers is because it is a contervesial issue, and that the page is frequently vandalised. I don see any reasoable argument for its removal, for the most part only biased POV claims that do not seem to have much backing to them. Avador 04:14, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Euro

edit
Article is no longer a featured article.

Not a single reference, and it's still called a featured article? In addition, the content is also wordy and not quite meeting featured article standard. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 04:36, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Remove: no references, many short sections (some only a single sentence or a main article link), bloated see-also (using templates, no less), possible NPOV problems with unsourced statements (e.g. "The Euro is the most significant monetary reform in Europe since the Roman Empire"). —Kirill Lokshin 04:49, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove, for now, I'm afraid. —Nightstallion (?) 09:02, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep"The Euro is the most significant monetary reform in Europe since the Roman Empire" even as a kid i read that and you dont need references to that. Very good article. --Pedro 15:06, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove Intro not long enough to make article look good on standard size screens with infobox on right, TOC and currency picture creating witespace. Echo above concerns, also. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:43, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep seems perfectly valid, and it's a well-written article. Ardenn 15:57, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove clearly. WIAFA 2c requires refs; this article has no refs, therefore it fails WIAFA. Also, the lead is horrible & the trivia section is, erm, trivial (and should go). Mikkerpikker ... 17:52, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove. (1) References needed. (2) No mentioning of Optimal Currency Area criteria and fulfillment, while the euro is the most analyzed currency in these economic theories. (3) Unexplained sentences and sections, like "Economists that helped create the euro". In what way? Why are these economists important, and others are not? Etc. (4) Why is the Roman Empire (RE) the most important economic reform? What criteria? Note that only about 1/2 of RE was in Europe, when in Roman history was this "reform", can it really be called a "reform"? What about the Latin Monetary Union? (That union seems to have more European citizens/more European territory than RE). Sijo Ripa 22:28, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Update. (2), (3) and (4) are fixed. Only OCA has references though, so (1) remains. (5) Some sections need also clarification, like "competitive funding". (6) Page is 50+ kb. Should be 32kb at most. (7) Introduction needs rewrite. Sijo Ripa 23:49, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove For lack of references alone. I'm not as concerned with inline citations, but the references should at least account for most of the content, and the two books that are currently listed absolutely don't seem to cover even a significant portion of the article. So, basically, it is unreferenced. If that's fixed, I'll read the article and adjust my vote. --Tsavage 04:55, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note there are references, but they're given as inline external links. Not ideal, but fixable. Markyour words 16:28, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aztalan State Park

edit
Article is no longer a featured article

This article is not even close to Featured Article status today. A few bad examples, lead is way too short, too many one sentence paragraphs, only one image and it's oversized and absolutely no refrences nor notes, Writing is very shacky also and there is some awkward sentences. A FA at its worst. Strong Remove --Jaranda wat's sup 18:57, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Remove - Does not meet current FA criteria. FCYTravis 19:11, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Image now uses modern image syntax, is a thumbnail of the largest size uploaded. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 19:18, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Remove. Not "well written" - choppy paragraphs and awkward wording. Not "comprehensive" - though there may not be as much notable information from modern history, such little information after 1919 and no word on anything past 1968 makes me wonder. No guarantee of being "factually accurate" - no references, and certaintly not inline, as required by current FAs. No good lead section - its short, choppy, and has little to do with most of the article. It does not exemplify Wikipedia's best work. -Rebelguys2 03:21, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove—not particularly well written. Just a minor point compared with the task at hand concerns the inconsistent and inaccurate treatment of the imperial/metric measurements. Sometimes metrics are first, sometimes imperial. And we have '4 m by 2 m (12 ft by 5 ft)', which doesn't add up when you do the arithmetic. Tony 08:52, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove. Does not cite references, this is a requirement for a featured article. Article is way too short. One image for a featured article is unsatisfactory. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 11:08, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove I agree with the nom (and previous reviews). In particular, the lead is limp and uninspiring, and should include more about the notability of this park. And, it does need at least a bibliography. --Tsavage 18:03, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove. It's good enough information, but not very close to FA quality. - Taxman Talk 23:04, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mandarin (linguistics)

edit
Article is no longer a featured article.

Not at all comprehensive, too short, could use more inline cites and a major rewrite and review. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 19:39, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not the Nine O'Clock News

edit
Article is no longer a featured article

Another one of the old, brilliant pose featured articles but this is anything but, the first line in the lead is POV with the word ground breaking, shakey writing and only one reference and no footnotes. Remove --Jaranda wat's sup 21:22, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep — the article doesn't make any particularly controversial statements which desperately require inline citations. The "Memorable sketches" section could do with trimming and general cleanup (and maybe a move to Wikiquote), but I don't see enough to warrant FA removal. Anville 07:51, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jazz

edit
Article is no longer a featured article.

Very old FAC that did not evolve especially well. Current version fails several important criteria:

  • 3.a lead section: Lead is awfully short for an article this lenght
  • 3.b heading structure: Structure is overwhelmed by a history section that is itself weirdly structured. One can only doubt of the placement of subgenres in the History section. Overall, structure is hardly efficient at all.
  • 3.c table of contents: Overwhelm the lead completely, and is generally overly large.
  • 2.b comprehensiveness: Considering the structure, I can't even tell if the article looks comprehensive.
  • 2.c Factual accuracy: A single source and no inline citation.

Circeus 19:51, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paula Clare 15:15, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Buddhism

edit
Article is no longer a featured article 04:04, February 15, 2006

The article is currently 72 kilobyte, which clearly violate section 5 requirement of featured article criterias. This means that most people can't or won't read the article. Most space is wasted on esotric details of buddhism. Plus most sister page linked to this main pages are too short or non existent. In many case, some section of the main page has more content than linked sister page. To top it off, several attempts to slim down the article has incited arguments between different sects of Buddhist denomiation. This article no longer provide good overview of buddhism. Plus, without removal of the featured article status, some will not accept that the article requires surgery. Strong Remove FWBOarticle

Speedy keep, clear bad-faith nomination and attempt to make a POINT; "without removal of the featured article status, some will not accept that the article requires surgery" says it all. ‣ᓛᖁ ᑐ 15:31, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It appear that you are involved in editing the article and belong to group who are not happy with my suggestion that this article need major revamp. I think you misunderstand the wiki recommendation you linked. The page you linked advice against people "editing" the article to prove point. I, on the other hand, declared in talk page that I will no longer edit the article. I fully accept that I'm a part of the ongoing debate in talk page. But the opinion that this article has become unmanageable is voiced by many in talk page though some disagree on how I go about fixing it. I came here after feeling that debate is not going anywhere. If you made your judgement based on the discussion in talk page, my comment here or my style of editing, please reconsider and focus on the article itsel.
I think you misread WP:POINT: "This means that an individual who opposes the state of a current rule or policy should not attempt to create in the Wikipedia itself proof that the rule does not work." This would be like the nominator nominating this article FARCing it because another article he had worken on was nominated for FARC. AndyZ 01:26, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have read the page correctly. It refers to someone "editing" the wikipedia to prove a point or "editing" by gaming system such as pushing 3 revert rule to the limit. What I'm doing has zero impact on editing process. Objection based on that page does not apply. FWBOarticle 07:05, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, this article does need some serious copyediting.--nixie 22:52, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I agree with Nixie; needs massaging to remove clumsiness. Take this awkward sentence structure, incl. punctuation, for example:
The principles by which a person can achieve enlightenment are known as the Buddhadharma, or simply—the Dharma, meaning (in this context) "law, doctrine, or truth."

I don't think the nominator's point about size is a strong one; please present a more specific argument that the size is inappropriate to the topic. Tony 23:57, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I accept that 32 is only recommended size and 50kb is recommended size for split. However, 32kb recommendation is based on well established studies of adult attention span. Anything longer and many would stop reading the article. Moreover, I believe this article is read by large number of younger audience so I believe that the article should be slightly lower than 32 kg. At 72 kb the article is in serious trobule. My "subjective" opinion is that too many esotoric topics are discussed in details. Unfortunately, what is or what is not "esotric" topic is causing some sectarian disagreement, which is another reason I gave up and came here. FWBOarticle
  • Weak Remove: This article requires (1) a network of sub-articles that will take the load off, and (2) extensive re-editing to raise upto FA standards. As this will take time and effort, I strongly advocate a re-nomination. Rama's Arrow 18:06, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Yes, the article requires sub-articles - and indeed there are many already. Unfortunately (but understandably) it is often edited by relatively new editors who are interested in, or practitioners of, Buddhism - and feel that they have something necessary to add. However IMO, as a general rule, the quality of the article remains high. (20040302 12:36, 4 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • Remove. WP:POINT has nothing to do with whether the article meets Featured standards currently; reprimand the nominator if he's truly "disrupting Wikipedia to make a point", but it's true either way that this article needs major reworking, and removing FA is a fantastic way to facilitate that. -Silence 22:16, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm making a point. But this doesn't fall into "don't-make-a-point" in wikipedia. You are not allowed to "edit" to make a point. FA removal nomination has zero impact to editorial process. Moreover, I declared in the talk page that I will not make edit until the nomination process is settled. FWBOarticle
  • Keep. It is true that the article is very long, but it is very well referenced, and I see no reason to remove its current featured article status. It is one of the best religion-related articles. Carioca 01:21, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/archive/February_2006&oldid=986295714"