Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article review/archive/February 2007

< Wikipedia:Featured article review‎ | archive

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 09:37, 19 February 2007.

Flag of South Africa edit

Review commentary edit

Messages left at Heraldry and vexillology, PZFUN Jeffpw 22:27, 21 January 2007 (UTC) Additional messages at Africa notice board and South Africa. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article is pretty well written, but lacks any inline citations. The "proper display" section is overloaded with subsections, and some of the images may not truly be free. McMillin24 contribstalk 22:16, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and removed the Everest photo, since it is not free and lacks a source. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 23:09, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I made the flags smaller, trying to get rid of that little open space in the paragraph that seems unseemly. It didn't work, however. Anyway to fix that?--Thomas.macmillan 18:59, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary edit

Suggested FA criteria concerns are lack of citations (1c), images (3), subsections (2). Marskell 12:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. 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 20:23, 7 February 2007.

Evolution edit

Review commentary edit

Messages left at Raul654 and Evolutionary biology. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evolution offers a "take your pick" menu of deficiencies in WP:WIAFA. It was nominated by Raul654 (talk · contribs) several years ago, but has no main author (which is apparent in the Table of Contents). It has an External link farm, and a See also farm (see WP:EL and WP:NOT). Many of the references/footnotes are not correctly formatted. The article size is 104KB overall, with 60KB of prose, suggesting the need for better use of summary style. The article has broad swatches of uncited text. It has external jumps to terms that should be wikified (example, Another mechanism causing gene duplication is intergenic recombination, particularly 'exon shuffling', ... ) It needs a complete re-evaluation, reorganization, and rewrite. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion, which I have mentioned several times before, is that the article could stand some improving. Here are my suggestions, most of which are not new:
  • remove the history of evolutionary thought sections and leave at most a paragraph with a link to the longer main articles on this
  • remove the objections to evolution section and replace it with a short summary paragraph with a link to another article describing this (which might for time being be the controversy article, but eventually could be a separate article on this; I am working on a draft that might either go into the controversy article or be a separate article summarizing the objections). The evolution article should be on the science and little else. Other articles can address the history or the controversy with creationism/ID/creation science etc.
  • the links could be moved to a separate article listing and organizing links on the topic, and then only a few links included in the article itself
  • the introductory paragraphs, or at least introductory sentences, of all sections should be accessible to the average reader.
  • After many attempts I am glad to see the lead is becoming accessible and less technical
  • I am glad that there is an accessible introduction to evoltion, which I lobbied for
  • excessive bits on the philosophy of science in various places should be removed (removing the objections section would probably get rid of most of them)--Filll 17:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I might also mention that in the past, efforts to improve it were met with severe resistance. I am glad to see that it seems to be moving ahead now, finally. Iam not sure what happened to the authors that fought so desperately to avoid any changes.--Filll 17:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your idea to create a separate article with links, pls see WP:EL and WP:NOT - that seems to be the equivalent of creating a webpage, which is not encyclopedic. Just get rid of them - isn't there a DMOZ category which summarizes them? I'll go look. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen articles which provide links, with annotations to them. They are very useful. They also divide the links in categories. For a reader who wants to know where to go and what to look for this, this can be invaluable. Why not something here? I know it might violate some rule or other if not done properly. But it would be helpful in several was, and others have done it.--Filll 17:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other articles may also be in violation of WP:EL and WP:NOT. It's not our job; this is an encyclopedia.

There you go - one place that does it for you. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No offense, but that really is not as useful as what I have seen here in Wikipedia. Organized by subject. Uniform articles. Annotated links. etc.--Filll 18:05, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No offense taken - but being a web directory is *still* Not Our Job, and External links should be used sparingly. This will eventually be a Remove vote from me if ELs aren't cleaned up. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The most egregious problem with this article is found right at the top - For a non-technical introduction to the topic, please see Introduction to evolution. It has been decided in the past that even technical articles should be - at least partially - accessible to layman. (And, to be frank - evolution is not nearly as technical as the math articles that inspired the previous discussion.) Raul654 17:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Writing as the person that lobbied for the introductory article and also helped to write it, I think I must respond. Yes the main article or at least the introductory paragraphs of each section and the lead should be accessible. The existence of an introduction to evolution article does not get one off the hook. However the argument has been made repeatedly that the editors can not be as technically precise as they want and use the jargon they want if it has to be dumbed down for the public. So it is not unreasonable to have a suite of articles, like the Simple Wikipedia Simple:evolution article, and the Introduction to evolution article and the evolution article, to address all levels as much as possible. After all, Encyclopedia Britannica has at least 6 different levels in their products.
    • Also, it is true that evolution is not as complicated as quantum mechanics or special relativity. But people still have problems even with stupid old evolution, obviously. And we have had people write to us to thank us for writing the introduction article so they could get up to speed. After they understand the terms a bit, they feel more comfortable about tackling the main articles.--Filll 18:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • the argument has been made repeatedly that the editors can not be as technically precise as they want and use the jargon they want if it has to be dumbed down for the public - for (at least) the introduction, that is exactly what they are required to do by the FA criteria. For the rest of the article, it's perfectly acceptable to use a technical term, and link to the article on it. Raul654 18:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, there is no problem with them being technical in the body of the article as long as they make the lead accessible and the introductory paragraphs or sentences. Which is what I have been fighting for with only minimal success for months and months.--Filll 18:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A major problem is a group of editors who keep reverting the lead to versions from months ago, allowing only attempts to simplify it that fit in with that original structure, and often reverting even that. The best I've managed to push through is a major structural change in the order of the article, and certain cleanings-up of the introduction.

For instance, this is a version from October: [1] As of time of writing, the opening reads: [2] However, here's a version from 26 December: [3]

This was a version come up with over a month by numerous editors, it has been reverted to an old, WP:LEAD violating version. Frankly, losing FA and having to edit it to get it back may be the only way to make real progress on the lead. Vanished user talk 19:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had not noticed what happened to the new lead. It makes me sick. It was gorgeous. I have had similar problems with editors who are in love with what existed 5 months ago, or 1 year ago or 3 years ago. I had an awful time trying to battle them and withdrew for the moment when I did not seem to have any support. I think the only way forward is as Adam suggests: Slam them and slam them hard. Take away FA status. Downgrade the status even further as you see fit. And maybe even have some sort of voting/comment session on the status and future direction needed for the article. These editors need to be confronted with the truth of 20 or 30 or 50 or 100 other editors telling them they are damaging the article, which I believe would be done. I will not battle these characters alone. For example, just because an editor started the article almost 6 years ago, does not give this editor any rights to keep it the same way it was years ago (recalling a very nasty fight I had a few weeks ago). The article is, as pointed out above repeatedly, a mess. So they need their faces rubbed in it and they need to know that their efforts at slowly progress are definitely unappreciated. A new consensus needs to emerge.--Filll 19:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted it back to the last version I could find - if there was a better, later one, use that. Also shrunk History of evolutionary thought - still needs some work, but in one shot gets the article into length requirements, as far as I can tell. Frankly, though, I do think it might be beneficial, and remove some of the stagnation, to put the article through the wringer of public comment again, by which I mean no offense to all the other - and there are quite a lot - good editors out there. The whole thing could use a simplification in language, and if losing FA helps get past certain overly-conservative elements, it's probably more beneficial in the long run than not. I don't think the article is that bad - it needs a lot of copyediting and glossing of terms more than a complete rewrite. Perhaps we can take bits from Introduction to evolution for this purpose. Vanished user talk 19:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I've reverted youir reversion of the into Adam. It was reading very well before you reverted and you gave no reasons for your changes in talk. Candy 21:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is exactly why I am reluctant to do much to try to help with the current horrific mess of the article. People are not really convinced if it needs to be improved, or how it should be done.--Filll 21:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps it might be sensible to have an "FA Review On Hold" status - whereby a month or so is given for the article to be worked into shape before FAR is reopened. It might not be regularly useful, but it would be a good, less disruptive way to encourage people to help fix an FA that had fallen somewhat below FA quality. Vanished user talk 20:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We are always willing to extend time in review, as long as progress is evident and ongoing; it may be premature to request an extension since today is the article's first day in review. There is much work to be done to clean up, shorten and bring the article to FA standards; if some editors are determined to resist all efforts, extra time may not be useful. A month is enough time to rework the article, if all editors will work together. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. If all editors work together. I will believe it when I see it. Not only do editors have to waste a lot of time combatting creationists, but then they fight amongst themselves. Some want it more technical. Some less. Some longer than it even is right now. Some shorter. Some would see no problem with it being two or three times as long as it is at present I bet. The battles can be so pitched it is ludicrous. So...I just make suggestions over and over and watch them be ignored.--Filll 00:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Having had my restoration and expansion (to define mutation as well) of the introduction reverted, I'm kind of inclined to agree that this is an uphill battle. Vanished user talk 04:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One can do a tremendous amount of work, try to build consensus, wait for weeks, hammer out text. And then ask if it can be installed. Have everyone agree. Install it, and get it immediately reverted. And the editor who reverts it refuses to even give a reason why. And if you push them, have them attack you and threaten you with administrative consquences. I hate the idea of an edit war. But people who have been here a long time know lots of people and know all the rules and they can be impossible to buck to improve the article. I saw random replicator who is a biology teacher try several times. She/He did a great job on the introduction article with me, and tried very hard on the evolution article several times to fix a paragraph or two. Only to have them blown away, after working on them for weeks and building consensus. Something is badly badly broken here. And I do not know what to do. --Filll 04:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict with Filll) Having looked over the talk page, and considering the resistance to needed improvements in the first day, it doesn't look promising; but, it's only been a day, and you've got a month. Just a note (based on talk page comments); yes, some topics need to be longer than others, but 60KB of prose is over the line. Articles with 40KB of prose are considered long - that would be a goal for a *long* article, which still means cutting a third of this article. (You can read how to calculate readable prose at WP:LENGTH - the fact that See also and External links also need to be pruned is separate from readable prose.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 25 problems to resolve, for starters:
  1. The third paragraph of the lead section goes into too much detail about the circumstances surrounding The Origin of Species. That level of detail might be appropriate in the "History" section, but no more than a few words should be devoted to it in the lead section.
  2. The armadillo image has an excessively long caption, bloated by trivia. It is also poorly-placed; having two lengthy vertical blocks of text and image at the top of the article makes the page look clumsy and cluttered. The armadillo thing should probably be either shortened and transplanted to another part of the article, or removed altogether.
  3. Section titles should not be capitalized. "Basic Processes" and "Mechanisms of Evolution" are thus incorrect.
  4. It is incorrect to italicize "e.g." and "i.e.". (There is also some excessive and inconsistent use of the latter.)
  5. It is incorrect to italicize quoted text.
  6. Some languages crosses the line from being simple and user-friendly to being overcasual. Academic, encyclopedic tone should be maintained, and we should avoid treating our readers like infants with phrases like "phenotypic variation (e.g., what makes you appear different from your neighbor)".
  7. Although the article does a good job of explaining most terms, some new terms are still unexplained, and a surprising number are unlinked, like gene, genotype, genetic variation, and many more.
  8. There is an overuse of parentheses in this article. These can be replaced by em-dashes, commas, etc. in some cases, to avoid making the text seem fragmented.
  9. Avoid external links in the article text, like the Tetrahymena link.
  10. There are various minor grammatical errors that are not significant enough to mention here; a thorough copyedit should fix them.
  11. "Selection and adaptation" seems to be a little too long and a little too listy, relative to the other, more compact sections. Cutting down on all the subtypes listed could probably cut this section's length almost in half; that level of detail is more appropriate for the daughter articles anyway. This section also needs references, badly—especially for its paragraph on evolutionary teleology.
  12. Bolding should not be use to emphasize a random word in a prose paragraph.
  13. There are several redlinks: J.L. (from a formating error in the references), sampling variance, Hill-Robertson effect, Colin Norman.
  14. There is some inconsistency in reference style in sections like "Cooperation".
  15. There is poor illustrative balance in the "Evidence of evolution" section. All three images deal with aquatic animals, suggesting to uninformed readers that there isn't any evidence for evolution from other species; this impression should obviously not be implied, so at least one of the images should be removed, and other images should be added. The "nasal drift" image seems like the least useful one at the moment; although it's very pretty, the sequencing and similarity is least obvious.
  16. Considering how drastically the rest of this article has been shortened, you may want to consider shortening the "Evidence of evolution" section too, to avoid imbalance. This can be easily done by cutting down on examples and trivial details.
  17. "History of the modern synthesis of evolutionary thought" should clearly be a subsection of "Study of evolution", and should be shortened to a simpler title, like "History of evolutionary thought".
  18. The "History" section is currently far too short. Important information that was removed should be re-added to make it at least 50% bigger ("Academic disciplines", below, is a good example of a nice-sized section). To give an idea of how much compression is appropriate, 3-5 fair-sized paragraphs (about 4 sentences in length each) should be the goal. Anything much shorter or longer than that is not appropriate.
  19. The "Misunderstandings" section is too short, and some very important information (e.g. about the fact-theory distinction) has recently been removed from the article, making it much less informationally valuable to readers. Of course, whether a "Misunderstandings" section (or its new daughter article) is appropriate here at all should be discussed; there is little precedent for such a move, and it seems to fly in the face of academic and NPOV conventions, as well as to be a very useless categorizational method--a misunderstanding about the nature of mutations, for example, would be very useful if put under "Mutations", but useless if put under the generic heading of "Misunderstandings". Ideally, thus, a "Misunderstandings" section should simply be split up into sections dealing with the specific topics involved in each misunderstanding. From an NPOV perspective, it is particularly troubling to see statements to the effect that the creationist movement was caused by misunderstandings of evolution; it is perfectly fair to say that creationists regularly misunderstand evolution, but to make inferences and judgments from that is not NPOV; at the very least, such statements should be replaced with attributed ones, so it is not Wikipedia itself that is making them.
  20. This article needs to have a "social effects" section. The effects of the study of evolutionary biology on society and culture over the last few hundred years is immense, and highly noteworthy. This would be a more appropriate and useful place to (briefly) discuss creationism than a POVed "misunderstandings" section, obviously.
  21. The "See Also" section is too large. Ideally, there should be no "See Also" section at all for a time-level article like this; any highly important articles should be mentioned in the article text and/or series templates, and any less important ones should not be mentioned in this article, but rather in daughter articles. Some of the articles listed here are not even real articles, like Animal evolution.
  22. Why is there an empty "Notes" section?
  23. A number of the references are broken or inconsistent. It will take an in-depth review and copyedit to make them all consistent.
  24. The external links should be cut down a little. 10-15 is ideal for an FA; there are currently 20. One good method to shorten the list without removing important information is to simply use some of the links in the "References" section; this gives them the added value of having relevance to specific parts of the article, as opposed to just being "add-ons".
  25. Is there any particular reason that Evolution, rather than Modern evolutionary synthesis, is under Category:Theories?
-Silence 19:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the excellent review, Silence. I disagree on the notion of there being an ideal number of External links for any article; 10 - 15 may be high, depending on the topic - the fewer the better. Each one needs to have a reason for being there, per WP:EL and WP:NOT. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You may disagree, and I may disagree as well, but I've seen dozens of articles fail their FAs for having any more than 15 links (Jesus, for example, used to have around 20, and got failed partly because of having too many), so clearly a large number of Wikipedians see anything over 15 as unreasonable. And I can see their point; we should be reliant on external links as little as possible, and the ones we do rely on should, as much as possible, be ones we specifically cite within the text. Anything much beyond that is at best a necessary evil. I do agree that there should be some "wiggle room" for different articles, but I'm unconvinced that this article needs that wiggle room, so just to be safe I'd recommend cutting down the external linkage a little bit. I do agree, certainly, that we should analyze them on a case-by-case basis. -Silence 02:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think we're saying the same thing - there are way too many - I just find 10-15 far too many in most cases, as well (depending on the article). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
These all sound pretty reasonable. The only think I would like to plead for is to farm out any culled material to other articles. I am more partial to short articles, with other more specific articles on special topics linked to the main ones.--Filll 22:49, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly agree. I think too much information has been lost already, in sections like "History". We have countless daughter articles to store this stuff on. Also, FAs are judged partly on the quality of their daughter articles (that's one of the reasons Charles Darwin's had trouble getting to FA, for example), so there are immediate practical reasons for improving them. -Silence 02:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the comment on your userpage Silence. The History section contained tautology (that it much of it was already in the existing article). Candy 02:43, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed a lot of the problems I listed above myself. There are now 15 left of the original 25 in the list. However, new problems come up all the time; I noticed a "fact" template in the text, for example. A lot of work still to go on this article! -Silence 20:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think Silence is doing a great job and we are lucky to have him on the case.--Filll 21:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article is now a more manageable 40KB prose - still long, but doable - and the TOC is now reasonable, but the references will need a lot of cleanup once the text is settled. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:01, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Status? Much improvement, but still a long list - can involved editors give us an update? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am only indirectly involved, but Silence has made very impressive progress on evolution and many of the related articles and subarticles, with the assistance of some others. I believe that this is a HUGE task, so it would not be surprising if there were still a ways to go on this task.--Filll 01:17, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, I lack the biological expertise to fix some of this article's largest problems: the opaqueness of some of the more technical sections, lacking even an attempt to provide readers with context in many cases, rnders large portions of this article essentially useless as a general reference tool. What we need is some more work on clarifying concepts by people who are both very familiar with the processes and mechanisms involved, and able to explain them in sufficiently clear, engaging language. We need a Dawkins! :( -Silence 06:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary edit

Suggested FA criteria concerns are format and sufficiency of refs (1c), length and focus (4).

Comment: Not clear from above that people were happy with this, so moving it down. Marskell 07:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Minor problems do exist, but they are not fatal to FA status. Overall, this is an excellent article.UberCryxic 23:19, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove Insufficient citations.LuciferMorgan 01:24, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Status? Can we have some feedback from editors working on the article? I see that Silence's list isn't all attended to yet, prose size is a manageable (albeit longish) 40 KB, See also is better (can't any of those be worked into the text?), References need work on formatting (example, what is - Created from PDB 1D65 - and - enmicro.pdf - and - ^ [4] - these are not correctly formatted refs), inconsistent ref style and use of PMIDs and ISBNs, missing publishers (Evolutionary Theory by Peter Gogarten, Ph.D. ). There are external jumps, and entire sections remain unreferenced. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:33, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Remove strangely, it seems that work stopped, no feedback. External jumps, incorrectly formatted refs, external link farm, entire sections unreferenced, Silence's list above - no change, no feedback. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:41, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am not sure what has happened to Silence and his efforts. He seems to have paused in his efforts. I am not sure of his plans in this regard.--Filll 03:18, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Encouraging editors to contribute to a Featured Article, as with any article, is a cornerstone of Wikipedia. Yet not keeping a FA in check after such contributions does not necessarily justify removing its FA status. A lack of a main editor could be for a number of reasons. Many of the complaints above- including length- have been rectified, and the article looks very good. Minor polishing is needed for the article now. --MPD T / C 05:58, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove unless dramatic improvements ensue. I can only do so much; the incredibly confusing mess of various parts of the "processes" and "mechanisms" sections will require a substantial rewrite by knowledgeable folk in order to be of any use to readers; there's nothing wrong with using complex concepts and important technical terms, but the article's frequent failure to keep its readership in mind and coherently explain these things, as well as poor writing quality in a number of paragraphs and inconsistency in references, makes the current article unfit to be an FA. Hopefully, if efforts aren't rallied beforehand, they will become more focused as a result of the demanding pressures of the FAC and peer-review process. -Silence 06:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll give it a quick copyedit to help out if you guys need it. — Deckiller 09:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm thinking a ce is not all that's needed here. Barring some extraordinary intervention, I'm going to remove this later. Marskell 14:46, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Much too far from ready to benefit from a ce, Deckiller. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:50, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Closing notes. Some notes to be clear on closing as remove with the keep comments:
  • Given that Silence was one of the people looked to to save this, I take his remove as relatively decisive.
  • Large uncited sections are not good, particularly on a current, often controversial, and complex subject.
  • FAR is the place to fix minor problems and enough minor problems are a major problem.
  • Another FAC won't hurt this article at all, and I'm sure editors can get it back there. Marskell 20:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. 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 09:25, 7 February 2007.

Gold standard edit

Review commentary edit

Messages left at Piotrus, B&E and Nurismatics. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Primary issue is that the article has literally no inline citations. There is a large references section but it's not tied to the rest of the article.

Additionally the article has many small issues:

  • It has statement of dubious veracity such as commenting on gold's unique "acoustic properties", something not mentioned at gold; and "A return to a gold standard is not generally thought feasible in mainstream economics", which has already been complained about on the talk page.
  • Lead section has some unnecessary specifics and some missing summarizations. Also too few links in my opinion.
  • An immense lack of images, especially in the lead. I'm certain their are some images which could correspond to the text, but at the very least the intro could have an image of gold.
  • Added a few images, gold bars, coins, extraction. Joe I 04:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article is very long, long enough to disagree with Wikipedia:Article_size#Readability_issues. It seems like the history section would be ideal to split off into a seperate article.
  • Has many minor issues that would be ignored if not for the fact this this is supposed to be Wikipedia's best, for example the first letter of one section is inexplicably bolded, and one subsection is empty. Vicarious 09:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary edit

Suggested FA criteria concerns are lack of citations and factual accuracy (1c), length (4), LEAD (2a), images (3). Marskell 20:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove per 1c. LuciferMorgan 13:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove per Lucifer. Tony 11:12, 28 January 2007 (UTC) PS And it's poorly written, with lots of questionable statements (1a and 1c). For example: "In modern mainstream economic thought, a gold standard is considered undesirable because it is associated with the collapse of the world economy in the late 1920's, and that aggregate supply and demand is a far better means of regulating interest rates, money supply and monetary basis." Both "modern" and "mainstream"? One would do. Logical problem: I do not think that the association with the 1920s is the reason that it's thought undesirable nowadays. There are technical reasons. "Far better means of regulating monetary basis"—Um .... Tony 11:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. 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 09:37, 19 February 2007.

Oakland Cemetery edit

Review commentary edit

Article nominator was also its creator. Jeffpw 10:26, 20 January 2007 (UTC) Additional messages left at Geography. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lacks references, based mostly on oral history and tradition from groundskeepers. -- mattb @ 2007-01-19T17:57Z

  • Comment In addition, the existing sources aren't used for inline citations so individual statements cannot be verified. Jay32183 01:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Indeed, I'm probably deceiving you all! :) -- mattb @ 2007-01-21T03:50Z
  • Comment external jumps and 1a problems - sample sentence: The Confederate section of Oakland is home to an estimated 6,900 burials, of which about 3,000 are unknown. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The term "unknown burial" is common in the cemetery world, even if the grammar doesn't seem to jive. Anyway, it hardly matters. -- mattb @ 2007-02-02T04:06Z

I've done what I can in terms of WP:MOS, WP:EL, etc., but the entire section "Notable burials" does not conform to WP:MOS on n and m-dashes. The article is uncited. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. The MOS has changed significantly since I wrote that article. I scanned over the dashes section and I don't see how the section doesn't comply. The MOS recommends using en dashes for date ranges, which that section does. As for the citation situation, Franklin Miller Garrett's book is a great general reference, and I obviously don't intend to clutter up the article with a hundred inline citations. Besides, even if I did add a plethora of inline citations to page numbers in Garrett's book, few people could verify them, and even fewer would. You won't find a better source of information on the internet regarding Oakland Cemetery than this article (as I alluded to, the article was written from the oral history I received from generations of groundskeepers). -- mattb @ 2007-02-03T04:35Z

FARC commentary edit

Suggested FA criteria concerns are referencing (1c), and MOS concerns (2). Marskell 05:33, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove per criterion 1c. LuciferMorgan 21:19, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove per Lucifer. Trebor 22:53, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove per above. — Deckiller 04:23, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove concerns have not been address. Jay32183 18:08, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. 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 11:59, 17 February 2007.

British East India Company edit

Review commentary edit

Messages left at Singapore, India, Chancemill, Henry Flower, Jengod. Jeffpw 09:53, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article is very lacking, and when it is cited, has a mixture of citation styles. A large portion is uncited, while others have been called "POV" and some cited for not viewing it from a world standpoint. Dark jedi requiem 05:45, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments - what a mess! Full of POV, neutrality, disputed, etc. tags by an anon editor: [4], but no messages left in the talk page. I removed the "In Popular Culture" section, because it is totally unsourced and not directly related with the subject (PS2 games, etc.). I moved also 2 flags into Flags section. As a glance,
  1. The lead is too short to summarize the article,
  2. Footholds in India section is disputed. Somebody with Indian background should take a look to give balance views.
  3. Opium trade section is also tagged with neutrality and accuracy. Now this is for somebody with China history.
  4. Stubby and listy "Ships" section and poor "East India Company Records" section. These two sections were added after the article was featured.
  5. Too many see also items. Should be merged into the main text.
  6. Lack of inline citations, there are some citations needed tags and I found some statements/facts are unsourced. Yes, there are some ext. links in the main article, but some ext. links have been there since the article was featured: [5], how come?
I'll try to help, but can't promise of getting sources. — Indon (reply) — 17:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary edit

Suggested FA criteria concerns are POV (1d), insufficient citations (1c), stub sections and LEAD (2). Marskell 07:49, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove Insufficient citations. LuciferMorgan 22:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove, article hasn't progressed since FAR nomination. --Peta 00:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove, I would say that a lot of works should be done for this article to gain FA status. A major concern is its neutrality, so it will need a total rehaul of the sourcing and rewriting. Bringing it back to FAC would be a good idea. — Indon (reply) — 08:41, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove per above — little work done, and it requires a lot of work. — Deckiller 02:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. 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 16:09, 1 February 2007.

Illmatic edit

Review commentary edit

Messages left at Chubdub and Albums. Sandy (Talk) 22:53, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ridiculously high volume of quotations, both inline and blocked off—in terms of word count, about 50% of the article is made up of quotations. A related problem is the poor writing quality. Liberal use of unfree images—I see 15 out of 18 that should be removed. Lead contains unique information regarding record sales. Punctured Bicycle 23:51, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Wow. I have some problems with the linkages in this article. It's a black and blue mess. "guest appearance" is linked to List of hip hop collaborations, "masterpiece" to Magnum opus (not usable for debut album--it has to be part of a body of work!, "influential" to Seminal work for a 1994 album for a music genre that had almost a few decades on it (maybe East Coast hip hop, but all of hip hop?), "underground circuit" to Alternative hip hop (call it that if that's what it is). "RIAA" should not be abbreviated the first time. Repeat "producer" in this line "The origins of Illmatic lie in Nas' ties with Large Professor," since he's rather awkwardly introduced as the producer in the introduction. The quotes are poorly used and, rather than adding information for the reader, serve mostly to disrupt the flow of the text. This is not an article on an obscure topic, which might require simply quoting from one of the limited few texts available. It's really got to be redone. KP Botany 03:26, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am also seriously concerned about a copyright violation from Wikipedia with so much material taken directly from a single source. KP Botany 03:29, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Too many quotes (see WP:QUOTE for guidelines), footnotes aren't correctly formatted. Sandy (Talk) 10:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Abuse of fair use images (fair use reduce: Image:NasIllmatic.jpg, Image:Illmaticbackcover.jpg; No fair use rationale: Image:Illmaticbackcover.jpg, Image:Nas making illmatic.jpg, Image:Illmaticcdpic.jpg, Image:Nas2.jpg, Image:Intv.jpg, Image:114000952m.jpg, Image:4908.jpg, Image:Nas worldisyo 101b.jpg, Image:COLUX64712.jpg, Image:Nashalftime.jpg, Image:Nasitainthardtotell.jpg, Image:Onelove.jpg, Image:Nastheworldisyours1.jpg, Image:Nastheworldisyours2.jpg, Image:Pic small 170.jpg; to be deleted: Image:090104.jpg). Extensive quotes from a single source, it can be considered a problem per the text section of our Fair use guideline. Lyrics sites are usually discouraged, as they break copyright. The Music videos and Singles can have their images removed, as they are used as decoration (8th point of our Fair use criteria). -- ReyBrujo 03:36, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Just to be clear, extensive quoting is not only problematic for copyright reasons, but it also makes the writing less compelling. "The overuse of quotations can drown out your voice and leave the reader wondering what happened to you—the writer."[6] Overuse of block quotes is especially discouraged because readers will get bored and simply skip over them. Punctured Bicycle 09:38, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I deleted 4 of the 6! quotes of large section of text from one short journal article, as almost entire article was directly quotes. Properly attributed, but unlikely within fair use for article not in the Public Domain. I deleted the single cover images from the article. Nobody working on the article has commented, which is a shame, because someone did some serious work, initially, to put together a good article. KP Botany 20:57, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I just removed the quotes section, I'll try to help to keep it's FA status but Chubdub is a better expert on the subject. Jaranda wat's sup 05:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC, external jumps, accolades uncited (probably more cite needs in text, haven't checked). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'll cite the accolades Chubdub 10:54, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary edit

Suggested FA criteria concerns are writing quality (1a) and images (3). Marskell 11:38, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Some work has been but no consensus to close early. Marskell 11:38, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Remove per Sandy's concerns. LuciferMorgan 02:36, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove. External jumps throughout the text, ratings and other info still uncited, incorrectly formatted footnotes; still very quote heavy with little content. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. 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 09:37, 19 February 2007.

Marilyn Manson (band) edit

Review commentary edit

Messages left at Rock music, Biography, Keepsleeping (the last after having to wade through a redirect to Goatse.cx). Jeffpw 21:59, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've nominated this article is it needs inline citations, especially concerning Manson's influences on each album etc. LuciferMorgan 20:16, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments Problematic references: Reported on November 7, 1997 is not a reference, and Usenet is not a reliable source. Last access dates are missing, all biblio info is not provided for all sources, links are not expanded, references need attention throughout. Extensive copyedit issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The November 7 reference is definitely not a reliable source, as it's just an archived fan discussion. There were formally published reports into the Senator hearings, so these could be used. To be honest I think there's too much work that needs doing for it to escape FARC. If anyone wants to work on it though I'll chip in - I own Manson's autobiography so could find specific page numbers, and a book concerning Manson's influences which could help as concerns the comments made about each album. LuciferMorgan 03:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Curiously the heading on the archived FAC nom was pointing to Marilyn Manson the singer, rather than the band. There is obvously a citation issue, in paticular in the "Composition and songwriting" section, which makes a series of bold unsupported statments, eg "sharp, and occasionally inventive wordplay" (the insertion of 'occasionally' here is nicely wry). That said, most are (imo) correct, and there are a tonne of web sources out there if someone was willing to put in the work. There are some structural issues, the "Celebritarian rising" section is comprised mainly of one and two sentence paragraphs. Holding the samples in a dedicated section undermines the stated fair use rationall that the article "specifically discusses the song from which this sample was taken". The prose aren't bad, I think the article could be saved with a little effort. + Ceoil 20:53, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Issues in prose from the start:
  • "Marilyn Manson is a shock rock band based in Los Angeles, California, in the United States.Frequently termed "shock rock", the group's sound... - shock rock twice in two sentences (and both wikilinked).
  • The name of each band member was originally created - "originally" is redundant.
  • He has been careless enough to behave in such a fashion that his wife (see Dita Von Teese) has divorced him - careless enough, really? Trebor 23:17, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mmm, 'careless' is indeed a very stange way of putting it. From what I know, probably 'stoned' would be a better word. But I take your point, tidying up needed here on prose. + Ceoil 23:32, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect it was added somewhat tongue-in-cheek; it made me smile when I first saw it. Trebor 23:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Manson himself is a very amusing and dry character; I'd have no problem retaining this kind of subtle humour. + Ceoil 00:01, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I personally prefer sticking to whatever facts are available. Also, I don't see what relevance Manson's divorce has in the article - this article is on the band Marilyn Manson. The person Marilyn Manson, aka. Brian Warner, has an article of his own. LuciferMorgan 20:31, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary edit

Suggested FA criteria concerns are comprehensiveness (1b), and citations (1c). Marskell 12:07, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. 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 18:24, 14 February 2007.

Igor Stravinsky edit

Review commentary edit

Messages left at Composers, Russia, Lupin, and Stephen Burnett. Jeffpw 11:45, 17 January 2007 (UTC) Additional messages at Marlowe and Bio. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:53, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm nominating this for FAR due to;

  1. Insufficient inline citations. LuciferMorgan 16:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree. Also the language is problematic in too many places. Eusebeus 11:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • 2a: Funny to go straight into the specific matter of his early fame through the three ballets before providing an overview of this greatest of the 20th-century composers. The five paragraphs in the lead would be better in reverse order. Is "symphony" a form, like "fugue"? Verdi was one of the three major composers who influenced him? Seems unlikely. The serial procedures in the 1950s were an aberration, yet they're treated as rather more central than that. His stylistic evolution needs to be summarised succinctly in technical terms in the lead; "clarity of utterance" will not do. I'd hardly give oxygen to his prose ("He was a writer").
  • 1c: Seriously under-referenced. Factual vagueness ("He switched to composition later.") Misleading statements—"The next phase of Stravinsky's compositional style,.. is marked by two works: Pulcinella 1920 and the Octet (1923)". Well no, these were the first works of a long stretch of neoclassicism.

1a: The prose could do with a massage—"Classic music". Tony 11:36, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The above is a more thorough examination, and one which I agree with upon closer inspection of the article. LuciferMorgan 12:43, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I certainly agree regarding the order of introduction; to go from the specific to the general feels as if it's the wrong way round. I'm currently working on the biography section, which was something of a muddle, and is still quite thin on the years he spent in the US, in comparison to the first half of his career. The biggest problem to my mind though is section 3, which seems in urgent need of a rewrite. For example, "L'Oiseau de feu, is notable for its unusual introduction (triplets in the low basses) and sweeping orchestration" doesn't really tell you a lot; it focuses on a detail which is probably one of the less remarkable features of the work, while the fact that the score calls for large percussion section including glock, xylophone and celesta, and requires three harps and a piano seems worth mentioning. As for "Petrushka ... is ... the first of Stravinsky's ballets to draw on folk mythology", this is just plain wrong: what is Firebird, if not a folk tale? --Stephen Burnett 21:08, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just want to chime in and comment that I was quite shocked when I read this article to see that it was a FA. The last time it was on the main page a couple months ago, the prose was horrible, sections were half in and half out of chronological order, there was a lot of redundancy, and far too few references. I hope this nomination improves it a LOT.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 01:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary edit

Suggested FA criteria concerns are citations (1c), LEAD (2a), and prose (1a). Marskell 06:22, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove per my nomination concerns and Tony's concerns. LuciferMorgan 03:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove Bold statments such as "Stravinsky's work embraced multiple compositional styles, revolutionized orchestration, spanned several genres, practically reinvented ballet form and incorporated multiple cultures, languages and literatures" remain unsupported. Evidence of original research: "Stravinsky was nevertheless photogenic, as many pictures show". It's a shame to see it demoted however, we only have six FAs on composers. + Ceoil 20:33, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove per my comments above. Tony 23:48, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. 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 14:34, 26 February 2007.

The Temptations edit

Review commentary edit

Messages left at TUF-KAT, R&B and Soul Music, Bio and Musicians. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Informative article, but woefully lacking in refs, there are only 9 and their format is severely lacking. Left notice at Wikipedia:WikiProject R&B and Soul Music. Rlevse 20:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Besides the above concerns, weasly words are also rampant. LuciferMorgan 22:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The referencing (that is, the verifiability) is fine. When the article was first promoted, inline citations for every sentence were not required (in actual encyclopedias, these are not used. General references are). This article is based upon a sturdy and lengthy reference from one of the subjects in question, which I happen to own and have right by my desk. I can and will add a citation to the exact page of Otis Williams' Temptations autobiography for each place where it is deemed necessary. Just add {{fact}} tags, and I will take care of the rest. And there is no need to leave messages at R&B and Soul Music, since that project has been more or less inactive for years. --FuriousFreddy 07:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The referencing is not fine. Several older FAs have been FARC'd for not meeting modern standards. Footnotes come after punctuation with no space. The refs' format need work, see Gerald Ford for samples. Entire sections do not have a ref. A good rule of thumb is any paragraph over 1-2 sentences should have a ref. And as LuciferMorgan points out, the weasel words need cleaned up.Rlevse 11:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • As I said, just add {{fact}} tags, and I will take care of the rest. And, like I said, the verifiability is fine; the article just lacks the (usually unhelpful and non-professional) glut of citations commonly expected out of Wiki articles nowadays. All of the citations are going to be from the references already listed. Please give examples of "weasel words" in the article. --FuriousFreddy 21:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments. Here is a list of weasle words to watch out for. Also, the section headings don't conform with WP:MSH, WP:MOS, particularly the use of "the" and capitalization. I corrected the footnotes per WP:FN, so take care with footnote placement as you continue to cite the article. It would be helpful if you would cite as much as possible, and then request reviewers have another look for anything missing. There are external jumps in the text which could be converted to references. Whether you agree or not, by today's standards this article is way under referenced. For example, History subsections 1-9 are totally devoid of refs.Rlevse 22:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This :
    • Williams, Otis and Romanowski, Patricia (1988, updated 2002). Temptations. Pg. 170 - 171
    • Williams, Otis and Romanowski, Patricia (1988, updated 2002). Temptations. Pg. 172
    • Williams, Otis and Romanowski, Patricia (1988, updated 2002). Temptations. Pg. 249, 259
    • Williams, Otis and Romanowski, Patricia (1988, updated 2002). Temptations. Pg. 177
    • Williams, Otis and Romanowski, Patricia (1988, updated 2002). Temptations. Pg. 183
  • can be abbreviated to:
    • Williams and Romanowski (1988), pp. 170-171.
    • Williams and Romanowski (1988), p. 172.
    • Williams and Romanowski (1988), pp. 249, 259.
    • Williams and Romanowski (1988), p. 177.
    • Williams and Romanowski (1988), p. 183.
    • Sections 1 through 9 are devoid of refs because I just started adding them, and I work during the week. I will finish the rest. --FuriousFreddy 19:51, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:07, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • CommentsTwo refs still have the URL displayed and this is not wiki style. The URL should be embedded underneath the title so you see and read the title but when you click it goes to the url. See Wikipedia:Citing sources. If you use the cite templates it does all the work for you, you just fill in the blanks. A 59K article should have way more than 19 refs. Reused refs should appear on same line, not as two separate footnotes, see WP:CITE. External jumps need to be removed from the Notes section.Rlevse 22:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • When I first wrote this article, there was no "Wiki style" for citations, so I used APA style. I will go back and reformat everything. There are currently no reused refs (when citing print work, you are required to list the exact pages used). --FuriousFreddy 19:52, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • There remains no "wiki style" for citations. APA is 100% fine. Nor is it the case that reused refs need to appear on the same line; while this is permitted by the cite.php technology, there is no requirement to use that format -- indeed, quite a good case could be made for avoiding it, since when you print a version of an article that uses multiple refs, the citations are not comprehensible. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've never encountered that problem; can you explain? Perhaps it's printer-dependent? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:29, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have decided I will not be continuing this process. Please de-list this article from featured status. --FuriousFreddy 01:48, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • At great expense to my available time, I will try to do my best to add citation tags to this article. If someone could please first tag the article with "citation needed" templates, that would be greatly appreciated, as I apparently no longer have an innate understand of just how many in-line citations are now wanted in these articles. --FuriousFreddy 01:46, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Glad you're back - would you like for me to shorten those book references for you, as in the example above? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Would you like me to add these templates Freddy? If someone objects per 1c after my cite requests have been filled per 1c, then the person is mad - I get on Wikipedians nerves when it comes to cites. :) LuciferMorgan 09:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Any help would be much appreciated, thank you. --FuriousFreddy 03:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • THere are also numerable instances of the same wiki article being linked more than once, you only need to link the fist instance. As for what to cite, you should have an inline cite per every section at an absolute minimum, preferably every paragraph. You can reuse cites if need be.Rlevse 11:03, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary edit

Suggested FA criteria concern is insufficient references (1c).

Comment: This was left a couple of days extra in review because there was work going on. Keeping it moving now. Marskell 09:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's still work going on. I'm sorry, but my job comes before this. --FuriousFreddy 04:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've placed a few cite tags on statements I feel need citation, and will place more once they've been filled. LuciferMorgan 12:22, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment; looks like a lot of potential for keep here. — Deckiller 04:31, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Agreed Tyler, with a bit of ref work and prose work. Largely hangs on Freddy really, but it sounds as though he's busy. Shame really. LuciferMorgan 12:10, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Once Freddy gets a chance to work on it, it should proceed fairly smoothly thanks to the lessons learned with Sly and the Family Stone. — Deckiller 12:14, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentImprovement has occurred, but there are still several sections about many paras without refs, so I put cite needed tags in.Rlevse 12:25, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove per 1c (unfortunately). LuciferMorgan 23:02, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove per 1c; unfortunately, work will be unable to be accomplished in time. — Deckiller 14:32, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If anyone is planning to finish this, pls let us know if a time extension is needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:03, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Freddy has disappeared? :( Marskell 18:54, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. 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 13:37, 11 February 2007.

Rainbow edit

Review commentary edit

Message left at Meteorology. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:05, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This poor article seems to attract the image equivalent of an External link farm because of its subject matter. (It has an External link farm as well.) The images are spectacular, but the article seems to engage WP:NOT. And, rain as a See also ? It was a "brilliant prose" promotion (with 3 supports and 3 opposes) and has been reviewed before. It uses three referencing styles, is mostly uncited, and has external jumps. Really needs a tuneup. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oh no, not again :( Can someone help me this time, please. -- ALoan (Talk) 18:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I plan to help, ALoan (feel badly for the poor article): I can clean up and convert refs and external jumps, check external links, proofread and light ce, although ce isn't my strong point. I don't understand Fair Use, and the hard thing is to decide which images to lose - they all seem to offer something. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:31, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks. I cleaned up some of the refs, but feel free to sort out any that I have missed. I have commented out a few images - I think those that are left are justifiable. It would be nice to have a bit more text though, particularly in "Art and Photography" and "Literature". My German was not up to it, but the corresponding sections in de:Regenbogen look quite good. -- ALoan (Talk) 13:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'll get on it next week - we should find someone who speaks German. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:20, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • While you're working on that, I have a couple of requests.
    • The lead section needs a lot of beefing up to summarize the whole article.
    • Does "Remembering the sequence of colours" really need a whole section in this article? It doesn't have a lot to do with rainbows that isn't better explained at Visible spectrum or even just Color; and ROYGBIV is its own article.
    • For comprehensiveness, the "See also" section could be expanded into a section on comparisons with similar phenomena. Melchoir 00:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Does this article really need a whole section on culture? I mean, it's a rainbow. I'm sure you could dig up a ton of literature that mentions rainbows somewhere - it's like adding a "popular culture" section to Earth; we all live on it, a good 90% of novels and poems and other literature takes place on Earth. I'd be in favor of junking the entire section altogether. Hbdragon88 02:05, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If several of us are going to try to work on this, should we move discussion to the article talk page? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:50, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Status: Should this move? Marskell 20:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It has a few days left in review, but citation hasn't even begun. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary edit

Suggested FA criteria concern are formatting and sufficiency of refs (1c), general cleanup (2). Marskell 06:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove, discluding the references issues this still isn't FA quality, too short of intro, too many images (we don't need one of a rainbow in waterfall mist and fountain mist), poorly chosen section titles, etc. Vicarious 00:35, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove, I concur - it will be much harder to fix than I originally thought. It needs references, expansion, and cleanup, and will always be an image farm magnet. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove, for the same reasons. CG 10:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove per Sandy's concerns. LuciferMorgan 21:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove, it's a mess. --Peta 00:17, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. 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 13:13, 20 February 2007.

Carl Sagan edit

Review commentary edit

Messages left at Eloquence, Biography, Skepticism. Jeffpw 09:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC) Message left at Astronomy. Dr. Submillimeter 09:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC) Additional messages at intelligent design, Novels, Pseudoscience, and Physics. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2004 promotion. Issues,

  1. References: few inline cites, several of which are not from reliable sources, otherwise the article is basically unreferenced
  2. Images: Many fair use images, none of which have the required fair use rationales besides they aren't all being used in a way that would make them fair
  3. Prose and comprehensiveness: For someone who has been the subject of at least 3 book length biographies (according to the article) the article is really pretty sketchy, the text skips around focusing on controversial points rather than providing a good biographical summary; structurally it is mostly single sentences; awards and medals is just a list.
  4. External links: a mess.
--Peta 00:20, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment needs more inline citations. Agree that some of the prose is choppy and that fair use images need to be reduced and to have accurate rationales. I dealt with the external links section. It would be a shame to demote this, but it could do with some work. - Francis Tyers · 00:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment References need cleaning up to a consistent and complete bibliographic format. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:48, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Lead could do with expanding. Very choppy prose, particularly with the paragraphing. Trebor 23:34, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary edit

Suggested FA criteria concerns few inline citations (1c), images (3), prose (1a), and comprehensiveness (1b). Marskell 09:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove - no substantive changes since the last time I looked.--Peta 00:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove per 1c. LuciferMorgan 12:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove per above, nothing happening. Trebor 12:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove per above. + Ceoil 19:02, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove per above; I really wish editors would express interest so they could work as a team with the FAR panel. — Deckiller 04:29, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove - Francis Tyers · 17:41, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. 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 11:13, 6 February 2007.

Father Damien edit

Review commentary edit

Messages left at RickK, Bio, Catholicism, and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Hawaii. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:11, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Message left at WikiProject Saints. –Outriggr § 01:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nearly all of the information is not properly cited inline. Also seems rather uncomprehensive with just a brief description of his major landmarks. Contains a trivia section. It became featured back in 2004 and remained nearly unchanged since. Michaelas10 (Talk) 13:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inline citation is just a preference and should not be a factor in de-featuring an article. As you say yourself, it became featured and has remained nearly unchanged since. If there is something you would like to change, why not just change it yourself? --Ali'i 20:42, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, inline citations are always a major factor in de-featuring articles. This article definitely needs them. The FAR nominator has made some valid comments. LuciferMorgan 21:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Inline citations have been a requirement for FAs for quite a while, and older FAs are expected to conform with current standards. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:38, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:Is this long quote in "Criticisms" necessary? And the online sources in the few inline citations are not properly formatted. Not to speak of the [citation needed] tags.--Yannismarou 21:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary edit

Suggested FA criteria concerns are citations (1c), comprehensiveness (1b), and a trivia section (4). Marskell 20:31, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove Insufficient citations - claims are made in the article that need backing up. LuciferMorgan 23:35, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove no progress, no one working on it. Other than robots and vandal reverts, six or seven edits during month-long review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:48, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. 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 09:25, 7 February 2007.

Henry VIII of England edit

Review commentary edit

Messages left at Emsworth, Bio, Royalty, UK notice board, Ireland and Scotland. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:48, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was browsing through the article, and noticed a certain lack of inline citations. From what small knowledge I have on FA status, you have to have ample amounts of these as one of the requirements, and for that fact, even GA status. I suggest getting some more inline citations, if this article is to maintain that status. --Artega 06:13, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that's a misunderstanding of FA status. The relevant FA criterion states that claims made in Featured Articles must be "supported with specific evidence and external citations (see verifiability and reliable sources); this involves the provision of a "References" section in which sources are set out and, where appropriate, complemented by inline citations. See citing sources." At Citing sources, we find this simple guideline: "Attribution is required for direct quotes and for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged." It is also generally desirable to provide inline citations for specific matter that (a) would be difficult for an interested reader to verify, even after considering the general and/or plainly pertinent sources set out in the References section, and (b) contributors have discovered is reported incorrectly elsewhere in a major source or in multiple minor ones. The project's FA standards in no way suggest that uncontroversial claims readily verifiable in various standard works in a field should be cited, just as such claims are not cited in most serious scholarly works.
In short, the gross amount of inline citations is completely irrelevant to FA status. Some of the best articles on Wikipedia have relatively few inline citations. The fact that whole paragraphs, even in succession, have no inline citations is again irrelevant to FA status. See, for example, Wikipedia's superb Featured Article on the sun, specifically the section on its atmosphere. Wikipedia contributors should not be pressured into "getting some more inline citations" just for the sake of it. The objective should be to identify those specific claims that require citation and to provide the best citations possible.
In this specific case, the article has a decent, though hardly exemplary References section. As available, full information should be consistently provided for all sources of each type. The fact that the article has just one specific citation does raise a couple questions. Those questions are: As you have initiated this review, did you actually find any specific claims dubious or counterintuitive or confusing or contradicted by your own knowledge? Did you try to verify any information in the article via the sources provided in the References section and find that that it was difficult or impossible? Here's something I picked up on in a quick dip: Henry "earned a golden rose from the Pope as early as 1510." Did he earn it in in 1510 or do we only know that he earned it some time and could have earned it that early? Is the sentence badly phrased or do scholars disagree? If the sentence is correct as is, it definitely needs to be elaborated on, either in the main text or in an inline-cited note. Many paragraphs in the article contain nothing but straightforward historical information of the most readily verifiable sort and do not call for citation. The quality of the writing (as suggested by my example) seems to be a clearer problem.—DCGeist 08:31, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with your argument against citing every fact, though this article lacks any citation whatsoever. Indeed, the writing is extremely poor and it appears that it has mostly declined through vandalism. My suggestion would be to either revert this to Lord Emsworth's nominated version or rewrite it alltogether. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 14:39, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's quite an essay. Not to worry about the nomination, Artega; past reviews of Emsworth's articles have revealed prose problems and deficiencies with the overriding policy, which is WP:V. If someone is willing to work on the article, we can go through and put cite needed tags on specific areas requiring verification, but reviewers here are reluctant to tag articles unless someone is actually going to begin doing the work, and we've found few takers on Emsworth's old articles. Perhaps DCGeist misunderstands the underlying policy of WP:V? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps. What does it strike you that I misunderstand?
I didn't argue that Artega's nomination of the article for review was inappropriate. I made an effort to explain that the lack of inline citations should not be the initial focus of review and that "getting some more inline citations" is never the appropriate way to think about improving an article. Perhaps I should have stated more clearly the point I'm sure we all agree on: the fact that an article has no specific citations and a messy approach to referencing likely indicates that it has other, more serious, deficiencies that render it below FA quality. I didn't mean to imply that Artega was mistaken to initiate a review; I did want to know if, having made the effort to do so, Artega had identified any specific problems beneath the general observation about the article's lack of citations. With little time and effort and no specific knowledge, I identified such a problem. With apparently little effort, Kirill has now identified at least one and a very serious one at that. Disputed accuracy tag placed on article--all readers should be completely wary of the article's fact basis in its current state. And, indeed, we know that as a consequence of Artega's nomination.—DCGeist 20:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, there seem to be obvious factual errors present here. For example, the "Early reign" section starts off by incorrectly having Francis I ruling France in 1512 in place of Louis XII, and goes downhill from there; this needs to be thoroughly checked over by people familiar with the material. Kirill Lokshin 17:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Going through the article in more detail, there are a number of major inaccuracies and omissions at least with regards to Henry's foreign policy (which happens to be the aspect of his reign I'm familiar with; I have no idea if the other topics have similar problems):
  • The Holy League of 1511 was, as I've already mentioned, formed against Louis XII, not Francis I; the comments about Francis competing with Henry are, obviously, not relevant to it.
  • Henry made peace with Louis in 1513–14, before Francis had ascended the throne. The Field of the Cloth of Gold—which was, indeed, a meeting between Henry and Francis—was obviously not part of the negotiations involved here; it was rather a prelude to the next war. The article makes no mention of Henry's role in the Imperial election of 1519, and its relation to all of this.
  • (More broadly, this entire section is pretty devoid of context; Henry was getting involved in the Italian Wars here, not randomly attacking France.)
  • Henry's role in the Italian War of 1521—and his resulting switch to the French side in the War of the League of Cognac—is glossed over, being presented as some sort of private arrangement with the Pope.
  • Henry's foreign policy in the 1540's—the Rough Wooing, the Italian War of 1542, etc.—is completely absent from the article.
I would say that at least those areas of the article need substantial work if this is to be an FA. Kirill Lokshin 21:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And there we go. By shifting the review focus from "getting citations" to analysis of specific content, Kirill has efficiently demonstrated that the article as it stands is well below FA quality. Unless a knowledgeable editor steps in to adopt the article in short order, it should move expeditiously to FARC.—DCGeist 22:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I thank you all for taking the time to comment on it. Given, the requests now for changes are nothing of what I wanted the FAR to be about, but I completly understand your reasoning behind what you said, and can agree that inline citations alone shouldn't be the reason for calling an FAR. In any case, some major editing has to be done if the article is to maintain FA status.-Artega 01:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lack of citations is always a reason for calling for review, although not necessarily a reason for demoting (two different issues :-) If the article had been cited, you wouldn't have needed a domain expert to know it wasn't accurate (the point of WP:V is you would have been able to verify the accuracy yourself). Further, older FAs lacking citations almost always have other problems. It just happens that, having been through a number of Emsworth's older FAs aleady, many here are already aware of the problems with article deterioration over time (he no longer watches them), so all of his uncited FAs will likely be appearing here eventually. Without citations, they will be demoted, for the very reason that readers have no means of verifying accuracy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:43, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I note that in the article on Henry VIII, Anne of Cleves' brother Wilhelm is said to be a Protestant, while in her own article, he is said to be "personally" a Catholic. I don't think that the article on him states anything. Other sources that I checked describe him as "mildly Protestant" and "not a Lutheran." (I'm still digging) Anne's and Wilhelm's brother-in-law, Johann Frederick I, Elector of Saxony was an ardent Lutheran and head of the Protestant Confederation of Germany (the Schmalkaldic League), so it may be their relationship with him that was more important in allying Henry VIII with the German Protestant Princes. By the way, I have had trouble finding the articles on both brother and sister, except by going in through Henry VIII. - Beth RootJuglice25A 11:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary edit

Suggested FA criteria concerns are lack of citations and factual accuracy (1c). Marskell 20:48, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove, no effort to address concerns raised above. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:56, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove, nothing has changed from above. Trebor 23:50, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. 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 09:37, 19 February 2007.

Baseball edit

Note on closing - this is a re-promoted WP:FFA.

Review commentary edit

Message left at PSzalapski, Neutrality, Project Baseball Jeffpw 21:08, 21 January 2007 (UTC) Additional message at Baseball players. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article doesn't fully meet the FA criterias in:

2.c. and 4. Overwhelming table of contents with too much unnecessary details.

Even, at some degree 1.a. It's not so well written and is little bit hard to understand.

1.e. It has too many vandalism reverts. --Hey911 20:17, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This looks like a "Brilliant Prose" promotion from 2004. While there are 14 reference books listed, there are only three inline citations. I understand this is a broad topic, but the "See Also" section has more than 30 links. This article will need a lot of help, if it is to keep its Featured status. I tried to find the main contributer in the history, to notify him/her, but am having trouble doing that, as the article has been so extensively edited. Jeffpw 21:08, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The level of vandalism is not an actionable objection, see WP:WIAFA. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on the vandalism reverts, they are usually always reverted straight after they happen. Baseball is on a lot of users watchlists which helps prevent it staying vandalised for a long period of time. --Borgarde 01:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gripe This article is a great example of one of Wikipedia's shortcomings. This article was great back when it was first a featured article. Now it is FUBAR due to a lot of irresponsible edits. I don't think I will participate much in the review. --Locarno 16:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments Prose size is 60KB, overall size is 156 KB - at least a third of the article needs to go (via WP:SS) before cleaning up the rest. Referencing is a mess. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:07, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments This is the longest article I have ever seen.--Superplaya 00:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've been looking at other sports intro articles, and the length is pretty standard, so I'm not as worried about that. However, there is plenty of content here that is expendable. In particular, the strategy sections need to be chopped to the bare minimum and moved to their own article. "Baseball's unique style" is a POV mess. And then there's the complete lack of sources. Djrobgordon 07:40, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. As above, there is real trouble with the length and referencing. It needs serious trimming to make it more concise. Trebor 23:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove It's way too long with useless things. Parts of it is not well written and it is not the same as other featured articles. Some parts of it is also just bogus and isn't true!Superplaya 04:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary edit

Suggested FA criteria concerns are TOC (2c), unnecessary detail (4), and writing quality (1a). Marskell 12:09, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove It's way too long with useless things. Parts of it is not well written and it is not the same as other featured articles. Some parts of it is also just bogus and isn't true!Superplaya 04:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Superplaya, if you feel that some of it is untrue, then fix it. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 13:16, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove per issues raised above, primarily 1c. Trebor 22:56, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove per above and some 1a issues. — Deckiller 04:26, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. 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 16:35, 25 February 2007.

Fanny Blankers-Koen edit

Review commentary edit

Messages left at Jeronimo, Bio, and Sports Olympics. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:14, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been featured since september 2004, and is long overdue for a FAR. More specificly, here are my concerns:

  • definitely needs in-line citations
  • several of the wikilinks could be considered to be ridiculous (now, not in 2004); e.g. 800 m
    • Not for nothing, but m is certainly not a ridiculous thing to link. Don't forget that most Americans are unaccustomed to using the metric system and don't know right off the bat what that "m" stands for. I went through the article and found only a few things to de-link, all of them dates. Andrew Levine 17:14, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • the text refers to never explained events (e.g. she moved back to her previous hometown Hoofddorp, but it had never been stated she had actually lived in Hoofddorp before)
  • There are no real POV issues, but a more neutral rewriting ("her last moment of glory") could do no harm.

Errabee 20:02, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Needs citations definitely (1. c.). More specifically, the article has a lot of adjectives in its statements which add a certain slant on events. Such terms as "highly dubious", "possibly", "relatively objective" I wouldn't say observe NPOV, so I would say there are POV issues in the article. If anyone decides to work on this article, please feel free to message me and I will point out more specific statements in the article that need addressing. LuciferMorgan 03:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've just had a quick look through and found a few articles to reference from, and added some citations accordingly. It needs many more, of course, and the prose definitely needs quite a bit of work, but I'm sure someone who actually knows something about athletics — I know nothing about the subject — could really turn this into a top article. As a subject she certainly seems to deserve it. Angmering 00:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary edit

Suggested FA criteria concerns are citations (1c), and missing info (1b). Marskell 09:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Some work done, some work to come hopefully. Marskell 09:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Remove per 1c and due to POV statements. LuciferMorgan 12:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have added some more refs - this seems entirely fine to me [at least as regards POV]. Where is the POV? -- ALoan (Talk) 17:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here are some statements that need attention:
  • the first relatively objective biography of Blankers-Koen was published (not sure what the "relatively" refers to or according to whom, perhaps could be re-worded)
  • Dutch and international media always portrayed her as the perfect mother ...
  • The exact results of the test remain unclear, and although Dillema looked a bit like a man, most do not doubt she is a woman. Most of the other women on the team at the time suspect it was an attempt by Jan and Fanny Blankers to eliminate a possible opponent, although this has never been confirmed.
  • she would later claim she thought there had been a false start
  • his attitude towards female athletes changed after he fell in love with Koen
  • Dutch media automatically assumed her career would be over.
  • Also, now that it's further along on citations, needs a ce and em-dash attention. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:49, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
POV statements still need work though, and possible citation. LuciferMorgan 11:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have access to the non-online references (two books in Dutch and a journal article) but I am sure they will help if someone can locate them. I think it would be useful if you could add {{fact}} and {{fixpov}} statements to the parts you think are problematic. (I still can't see the POV, but perhaps my antennae are not sufficiently finely tuned.) -- ALoan (Talk) 13:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My only concerns are listed above; I hesitate to add fact tags, but will do so in a few days if no one can find sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have other 1. c. concerns as well as Sandy's; give me a ping on my talk page if you're interested. LuciferMorgan 09:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, I am not in a position to do anything about them, but it would be helpful, I think, to tag the article so someone else can see them and deal with them, if they have the sources (whether the FARC goes through or not). -- ALoan (Talk) 11:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Fanny still has a few weeks here, so I'll tag those, and go poke dig around Wiki in search of some Dutch editors; there must be a category or something. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove I put out multiple queries several weeks ago, someone should have been able to finish the article; nothing happening. Article has important uncited information, and isn't particularly compelling or brilliant. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. 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 14:01, 28 February 2007.

Ridge Route edit

Review commentary edit

Messages left at Lucky 6.9 (e-mail), California, U.S. Roads, National Register of Historic Places, and Southern California. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I count two citations, one external jump, and a scattered handful of references at the very bottom of the page (1c). Prose is also not terribly brillant, including this direction given to me: "...if you step out of your vehicle for exploration within the forest boundaries." Hbdragon88 01:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • For sure, this article needs inline citations or it should not be FA status. I know nothing about it but maybe those who did the body of work on it can assist.A mcmurray 02:49, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mostly uncited, entire Driving section speaks to the reader directly. Remove. AnonEMouse (squeak) 01:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC, not a single edit since nomination. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC, multiple problems and nothing happening. Trebor 22:45, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary edit

Suggested FA criteria concerns are references (1c), and prose (1a). Marskell 09:43, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So wait... what the heck needs to be done? I believe the editors who originally worked on this article left, and I'm not exactly sure what to do, having never nom'ed a FA... --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 19:19, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, just looking it over:

  • Few inline citations
  • Speaking directly to the reader (driving directions)
  • Contradiction between "Navigating on the Ridge Route demands safe driving habits. Potholes, loose sand, debris, remnants of mudslides and rockslides and many of the aforementioned 697 curves await today's traveler. " and "As of August 2005, the 1915 Ridge Route is officially closed for public access, "You can not drive in, hike in, motorcycle in etc. on the damaged road. Angeles Forest closed the road because pipeline companies are operating heavy equipment on the road to repair their lines damaged during...[the] record rain fall [experienced in Southern California in winter 2005]." Can you drive on it, or not?--HowardSF-U­-T-C- 13:53, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove — a lot of work needs to be done, and few people have the time or interest in working on it. — Deckiller 02:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • We have chosen to improve it as part of the WikiProject U.S. Roads/Article Improvement Drive. Please give us a few weeks to do so. I have requested the book that is cited through interlibrary loan but it has not arrived yet. --NE2 06:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • A few weeks might be too long to keep this on the page; perhaps it can be re-nominated for featured status when you're done. — Deckiller 13:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Is that because of bureaucratic reasons or because there's a good reason not to keep something here for a few weeks? --NE2 14:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • We have to try and keep entries moving, because we have a limited group of people outside of the indiviudal article editors who can work on the articles, and there are so many to process. So it's a mix of both reasons. — Deckiller 11:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Offer respite. If you have too many processes then I suggest prioritizing instead of assuming that "Remove" is the default option. The point of FAR is primarily to get articles improved, not to satisfy the schedule of the reviewers. If someone offers to work on the article, it's the FAR-process that should be blown off temporarily, not those offering to work on the article. / Peter Isotalo 10:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove, needs a lot of work, if it hasn't already been pointed out there are also image issues. --Peta 23:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Those can be fixed. If this is removed I may just send the book back when it arrives, since I assume it's harder to get something through FAC than to keep it there. --NE2 04:28, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Don't let this article's status prevent you from improving it. Yes, FAs are great stuff, but all articles need work regardless of their article status. Please don't return it - keep it and improve the article... Hbdragon88 00:51, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Actually, FAR may be harder on articles than FAC at the moment. And yes, the FA status isn't the be all and end all of a page's worth; improvement is always welcome.
        • We can leave this open, but "a few weeks" is a little vague. Some work needs to happen in the meantime. You might start with the image tags. Marskell 10:34, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I tagged them as lacking source; what more is to be done? --NE2 10:38, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Well, sources should actually be found for them or they should be removed. The LEAD is underweight, and it needs more sourcing. Marskell 18:59, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. 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 22:38, 22 February 2007.

Battle of the Somme edit

Review commentary edit

Messages left at Johnleemk, MilHist, UK notice board, France, Scotland, and Northern Ireland. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm nominating this article due to;

  1. Insufficient inline citations (1. c.).
  2. Weasly statements made in the article.

LuciferMorgan 23:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Is there a notification on the article talk page itself?
  • Claims of a citation problem would be more helpfully done with {{cn}} tags.
  • The real problem with the article is that it doesn't weasel where there is reason to do so. For example, I fixed one footnote which repeated one polemic in Wikipedia's voice. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment With no explanation, Jooler (talk · contribs) removed the POV tag from the article, and removed the FAR tag from the talk page. I re-instated the FAR tag, (again) updated the featured link on the talk page, but did not reinstate the POV tag on the article, although it is discussed on the talk page. POV should be added to the list of concerns. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:33, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I got confused by edits by 68.4.61.113 - which looked like WP:POINT or just plain silly to me. Especially - [7] - I guess he meant Anglo-centric. I don't really think his comment is valid though nand the issue has beed adressed several times from what I've read. Jooler 00:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In the past I've been accused of WP:POINT when adding citation tags, so don't really do so nowadays.LuciferMorgan 00:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Status? As we approach two weeks, how's it coming? Can we avoid FARC? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:23, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply to Sandy's question Most of the editing revolved around the way dates are stylised throughout the article - eg. "17 July" to "17th of July". There's a whole load of direct quotations without appropriate citation. Also, there's a lot of critical commentary in the article upon the effects and success of different aspects of the battle - this is particularly prevalent in the "Conclusion" and "Casualties" sections. I would say this article is heading for FARC. LuciferMorgan 01:46, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a matter of fact, most of the editing revolved around manual of style, spelling, grammar, formatting, sourcing and quotes etc - not just fixing the dates. All these things usually get ignored, as far as I can see. The article is probably in better condition now than it had been when it passed the nomination for Featured Article status. Hopefully someone knowledgeable enough about the subject matter can come along and insert some citations though, and make the alleged "POV statements" more balanced, if they exist. --Mal 20:08, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary edit

Suggested FA criteria concerns are referencing (1c), and POV statements (1d). Marskell 20:10, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It looks great at surface and should remain a FA.--Pupster21 17:00, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. 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 02:15, 3 February 2007.

Tank edit

Review commentary edit

No original author, message left at MilHist. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Came across this page while doing other stuff and was shocked to see it featured. It may have other issues, but primarily there is a complete lack of references. It was promoted way back, and perhaps the prose is still good, but it needs going through and thoroughly referencing. Trebor 21:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Needs citations. --Ineffable3000 04:13, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary edit

Suggested FA criteria concern is lack of citations (1c). Marskell 12:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove Insufficient inline citations. LuciferMorgan 02:41, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove per Lucifer. And the writing problems creep into even the first sentence, which mixes British and US spellings. What is "high mobility"? "Relatively high speed"—relative to what? Tony 11:09, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove concerns not addressed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:48, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As nominator, am I meant to say anything here? If I am, remove, plenty of uncorrected problems. Trebor 01:03, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

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 14:01, 28 February 2007.

Philosophy of mind edit

Review commentary edit

Message left at Philosophy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One and two-sentence paras have been added throughout. Reads like a comic book. Needs professional review for 2a and organization. Some content has also been added which I can't verify (given the circusmtamces I can't do much of anything) and much has been removed that IS verifiable, indeed obvious to anyone who actually knows the field. In addition, I never really cared for it in the first place. --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 11:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article feels unbalanced to me. Compared to other areas, the Mind-Body problem is given far too much weight. The epistemology of Other Minds isn't even mentioned, it seems. Other issues that deserve more attention (or at least a mention) include mental causation, action, self-deception, weakness of will, perception, memory, first-person authority and self-knowledge, imagery, emotion, perceptual/conceptual content, and the internalism/externalism debate. There's a lot of decent writing here, but it lacks diversity for such a broad topic. (I'm glad you haven't totally given up on Wikipedia, Mr. Franco. It's nice seeing you here.) KSchutte 05:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whoah, ease up now. I did most of this work...and it's infinitely better than what was previously there. But you're absolutely right. The obvious solution, I suppose, would be to break off the mind-body section into a separate article and leave a summary with link. Then, expand or create the sections on the other central areas, at least as I have come to see them lately: intentionality, consiousness (qualia, etc), mental causation, psychosemantics (big area right now)and THEORY of MIND. Of course, I can't do much myself at the moment, as I'm cut off every two or three minutes.
PS Glad to know people like yourself are still around and volunteering, Kevin.!! --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 10:14, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Man, the images are just extraordinary!! No, wait a minute....ALL the images are fantastic. It must be this new 19 inch Asus TCO03 LCD 1240x840 monitor!! These engineers are quite something, really. Magnificent, ladies and gentlemen. Good 'eavens. --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 11:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. The quality of the writing here on the Mind-Body problem is plenty good, and would be great in an article of its own. I think an article this broad should probably mostly just be a series of succinct summaries of the major problems, with links to the articles on each of those problems. (I wish I had the time and resources to do some substantive writing on here.) --KSchutte 01:05, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here is the article when the gold star was added. Is that not feature-worthy? Are there active editors of the article that would object to reverting it? (I haven't looked at the merits of each, I'm just asking—the FA is only 10 months old...) –Outriggr § 01:58, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just got a note from Sandy about this FAR, and I thought that I would add my two cents. I tend to agree with Outriggr that the damage that Francesco notes could be by and large repaired by reverting to the promoted version. There might be a little improvement that was lost, but this could be addressed by careful reading. On the other hand, the concerns raised about overall balance are also correct; the article is too mind-body problem heavy. Perhaps we can start with a revert, which might deal with FAR, and then work on improving by reorganizing? Or should that valid concern be enough to keep it from keeping its gold star from ten months ago? Unfortunately, I don't have a ton of time myself to work on this right now, but I will do what I can. Edhubbard 00:03, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I can accept this proposal. In particualar, seeing as no one (myself included for technical reasons) is actually going to DO anything to address the broader concerns about comprehensiveness and so on, but rather just complain about them, I think a revert to FA version would be a reasonable place to start. Telecom has guaranteed (once again!!) that someone will be here to install my aDSL connection by Feb. 6. I can do nothing in the meantime, at any rate. Disappointing though: I though it would have been miraculously transformed into something resembling THE DEFINITIVE ARTICLE on philosophy of mind by this time.
Come one now: millions of people out there and infinite time to work, and yet there are not one or two Jerry Fodors willing to volunteer a bit of time? Anyway, let's be perfectly blunt: if Kschutte, for example, wants to, and is capable of, actually addressing the deficiencies he's pointed out, by himself, in the space of a few weeks of review, then so much the better. If not, then no one else will. May as well revert and wait for me to take a stab at it later. --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 09:06, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I live for the day when the wikipedia becomes a more prestigious place to publish than the Journal of Philosophy.  :) That said, Nathan Salmon, Galen Strawson, David Chalmers, and Max Velmans have each stopped by for a bit of wikiediting (or, in Chalmers' case, some talk page contributions), so we can be optimistic. As to whether I'm capable of handling the very defencies I observed, I highly doubt it. My mental health is presently imperiled. KSchutte 20:52, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Touchè (or is it touché?). I'm glad to know that some of these outstanding American philos have actually found the time to look in and contribute, even if only to correct technical blunders or to give advice. "My mental health is presently imperiled"....In my experience, that's usually a (positive) sign that you're either making some genuine progress toward a significant breakthrough in your studies or research or whatever or a (negative) sign that you've just about had it with the nature of existence and the "benign indifference of the universe". Often too, these two signs are manifestations of the same thing. Anyway, no offense was intended by "capable of". I should have written "has the substantial time and resources, patience, willingness to volunteer, etc..". That was all I meant. Right now,I have enough time and energy, but I don't have a decent and stable Internet connection!! The latter problem will be resolved this week, though. --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 10:07, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Francesco, are you quoting Camus on a Featured article review? We have policies outlawing that sort of thing. Marskell 14:43, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I understand and repent of this unpardonable trangession. It was way over the line: I violated WP:NCAMUS, WP:NEXISTENT and WP:NQUOTEDEPRESSINGAUTHORS, all at the same time. And just think, I was even tempted to quote Malroux or Celine!! 0-;--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 10:00, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary edit

Suggested FA criteria concerns are verifiability (1c), and comprehensiveness (1b). Marskell 11:22, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 19:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, and keep working on it. KSchutte 22:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional Keep — article cound stand for a copy-edit. I see a lot of misplaced formality. For example:

"The answer of the behaviorist is that mental states do not actually exist - they are just descriptions of behavior, and/or dispositions thereto, made by external third parties in order to explain and predict others' behavior."

I also see some questions asked; shouldn't they be rephrased to statements? A few other issues, such as a problem with listing technique, and a few redundnaices (though these may be needed for precision). — Deckiller 04:41, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm...thereto is pretty bad. I'll take a run through it myself. For anything I don't catch, I'll try to find someone with more professional editing experience to take a look.--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 09:13, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nice work so far; prose is almost passable in my opinion. It's a very solid article all around. — Deckiller 10:20, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. 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 09:32, 23 February 2007.

Comet Hyakutake edit

Review commentary edit

Messages left at Flcelloguy, Worldtraveller, Astronomy. Jeffpw 09:41, 22 January 2007 (UTC) Message also left at WP Astronomical Objects. Mike Peel 10:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After reading this article, I was surprised to see the little FA star in the corner. Other than a pervading dullness of prose, the main problem is that the article is woefully lacking in inline cites and other references. The more specific scientific details are sourced (though not all of them), but a lot of the historical background, claims about visibility, claims that it was "more impressive" than Hale-Bopp, etc. are without any sources at all. I have noticed recent FA nominees get torn up because they lacked abundant sources, so I feel like an article like this (promoted in March 2005) needs to get put through the wringer again. -Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 01:29, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Dmz5's assessment on the references. I would expect every paragraph to contain at least one inline reference. The references also need to be cleaned up; some references are included as footnotes, whereas others are included as links in the text. Dr. Submillimeter 12:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly agree with the above points, this does not meet featured article criteria in my opinion. The whole article could use a copyedit. Some of the headings (The comet passes the Earth, Perihelion and afterwards) sound strange and are rather unscientific. It also seems very short and brief for a FA. I'm sure there is a lot more info out there that could be found and added to the article with appropriate references. --Nebular110 13:50, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I just noticed that Comet Hale-Bopp is also a featured article (promoted in Feb 05) and has fewer references (eight) than Hyakutake (eleven) for a longer article. The reference styly is not consistent throughout the article either. Someone may want to think about a featured article review for Hale-Bopp in order to address similar concerns. --Nebular110 13:56, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It would be best to wait until this article is addressed, so as not to overwhelm the involved Projects with two FARs at once. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article could definitely need some improvement; I'll attempt to look at it soon, but I'm not sure how far I'll get. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 02:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I gave up writing articles a while ago because of severe dissatisfaction with the lack of standards in Wikipedia, but on having a look at what was happening I saw this review, and as I wouldn't like to see one of my articles defeatured I may do a bit of work on it. However, I have to say that the comments left here are simply too vague to address in any way, apart from the referencing. As far as that goes, most of the basic facts about the comet can be found in the first reference listed, a review article from the JBAA. I don't see the point in putting a superscript [1] after every sentence that can be verified in that article, and it doesn't seem to me it would add anything that isn't already there. The sentence about comparisons with Hale-Bopp could do with a cite, I know where I got it from and it's a shame I didn't reference it at the time, but it's an issue of Sky & Telescope with a lengthy article about the two comets and I'll track it down.
So, other concerns:
    • pervading dullness of prose - examples?
    • whole article could use a copyedit - give some examples of what needs copyediting.
    • there is a lot more info out there that could be found and added - such as?
    • seems very short and brief for a FA - there is a mania for writing 60kb articles that almost no-one is ever going to read all of. I've never believed that length is something to strive for - comprehensiveness is something to strive for, and conciseness at the same time. If an article is concise yet comprehensive then I believe it's an excellent article. If you just want more verbosity I won't give you that, but if you think the article is not comprehensive, and if you can tell me what you think is missing, then maybe I can do something about that.
Basically I would need a lot more of an indication of what anyone thinks is wrong with this article before I can do any work on it. Worldtraveller 22:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Some copy edit examples from the intro:
  • "It was dubbed The Great Comet of 1996, and was one of the closest cometary approaches to the Earth in the previous 200 years, resulting in the comet appearing very bright in the night sky and being seen by a large number of people around the world." "Comet" and "cometary approach" have been accidentally conflated here, and the last clause is wordy. Something like: "It was dubbed The Great Comet of 1996, and its approach was one of the closest in the previous 200 years; the comet appeared very bright in the night sky and was widely seen around the world."
  • "Most surprising to cometary scientists was the discovery of X-ray emission from the comet, the first time a comet had been found to be emitting X-rays." Redundant. Try: "Most surprising to cometary scientists was the first discovery of X-ray emission from a comet."
Lots of time with this one, and I think it's a fine article as it stands. I would suggest looking for redundant clauses like those above, to begin with. Marskell 16:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Prose is fairly good, but could be better:
  • ...was the discovery of X-ray emission from the comet, the first time a comet had been found to be emitting X-rays. - surely that can phrased more efficiently.
  • scientists realised that the comet was going to pass very close to the Earth on 25 March, just 0.1 AU away - the order makes the 0.1AU seem related to the 25 March.
  • As Comet Hale-Bopp was already being discussed as a possible "great comet", it took a while for the astronomical community to realise that Hyakutake too might become spectacular; its close approach to Earth meant it was very likely to become a great comet. - generally messy, repetition of phrases, awkward use of "too"

Could do with a copyedit for the occasional clumsy phrase. Trebor 23:41, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary edit

Suggested FA criteria concerns are sourcing (1c), and prose (1a). Marskell 09:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'll have a go at this, if no one else does. Marskell 09:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'll help Marskell for 1c, but leave 1a for the prose expert. — Indon (reply) — 10:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Definite wordiness in going over it further. I'll take a pass at 1a and then someone else can. Can you ref further Indon? Marskell 13:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done, at best I could find sources. Some sections were written completely from one source that it might not be a good idea to fill them in with the same citation numbers. Now, any other citation requests still needed? — Indon (reply) — 10:04, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Indon, the first para of "Spacecraft passes through the tail" could use a source. The subsequent studies are sourced, but not the first. The prose has received one going over but needs at least two more. Still some days left. Marskell 16:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cited. I ran through the article one more time and found other uncited statements and opinions (I put tags for myself there). I'm trying to find the sources. Done, article is now well-cited. — Indon (reply) — 12:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional keep — prose needs another pass by a fresh editor. — Deckiller 19:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've just done a quick run-through, rewording limited parts of the prose. Some of the awkward phrases have been removed or reworded, but it still could do with another look over. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 02:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks very much, Marskell and Indon, for getting this into better shape. I have been slightly distracted over the last few days and haven't been able to contribute as I'd hoped. However, I'm going to give the article a thorough read through in the next day or so. I hope that will iron out any remaining problems. Worldtraveller 00:18, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — prose is passable after runthroughs by four editors. — Deckiller 21:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. 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 13:13, 20 February 2007.

Anne, Queen of Great Britain edit

Review commentary edit

Messages left at Biography, Lord Emsworth Jeffpw 09:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC) Additional messages at Royalty and UK notice board. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article was featured in Sept of 2004, but has very inline citations which are now requested for 1c. More importantly, the citations which are present are inconsistent: there is a References section, two REF-style internal citations, and some that look like MLA-style in SMALL tags. Otherwise, the article still reads well, so these should be easily addressed and more citations added. JRP 02:59, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What happened to Image:QuAn Arms.png? {Slash-|-Talk} 05:17, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Added a ton of referencing using sources found through google books. Also, fixed the image. Please let me know on my talk page if A. there are statements that you think need more referencing or that have improper referencing, B. the rationale on the new image is correct- I'm never sure of my rationales. Mocko13 16:15, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WOW ! Can other editors pls have a look - the article has been referenced. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • A comment: The google book is excellent one to peek what we are looking for, but please don't use their URL as external link. Please use standard {{cite book}} (see examples in WP:CITET) and particularly link the books with ISBN rather than an external link. — Indon (reply) — 18:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Indon, you lost me? Are you saying just to add ISBNs on to the References? (A lot of them are very old books and may not have them?) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ah, I didn't check that, but I spot one book from 2000 and the last book in the References section does not have date. . — Indon (reply) — 21:33, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Some statements use words like "probably" etc. as though the statement is speculation and not fact - these statements need citations. LuciferMorgan 00:17, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't been able to find sourcing for the statements you tagged, Lucifer, so I dropped most of the paragraph. Mocko13 14:20, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok that's fine. I've added more [citation needed] tags for you to get through if you're up for it :) LuciferMorgan 21:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Status? Lots of work done; will we be able to close this without moving to FARC? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:21, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Still has a few cite tags unfilled. LuciferMorgan 02:09, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary edit

Suggested FA criteria concern is citation sufficiency and format (1c). Marskell 20:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've cleared the {{fact}} tags that remained. Most I provided references for, but a couple of statements were incorrect, so I corrected them. One seemed unlikely and I couldn't find a ref for it, so I dropped it, and a couple of tags were either supported by citations later in the paragraph or were self citing (Writers such as Daniel Defoe, Alexander Pope and Jonathan Swift flourished during Anne's reign - I assume we can skip listing the output of these three). Yomanganitalk 02:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, fulfills WP:WIAFA. — Indon (reply) — 10:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Nice work. + Ceoil 20:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I added one fact tag for the only uncited paragraph, but aside from that it seems well-referenced, prose is fairly tight. Trebor 23:44, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional Keep. Looks good; I'll see if I can find any lingering issues. — Deckiller 04:32, 18 February 2007 (UTC) Keep; everything appears passable. — Deckiller 04:34, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. 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 13:13, 20 February 2007.

Kakapo edit

Review commentary edit

Messages left at Eudyptes and Birds. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:12, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've spent a fair bit of time trying to rework this article, and it needs more dedicated attention to bring it to current FA standards. First it is not cited in any meaningful way; second it is flabby - there is far too much text given to describing the conservation of the species - it's an interesting story, but this is an encyclopedia article; third, I'm not sure it's up to date in terms of current conservation plans and recent breeding. --Peta 22:57, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The scientific journal Notornis 53(1) is a Kakapo special issue. The articles are available for free here but I don't know for how long (they wanted to make them pay-per-view starting 2007/01/01, so they could be closed off any time). These articles should enable one to sum up the entire conservation thing nicely and peer-reviewed-ly. Dysmorodrepanis 02:12, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At the very least it needs inline reffing - agree the conservation section is very long.Cas Liber 20:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Update: Have reorganised page so there are more subheadings of other headings rather than just a series of headings, and added a bit on taxonomy. Refs increasing but still many more to go. Cas Liber 14:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary edit

Suggested FA criteria concerns are insufficient citations (1c), flabbiness (4), and not up-to-date (1b). Marskell 15:53, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Some work done, some more to go from the looks of it. Marskell 15:53, 23 January 2007 (UTC) :(I'm a bit of an inclusionist but agree there is a huge conservation segment which should be hived off)Cas Liber 23:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Remove Certain statements still need citation and fail to observe POV. A quick browse at the "Current status" section tells me this - if I took a more observant look it may reveal further problems. LuciferMorgan 22:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(Agree about the citation needs, which are considerable. Would you consider highlighting the POV statements? cheers Cas Liber 05:00, 4 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  • Remove (sigh) Hold off (momentarily) - I haven't had time to devote to this but have to concede the article probably has too much work needed to fix refs and address content before this FARC runs out of time. I started to tinker with it but have no time to tinker more now Cas Liber 05:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Requested samples of POV statements

"Though the future looks brighter..." - This statement is arriving at a conclusion. To arrive at one, one would have to formulate a considered opinion - all opinions need citations, thus avoiding original research.

(changed to Though the long term prospects of survival look more secure, which sums up issue succinctly)Cas Liber 04:49, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"The surviving Kakapo population is intensively managed by the Kakapo Recovery Group" - by using the word 'intensively' one is suggesting their actions have been reviewed by an independent body and deemed 'intensively managed' by that group. Any evidence of such a report?

(agree. removed)Cas Liber 04:49, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Many faithfully watch over.." - The word 'faithfully' is POV here, as are adjectives in most instances.

(agree. removed)Cas Liber 04:49, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"It is hoped.." - By who? Who hopes?

(given the conservation bent of the article I would have thought that was fairly self-explanatory yet I concede it is not the best way to phrase it. Nothing better sprang to mind off-hand as yet)Cas Liber 05:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"These new methods, while increasingly successful, have revealed that the semen from many males contains abnormal sperm or no sperm at all." - Revealed where? Do we have reports that back up this claim? Nature studies?

(One of the many refs missing. I had nothing to do with the initial writing of the article so cannot hlep on that one)Cas Liber 05:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that the above examples help anyone wishing to improve the article during FARC and afterwards. LuciferMorgan 20:44, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(That is a great help. Looking I can see how much the text needs to be tweaked)Cas Liber 05:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Comment -looking again one of the problems is the size of the conservation segment,however conservation is a large part of the whole Kakapo story (and so the proportion of the article is about right??). Cas Liber 05:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that conservation is a large part of the Kakapo story and the proportion is roughly right. I do think though that the New Zealand Wildlife Service and Kakapo Recovery plan sections can be trimmed, and the Current status and Future sections can be merged and then trimmed too. CheekyMonkey 13:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I have introduced some citations and will trim the Conservation section into necessarily "heroic" story. :-) — Indon (reply) — 14:31, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update! - I have made a bulk change into the Conservation status. It has been trimmed into necessary facts and story, plus it is now backed with reliable sources. However, I have a terrible skill in prose (one has labelled me as a non-standard grammatical user), so could somebody please check the prose? — Indon (reply) — 15:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments not a lot of time to go through it today. Please check these headings for WP:MOS use of en- and em-dashes and caps WP:MSH
  • 4.3 1950 — 1989 conservation efforts
  • 4.4 Kakapo Recovery Plan SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Thanks. Prose? — Indon (reply) — 19:25, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update (citations) more inline citations have been provided. Please take a look for whom had voted for remove based on lack of inline citations. Are there still any statements needed for inline citations? — Indon (reply) — 21:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment great work on trimming and referencing the article. It'd be nice to have the map showing where they are put back in the article - I'll ask User:Grutness to update the old map. A section that describes the origin of its name and other cultural refs would be a good addition - but is probably not necessary for a keep. --Peta 23:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I feel that the issues have been dealt with: it now has appropriate headings and subheadings; the POV sentences were re-edited; the conservation section was trimmed though remains a large part of the article but given the decades-long fight to preserve it I feel this is appropiately proportional to the issues; it now has inline references; there may not be as many as some other articles but this is a single isolated bird and so there will be lower numbers of resource material compared with broader topics; I have tweaked some of Indon's syntax after he highlighted this. Cas Liber 10:08, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The table in "Kakapo recovery plan" needs WP:MOS attention to units of measurement. The entire article should probably be reviewed.[8] I requested a copyedit at WP:LoCE before Cas Liber went through - is it still needed? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:20, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The table does not contain any measurements, m=males and f=females. I should put this definition, my mistake. Sorry, Sandy. — Indon (reply) — 14:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Was that the last of it then? Keepable? Marskell 10:32, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Indon requested (above) that others look at his prose; I'm unclear if anyone has done that yet. If his request has been addressed, I'm a Keep. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yup - I went through after that. cheers Cas Liber 20:59, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article needs two more rounds of copy-editing by two editors just to make sure. If I have time later today, I'll do one of the rounds. — Deckiller 10:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I copyedited this one per request of Deckiller. I sprinkled some comments in the text, added a couple {{specify}} tags, and one {{fact}} tag. However, on revisiting the article, I notice that the citation I requested may in fact be covered by ref 3 (Powlesland, et. al). If that's the case, feel free to remove the fact tag. BuddingJournalist 04:07, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll complete the second round now. — Deckiller 12:40, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • This isn't my area of expertise, but I found some things that might fail Raul's Razor, and I made some pretty subjective tweaks. Someone familiar with the topic will have to give it a pass before we can close this as a keep. — Deckiller 13:23, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I read most of this through, and it seems pretty good. The comments in-text need to be dealt with (as I had thought almost the exact same things prior to seeing them), and then I would support keeping it. Trebor 22:50, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional keep — once someone somewhat familiar with the subject fixes the in-text queries, I'll be a full keep. — Deckiller 12:15, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, we just need somebody with a little familiarity with the page. Marskell 13:24, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I've just arrived from a short weekend-break. I'll try to look into the sources and respond to the comments above. — Indon (reply) — 12:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
With the final work from Indon, this can go keep. Marskell 13:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. 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 11:10, 15 February 2007.

Sly & the Family Stone edit

Review commentary edit

Messages left for FuriousFreddy, Music, and Bio. Jeffpw 09:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Criterion 1(c). The article is very poorly referenced, with only six footnotes in the entire article. ShadowHalo 08:10, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Needs more inline citations. Also, some weasly comments are made upon certain things which need citations also. LuciferMorgan 12:41, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Note that the article is referenced by the books listed, what this article is actually lacking is the level of inline citation we currently expect. No promises, but if someone can add {{citation needed}} to points that need an inline cite, I can give a shot at finding some. Jkelly 16:57, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Inline citations can be added if {{citation needed}} templates are added in requested places, as JKelly mentioned. The actual referencing is fine; this article was promoted to feature before the standard of having so many citation notes in each article (encyclopedias traditionally don't use citation notes; they use general references, as was done here). There are only six footnotes, but there are five whole articles, and an entire book in the references section. This essentially will amount to adding page number citations. --FuriousFreddy 17:53, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, hi... I didn't realise you were about. That certainly makes everything much easier. Jkelly 18:12, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"The Family Stone's first album, A Whole New Thing, was released in 1967 to critical acclaim but disappointing sales." What critics acclaimed the album, and what were the actual sales. Additionally, why were they deemed disappointing? LuciferMorgan 19:03, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That sentence can be cited from the book in the references. I will add most of these citations within a few days (when I am at home with the book, and can pull page numbers); the rest, I can start on now. --FuriousFreddy 13:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I think the main problem of the article is lack of citations. There many assertions that without citations look weasel. The prose is not bad in general, although there are some samples of choppy and repetitive prose ("Relationships within the band were deteriorating; there was friction in particular between the Stone brothers and Larry Graham. Epic demanded more product. The Black Panther Party demanded that Sly make his music more militant and more reflective of the black power movement, and also demanded that Sly replace Greg Errico and Jerry Martini with black instrumentalists".)--Yannismarou 21:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've gone through and added the {{fact}} tags (sorry, I confused it for {{citation needed}}). I may have been a little too generous in doing so, so whoever adds the citations should keep that in mind. ShadowHalo 06:48, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've gone in and added most of the ref tags. Anything still tagged with {{fact}} is from the Oral history book, and I'll add those tags at home. --FuriousFreddy 11:27, 18 January 2007
  • Comments. Not sure if special characters should be used in section headings? (Post Grammy 2006/2007 ) Some web source refs are missing access dates. The ref format (listing the URL retrieved from rather than linking it via the article title) is strange. Many citations still needed - the first one I saw was Entering drug rehabilitation to fight his ten-year cocaine addiction ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Listing the full URL, without liking it to the article title, is correct APA style referencing. It comes in particularly handy when you have an article that originated in print, but you're using a web copy of it. I will check all web source dates. I have also gone ahead and modified the references to remove the full URL from plain view, as you found it strange. --FuriousFreddy 05:40, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Footnotes can be consolidated for readability with the use of named refs, and see the comment on The Tempations review for an abbreviated book footnote style. A source is needed for the Top 40 singles. There's a very long caption on the image in Discography, which also requires a citation - see Wikipedia:Captions regarding succinctness. There are examples of text which - in the absence of a cite - appear as opinion or original research (It was instead a somber, dark-sounding record, with Sly singing in a low, depressed tone.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:26, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Instead of being vague and general, I'm going to need you to be specific (reguarding "There are examples of text which - in the absence of a cite - appear as opinion or original research"). I have a full-time job, and far too much work to finish to even be attempting to fulfill these requests right now. Please place {{cite}} tags in places where you feel citations are needed. And I do not understand how to combine the tags; please explain this technique, or assist me in doing so. --FuriousFreddy 01:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm sorry, but I can't continue this process, as it is proving detrimental to my work, my real-world responsibilities, and my livelihood. I'm sure any other issues with this article are minor to minuscule, so if someone else wants to help and fix them, they are welcome. I, however, am done. --FuriousFreddy 02:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sorry to hear that mate, but I commend you on making the decision to put your work, livelihood etc. first. LuciferMorgan 21:50, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary edit

Suggested FA criteria concern is insufficient citations (1c). Marskell 07:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove Certain statements still need citation. LuciferMorgan 22:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • What specific "certain statements"? I went through this article twice, and cited everything I could think to cite. What is still outstanding? --FuriousFreddy 02:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"By this time, the Sly & the Family Stone fanbase had eroded, and the acts the band had inspired were now eclipsing them as important funk artists."

What proof is there their fanbase eroded? What acts did they allegedly inspire, and what proof is there they were eclipsing them as important funk artists? LuciferMorgan 21:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Regardless of commercial success, both albums were highly influential across the music industry."

Proof? Who did these albums influence exactly? LuciferMorgan 21:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Even more pop-friendly than "Dance to the Music" had been, "Everyday People" was a protest against prejudices of all kinds, and popularized the catch phrase "different strokes for different folks"."

Pop-friendly? According to whom? Which music critics reckon this? Also, who reckons "Everyday People" is a protest? - this is lyrical interpretation, which unless comes from a critic or bandmember etc., is original research.

By the way, these are just examples. Best of luck in improving the article. LuciferMorgan 21:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The first line I removed, the second I revised and cited, and the third I cited. You say "these are just examples". So there's more? I can't do anything if I'm not getting specific directions as to what's wrong. I've already gone in and found everything I could find that seemed to need a citation. In short, I'm going to need you to list everything wrong with the article. You, or someone else, can add "citation needed" tags wherever you find a problem.

I feel that this featured article review process is being handled in a very hypocritical way. Time has been alloted to improve the FA aspects of Doctor Who and Doctor Who missing episodes without listing it for featured article review. Meanwhile, I receive no previous notification before a four-week ticking clock starts up (and there couldn't possibly have been a worse four weeks for it to start), when it's I and I alone who will have to deal with finding citations for these articles (not just because I did most of the writing in the first place, but because - let's be honest - most Wikipedians don't write about nor care about topics relating to African American culture). --FuriousFreddy 15:27, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No hypocrisy: We allow time to anyone who requests it; you specifically indicated above that you weren't going to be working on the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:57, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm talking about the fact that it was listed here in the first place, as LuciferMorgan grasps below. --FuriousFreddy 22:49, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, hold-up: Freddy has worked on the article. Work itself qualifies as a request for more time. So don't worry. The article is well on its way, and we often hit snooze on the ticking clock. Marskell 20:33, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'll add cite needed tags to whatever statements need citation for you, which I hope helps. Also, as Sandy said, you indicated you have no further time to help with the article. As concerns time being allocated to improve Doctor Who and Doctor Who missing episodes, this isn't actually correct - if someone nominates them for FAR, they are subject to the same procedures. They aren't exempt or anything - if you nominated them right here, right now, then here they'd be for example. We cannot control who nominates what for FAR as such, but advise people not to nominate certain articles. LuciferMorgan 22:28, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. That's all I ask. --FuriousFreddy 22:49, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
At least two of the taged sentences are cited in the sentence following, becuase two or more sentences are used to tell a certain anecdote. For example:

Later that year, the tension between Sly Stone and Larry Graham came to a head. A post-concert brawl broke out between Graham's entourage and Sly's entourage; Bubba Banks and Eddie Chin, having heard that Larry had hired a hit man to kill Sly, assaulted Graham's associates. Graham and his wife climbed out of a hotel window to escape with their lives, and Pat Rizzo gave them a ride to safety.

This story is related, in explicit violent detail, on pages 150 through 155 of the For the Record book, meaning all three sentences are referenced fro mthe same source. However, the second sentence is tagged, while the third concludes the story and was already cited. Nevertheless, I went ahead and cited both anyways. --FuriousFreddy 23:52, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alright sounds great. One thing; notes two and four need specific page numbers. Also, you don't need to quote the whole book name when citing a page. You can write;

Selvin, Joel (1998), p. 20. LuciferMorgan 02:26, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Freddy, if you'd like, I can do the work of shortening the book refs for you - it will make the rest of your work easier. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:22, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That would be much appreciated, as I see I have more cites to add. Thanks. --FuriousFreddy 03:21, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll get on that after morning coffee. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:48, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done; Freddy, here are the changes for your review. You should be able to follow suit now on adding book sources, using the format set up, giving the new page numbers. I noticed some WP:MOS issues to be on the lookout for: use a consistent date format, don't link solo years, link all full dates, [9] and watch out for the different uses of hyphens, en-dashes, and em-dashes. [10] Let us know if you need further input. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:11, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, I can see that work is happening on cites; there is a few too many fair use images, none of which have the appropriate source and fair use rationale on their images pages.--Peta 00:21, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the two images I felt were extraneous to the text (a second screencap from the Grammy show, and the photo of Sly holding the Family Stone in his hand, which used to be the "infobox" pic until I found the clear promo photo where everyone is the same size). The other photos are directly related to the text they surround; and the Nirvana (band) article includes a logo image. If there are any photos that you feel are truly extraneous to the text (keeping in mind that you're not going to find a free use image of the original Sly &the Family Stone), please be specific and list them. All rationales have been added, except for the Dance to the Music image, which already had one. --FuriousFreddy 15:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Status? How is work on the referencing proceeding? Can someone pitch in to help with a copyedit? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've finished adding all of the citations. What needs to be copyedited? --FuriousFreddy 03:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I haven't read the entire article, but I noticed some things in the lead which might indicate it could be helpful to have an independent run-through; if you don't mind dropping him a note Deckiller (talk · contribs) has been helpful lately. In the lead, I noticed, for example:
        • Brothers Sly Stone and singer/guitarist Freddie Stone had combined their bands (Sly & the Stoners and Freddie & the Stone Souls) in 1967. As a result, the two brothers were joined by trumpeter Cynthia Robinson, and drummer Gregg Errico. Saxophonist Jerry Martini and bassist Larry Graham completed the original lineup, and within a year, Sly and Freddie's sister, singer/keyboardist Rose Stone, joined as well. This collective were a major influence on the sound of American pop music in general and soul, R&B, funk, and later hip hop music in particular, recording five Top 10 hits and four groundbreaking albums.
          • The "as a result" doesn't follow logically, nor does "this collective were". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:01, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

mainpage date Feb 18; can we ask Deckiller or someone to run through it, so we can close the FAR ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Pre-review version and work completed during review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no objections to register as concerns the article retaining FA status. LuciferMorgan 17:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional keep - I'll finish the runthrough tonight; it looks quite good. Hopefully once I'm done we can archive this FAR. — Deckiller 21:15, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Before we remove the FAR, I'd like to give it a second pass. A lot of the issues are technical, such as excessive wikilinks and dash problems. — Deckiller 02:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it's pretty good now, at least to the point where we can remove the FAR(C). — Deckiller 10:44, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. 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 10:20, 13 February 2007.

Yosemite National Park edit

Review commentary edit

Messages left at Mav, California, and Protected areas. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lacking many references. (criteria 1c.) --W3stfa11 02:12, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mixed reference styles, inadequately cited, listy, See templates incorrectly used, photo galleries dominating text, layout needs work, has taken on an unencyclopedic tour guide tone in some parts. I corrected extensive WP:MSH problems. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I worked on SG's non-citation points (I think Mav will have to go back and add more references). hike395 10:18, 27 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • And I fixed the templates. The "Miscellaneous" section is actually trivia, that should be deleted or incorporated into appropriate sections. Referencing work will be needed. I'm wondering if others think Summer and winter activity sections should also be moved to the touristy article? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:01, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • A little bit of the summer/winter activity can be incorporated into the Activities section. The rest should be (re)moved. I'll try to help out with citations whenever I can. --W3stfa11 18:38, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that the summer/winter activity section can be turned into prose and rescued. I'll try and attempt that. hike395 21:24, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll bring out the refs I used to flesh out this article and add cites. --mav 22:55, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. Looks like plenty of other people are already working. To avoid edit conflicts I will work on getting uranium ready for FAC and will come back here once things settle down. So far, great work. --mav
Alternately, you could spend some time on your other FAs that need to be cited, so they don't have to come here. (I've cited all I can in Yosemite.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:23, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It does look like we can cite a lot of it from the websources (which are quality sources) already there - sorry for all the edit conflicts, I was trying to get a basic ref structure in place. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:20, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm noticing that most of the article was taken verbatim from the public domain (National Park Service), which means it must be cited to those websites it was taken from - for others working on the cites, look first there or via google. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:10, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I may have gotten most of the content from the National Park Service public domain cited; normally, the lead isn't cited, but since the text came directly from the NPS, I went ahead and cited it. That's probably all I can do for now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:03, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that this article is well put together. It seems that, given the cursory glance I made, it is well put together, flows nicely, and has enough sources to get by. → JARED (t)  14:34, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not an issue of counting sources or "enough to get by": it's a question of whether everything that should be cited, is cited. As an example, last time I looked at it, the lead said 1,189 something, when the refs I found said 1,200 - could be rounding, we need to know. Also, I couldn't verify the percent of wilderness. Those are only two examples from the lead. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:36, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well besides that though, it is put together nicely, and maybe some things need to be touched upon, like the lead and the sources. └Jared┘┌talk┐  17:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I found a couple sources for the 89% wilderness figure. I'm not sure how authorative they are though. Here's one. [11] --W3stfa11 19:14, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Here's a good one. [12] W3stfa11 19:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just added all the cites from the Geology of National Parks book I used as a reference. More cites later from Geology of U.S. Parklands. Please add {{cite}} where appropriate and I will also look up those specific facts. --mav 16:01, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Done for now. --mav 17:42, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting close. 89% wilderness needs to be cited (hard to verify), and most of History is uncited. There's a huge amount of work to be done on units of measurment - all need a non-breaking hardspace. [13]. I saw quite a few sentences that start with a number. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:23, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I seem to have forgot three other references I used: Yosemite National Park: A Natural History Guide to Yosemite and Its Trails by Schaffer, Yosemite: A Visitor's Companion by Wuerthner and Yosemite: Official National Park Service Handbook by the NPS. I'll dig them up and add more cites later; hopefully starting tomorrow and finishing a week from today. Any help with the measurements/numbers will be greatly appreciated. :) --mav 03:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Problem of size still needs to be resolved - the lead says 1,189 square miles (I can't find a source); body cites more common 1,200 square miles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More cites added and all Facts either fixed or removed. Please check. --mav 03:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The 1,189 vs. 1,200 square mile stat needs to be verified, cited, and sorted out—we can't be stating two different sizes in the same article without explanation, even if it's only rounding. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed in article. --mav 14:59, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary edit

Suggested FA criteria concern is referencing (1c). Marskell 11:24, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Much work done by Sandy, Hike, myself and others to address the concerns put forward (mainly, a lack of inline cites). I beleive this article is now up to current FA standards and vote to KEEP. --mav 14:59, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Mav asked on my talk why this got moved down given much work. The move from FAR to FARC is always "least harm". I check if there is definite consensus to close early and if I don't see it, I move it. (A much greater problem would be closing as a keep and being told later that serious issues remained.) When moving, I don't give the more thorough look at the history etc. as when closing. If everyone involved is "keep" right now, we can close it tonight! Marskell 18:39, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • As you were the only two working, away it goes. Marskell 10:18, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. 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 12:58, 5 February 2007.

The Quatermass Experiment edit

Review commentary edit

Author Angemering aware. Messages left at UK notice board, Television, and British TV shows. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm nominating this for FAR because the article;

  1. Lacks sufficient inline citations.
  2. Fails to discuss the Quatermass Experiment's impact on the horror genre, making the article not comprehensive.
  3. Has a "Reaction" section which is a little short, also making the article not comprehensive. LuciferMorgan 21:38, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Tricky one this — it's from back in the day, of course when standards were lower and I'm not sure there are enough published sources around to be able to provide sufficient citations to keep it at the modern FA level. (Although just as a sidenote, I'd question whether it had *any* impact on the horror genre — its influence was more on British television science-fiction, I'd say. British television horror as a genre doesn't really exist).
I speak as the author of the majority of the article, by the way, lest anyone was curious. Angmering 00:02, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I welcome your comments - when I referred to horror I meant the genre as a whole really, encompassing cinema also. If it had an impact on UK sci-fi TV though, it'd be great if this was expanded upon. LuciferMorgan 02:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try and beef it up a bit later on this week — I'm quite sure I can't get it to modern FA standards, but it's always good to make articles better for their own sake. :-) Angmering 20:44, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't worry so much about time constraints as editors are given extra time to work on things. Even if the article lost the FA badge, it could always be re-nominated if eventually brought back to standard. LuciferMorgan 20:47, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary edit

Suggested FA criteria concerns are insufficient citations (1c), and comprehensiveness (1b). Marskell 15:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Not that I expect it to stay as an FA, but I thought you'd like to know that I have gone through and expanded, referenced and generally tinkered with the article. I've also stripped out all but one of the fair use screen grabs, properly cited and justified the one that remains and added two free images I took myself. It's not great, I know, but it's a hell of a lot better than it was and hopefully won't shame the Featured Article section too much for the week or however long it is it has left on there. Angmering 23:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Angmering, I haven't yet read it, but on quick glance it appears well cited - why are you giving up on it? Referencing is often the hardest part - if there are still other concerns, and you intend to work on them, time can be extended. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:20, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not giving up on it, no, and if people think it's still salvageable I'd be happy to try and bring it further up to standard. I just assumed it wouldn't be good enough for that. Angmering 16:10, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, again with the caveat that I haven't read it yet, the other concerns raised had to do with the horror genre and critical reaction - can you/have you worked on those? I'll be glad to read the article and pitch in on reviewing the refs if you're not going to give up. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the influence on the horror genre had more to do with the film version, which has its own article at The Quatermass Xperiment. However, I have expanded the former "Reaction" section into a new "Reception and influence" section, which I think deals with critical reaction to the serial and its influence on later productions to a decent degree. I am more than willing to try and dig out more of this sort of stuff if it still seems lacking. Angmering 17:54, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The formatting of sources is well put together - no problem there. Sources are diverse and generally reliable - just a few questions:

  • Normally I'd object to the geocities personal website, but it appears to be a reliable source, and is used to source statements appropriately. While checking the source, I came across this prose: Doctor Who, the most successful of all British science-fiction programmes, was a show that Kneale disliked, also claiming that it had stolen ideas of his. It might be changed to ... a show that Kneale disliked, saying it had stolen his ideas. (Avoid "claim" per WP:WTA).
  • Concerned about the Doctor Who Restoration Team - who is BBC's Television Archivist, and how does http://www.purpleville.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/rtwebsite/quatermass-article.htm meet WP:RS (says it's a group of fans, but is only used to cite three relatively uncontroversial statements)?
  • I can't determine authorship, reliability on http://www.the-mausoleum-club.org.uk/

Other than those - which aren't used extensively - the article appears very well cited - you might ask LuciferMorgan to have a fresh look, and ping Tony1 (talk · contribs) or Outriggr (talk · contribs) to have a look at the prose, explaining to them the article is at FAR and well-referenced. I think work towards preserving this article's status is warranted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:03, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments — very good of you to take the time to have a good look through it. :-) In reply...
  • Avoiding the "claim" is a good point — I shall re-phrase the sentence as you suggest.
  • The Doctor Who Restoration Team are a group of Doctor Who fans who work within the technical side of the television industry, who since the early 1990s have provided extensive restoration to Doctor Who DVD releases for BBC Worldwide and latterly 2 entertain Ltd. They also performed restoration work on the Quatermass Collection DVD release in 2005, hence the link to the page on their website explaining their work on that set. The main page of their website explains a bit more about them (it's frame-based, and as I linked directly to the Quatermass page in the reference there was probably no way for you to navigate around, so apologies for that). Independent verification of the team's activities and status comes from the official BBC Doctor Who website, and a feature in The Guardian. I'm not sure how exactly I'd go about establishing all this on the Quatermass Experiment page, though?
  • I don't think it's necessary to establish reliability in the article - if you make a case for a source on the article talk page, and it's not used extensively in the article or to source anything very controversial, there should be no problem. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:09, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Mausoleum Club is a well-regarded British archive television website, but I can see how there might be credibility problems with establishing that for someone from outside the archive television enthusiast community... There's a link to it on this official BBC page for the "TV on Trial" season, if that's any good. The Mausoleum Club article doesn't provide much information I can't source from elsewhere, but the main reason I used it was because I was concerned that — as you will no doubt have noticed — the "Production" section uses predominantly Andrew Pixley's 40,000-word Viewing Notes booklet from the Quatermass Collection DVD release for references. I was concerned that having so many citations to one publication might be frowned upon, so tried to cite the same information from other sources wherever I could.
  • Thanks again — LuciferMorgan is on a wikibreak I believe, but I shall leave a message at his talk page asking him to take another look, and contact one of the other chaps you mentioned. Angmering 20:53, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Will do! And I shall place that reliability information about the Restoration Team on the article's talk page. Angmering 21:16, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think my nomination concerns have been addressed. Very good work, and it's nice to see FAs improved. Congratulations on that. I'd still like FAR regulars to cast their eyes over the article though, and to pay specific attention to prose (not one of my strengths). Currently my remove has been striked, but if other editors find sufficient cause I'll recast the vote based on other reasons. On a side note, I notice you have some other FAs which may find their way to FAR sooner or later. If you genuinely intend to brush these up, can we enter some kinda arrangement where I can point out what I feel is wrong with X article and you can address this, all without the FAR process? Then if the articles wounded up on FAR, they'd be much easier to give a final polish to then. LuciferMorgan 23:27, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto Angmering - would love to see you bring BBC television drama and Quatermass and the Pit to standard, so we can count them as keeps without FAR - let us know if you need help. Unless another editor has a problem with the prose here, I think it's good to go. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:54, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like a few more editors to give the prose a quick look first before closing this one. I'm willing to help as concerns Angmering's efforts to brush up his own FAs as he hopefully knows. Where us FAR people can notice such efforts from others to improve their own FAs, I hope we can do something similar with other editors / Wikiprojects - try to help / talk etc. so that other articles don't reach FAR. As I said, I'm hoping the Doctor Who Wikiproject would be up for this as an example. This'll help concerned Wikipedians / Projects with multiple FAs. LuciferMorgan 03:02, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you all know that User:Outriggr has very kindly been through and completed a copyedit of the article, making various improvements. Angmering 07:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at one section only and found some redundancy, wordiness, and choppy prose - it could use another runthrough. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try and have another run through it myself later on. Angmering 14:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Have you seen User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a? You can probably do a lot of the redundancy reducing (for example, those "very"s I removed sounded fancrufty). Printing out the article and seeing it on paper can be helpful for the final runthrough. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hold. This still has time in FARC, so no need to get too worried. Angmering has asked me for a copyedit; I'll do my best over the next 48. Marskell 19:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Marskell. I have had a go myself this evening at doing another sweep, but hopefully a fresh pair of eyes and more experienced copyeditor such as yourself will be able to do much better. Angmering 19:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone through about half of this and I'm finding prose concerns to be minor. If others are happy with the referencing I think it is definitely in keep territory. Marskell 18:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I can't find any valid concerns for removal. I wouldn't object to this article retaining status. LuciferMorgan 21:32, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. 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 12:15, 5 February 2007.

Roe v. Wade edit

Messages left at Noah Peters, Abortion, U.S. Supreme Court cases. Severa 00:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC) Additional message at Law. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article, in my opinion, no longer meets the criteria of a Featured Article. The 22:43, 22 January 2007 version has changed substantially from the 06:57, 8 February 2005 versison (around the time when the article was reviewed).

Many of these changes, I believe, are off-topic and deviate the focus of the article from the Roe case itself to ethical questions more relevant at Abortion debate. Some edits verge on personal commentary (POV):

  • (In "Controversy over Roe" section. Off-topic, editorialistic, unsourced, and somewhat weaselly).
    "In addition to the two groups mentioned by Justice Breyer, it appears from polls that there are also millions of Americans who take an intermediate position.'"
  • (In "Public opinion" section. Off-topic, speculatory, and editorialistic).
    "In reply, 49% of respondents indicated favor while 47% indicated opposition. The Harris organization has misreported the results of this poll, for example by reporting that "49 percent now support Roe vs. Wade." In fact, the poll question only dealt with first trimester abortions, and it is known that the legality of later abortions is more controversial. Pro-life groups assert that the media has often misreported polls on the issue of abortion."

I believe that a review is in order. Also, yes, it January 22 where I am. -Severa (!!!) 00:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Severa that the two sentences she cites could have been phrased more neutrally. Therefore, I have done so. With these two improvements, the article seems to meet the criteria of a Featured Article. I agree it has changed substantially from the 06:57, 8 February 2005 version, and these changes have markedly improved the article, in my view.Ferrylodge 00:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article is lacking in citations. It has 26 citations, but several individual paragraphs and entire sections have no references at all, thus failing 1(c). In fact, large sections, given over to quotes, do not have a citation for the quote. It also contains many one-sentence paragraphs, thus making for choppy prose. In section Jane Roe switches sides, there is a parenthetical suggestion to see another article, without parentheses, but with an external jump. I do think this article needs to be cleaned up to meet the current FA criteria. Jeffpw 12:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments. I've just beefed up the footnotes a bit; there are now 31 instead of 26. Also, I've made the text less choppy, by ensuring that each paragraph has at least two sentences. There are no more external jumps, except from the footnotes. Incidentally, there were zero footnotes in the 06:57, 8 February 2005 version (around the time when the article was reviewed). Ferrylodge 22:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Section headings don't conform to WP:MOS, WP:MSH, See also contains terms which should be linked in the text, footnotes aren't correctly formatted with a consistent bibliographic style, including publisher and last access date on websites. The article is undercited - as an example, see the "Justiciability" section. The article relies very heavily on direct quotes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments, SandyGeorgia. I'm learning quite a bit here. As you suggested, I have fixed the headings, and I also deleted the "See also" section because all of the listed items had already been linked in the text. Additionally, I retrieved all of the stuff in the footnotes, and noted the retrieval date for retrieved articles. Also, there's now a cite in the Justiciability section. I have shortened several of the quotes, and reduced the number of blockquotes. And, I followed your suggestion to insert the name of the publisher into the book citations in the footnotes.Ferrylodge 06:52, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to know there is an involved editor willing to correct the deficiencies, Ferrylodge. The references still need some work in terms of a consistent bibliographic style (particularly the websources, which should also include publisher). Knowing that someone is working on the article, we can go through and give you a list of items that need addressing - some of us don't put the time into going through an article in greater detail until we know someone is willing to work on it :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, fire away. I don't know exactly what it means for an article to be "featured", but I figured it couldn't hurt to keep this article in featured status. Please show some mercy, and don't have me do more than necessary to keep it featured.  :-) Ferrylodge 15:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's on my list (just returning from travel - still catching up). I'll leave a note to other reveiwers to have a look as well. In the meantime, you might want to browse WP:WIAFA, and some of the candidates at WP:FAC. You might also move ahead on checking for citations: be wary of counting citations or broad statements about the number of citations per paragraph or section - look for specific facts that require citation. That may be zero, one or dozens per paragraph - direct quotes and anything controversial or likely to be challenged should be cited. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:19, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The footnotes are still not correctly formatted, and all websources don't have a last access date. For editors not familiar with a specific citation style, it can be helpful to use the cite templates to achieve a consistent and complete formatting style. References should be alphabetical - not clear on primary vs. secondary there. There are weasle words (Anthony M. Kennedy, was seen as a potential anti-Roe vote - seen by whom? Needs a cite), and the article still needs to be thoroughly cited. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am glad to try to address all of those concerns within the next few days. However, no time today. What is the time frame for this evaluation?Ferrylodge 16:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The typical time under review is two weeks, and then another two weeks in the FARC period (even if the article moves to FARC, when work is ongoing, reviewers typically hold off on Keep or Remove opinions). If work is ongoing and progress is evident, we usually extend review time, so just keep us updated on your progress, give us feedback, and let us know if you need more time or want us to have another look at your progress. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:47, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I'll keep you posted.Ferrylodge 19:52, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I've added a bunch more footnotes, more retrieval dates in the footnotes, alphabetized references (getting rid of the division between "primary" vs. "secondary"), and getting rid of weasel words. Plus some clarification here and there. Regarding format of footnotes, I've tried to make it a consistent format. Guidelines say to follow the system used for an article's existing citations, so that's what I tried to do. Please feel free to comment some more, but keep in mind that I'm not aiming for perfection here, though I wish I had the time to do so.Ferrylodge 04:41, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Severa, I would have no problem at all if we delete the images of Weddington and McCorvey. The images of Blackmun and White should stay, though, because they are public domain. Would you like to wipe out Weddington and McCorvey, or shall I?Ferrylodge 20:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I went ahead and deleted the copyrighted images of McCorvey and Weddington, just to be safe. The other two photos are public domain.Ferrylodge 22:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Well it needs citations, especially the "Controversy" section. LuciferMorgan 14:13, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comment. A bunch of new cites are now in the Controversy section, and elsewhere.Ferrylodge 04:41, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ferrylodge, here's a new problem. WP:WIAFA says articles should conform to all relevant Project standards. I noticed two external jumps in the lead, using a standardized template - I went over to Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases to see if they are encouraging external jumps in the text, prepared to disagree (it's a pet peeve). In fact, the Project guidelines do (correctly) specify that external jumps to the case law belong in External links. The other problem is that, while I was there, I noticed that the article layout doesn't agree with their standard. Can you have a look at that, and also remove the external jumps per their guidelines? You already have the cases correctly referenced, so the external jumps aren't needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:14, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I just eliminated the external jumps. Regarding the overall layout, please note that Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases says that certain layouts are "suggested". Roe is an unusual case with unusual ramifications, so I think it's appropriate to be a bit unique here, and depart somewhat from the suggestions. In fact, down at the bottom of the guidelines, three examples of particularly well-written case articles are given, and this article is one of those three listed examples. In a parenthetical, it is stated that: "though none follow a suggested outline particularly well, all are featured articles."[14] Whether that is a criticism or just a statement of fact, I don't know. Anyway, if we can continue with the present format, I'd appreciate it, because it does seem to cover all the bases in a way that meshes with the actual facts involving this particular case.Ferrylodge 16:15, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
ah, Ok, thanks for investigating - sounds good. Another question - they ask that the case law be included in External links, but normally something that is already given in refs need not also be included in External links - not sure how to resolve that - maybe you'd be interested in following up with them? Since it's ambiguous, I'm not going to object on this issue, but we might get it cleared up. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:15, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I investigated your question a little bit. According to case citation guidelines, a citation to the United States Reports looks like this:
So, when you read a Wikipedia article about a case, such as Arizona v. Evans, you'll often find such citations right in the middle of the text, including the external link. However, Wikipedia editors have noted the following: "Court citations are not always recognized by laypeople as providing source information (though this is obviated by the usual practice of external links to the full text)." So, many case article have not only a cite and external link in the text, but also list one or more cases in the external links. The Wikipedia guidelines about case citations say: "If you are looking for the actual text of an opinion, it is usually linked in the external links at the bottom of the article on that case."
The way all of this has been handled in the Roe article is to mention a case in the text with an internal link and/or a footnote that includes an external link. Also, the main case (i.e. Roe v. Wade) is listed in the external links. I am satisfied with this approach; I think the article flows better with the case cites (e.g. 143 U.S. 246) in the footnotes rather than cluttering up the text. And, for people who have come to expect a link to the full text in the "external links", the Roe article provides that too. I'd be glad to change any of this, but the way it is now seems okay too.Ferrylodge 19:57, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much for investigating: if those are the guidelines, it seems fine. My main concern is that we not have external jumps in the text. I left a note for the nominator (Severa) to check back in with any other concerns here, but his/her talk page indicates s/he has the flu. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:29, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. I'm now through making edits for the time being, unless you suggest more.Ferrylodge 23:07, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Severa declined (on my talkpage) to review the FAR. In checking the references, I saw a personal AOL homepage website which should be replaced with a reliable source:
  • Roe v. Wade, 314 F. Supp. 1217 (1970). Abortion Law Homepage. Retrieved 2007-01-26 SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:14, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The district court case is available at answers.com, so I've linked to that instead. FWIW, I've tried to be objective and not insert any POV. (It would have been a much more colorful article if my POV were allowed.)Ferrylodge 03:28, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Careful with answers.com - it contains Wiki mirrors - not a reliable source. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:33, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I left some additional invites to try and stir up some interest, for SlimVirgin, Oskar Sigvardsson, and Sfahey who were involved in the initial review, and also Postdlf and Eastlaw who have edited many case articles including this one. Do you have conserns that are still outstanding, SandyGeorgia? Ferrylodge 05:41, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't thoroughly read the article to make sure everything that needs to be referenced is referenced - I'd rather wait until people familiar with the law and the issues have been through. So far, I've focused on making sure your references are correctly formatted, reliable sources, and the article follows MOS guidelines. I really don't look forward to reading an abortion article, so I've been putting it off :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:33, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Quite understandable.Ferrylodge 17:46, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I started to read the article, and didn't get past the first few paragraphs. The prose is a wreck, and I found unreferenced info right out of the starting gate. Perhaps people who follow the case aren't aware that people who didn't/don't have never heard that Roe was allegedly raped. The article is going to need a sustained effort at further referencing, as well as a copy edit. If someone is going to do all that, we'll have to add fact tags. If someone is going to take it on, pls keep the FAR posted; then I'll give further examples, but I seem to be the only editor reviewing this article. I also found wikilinking problems in the lead - why was state linked, and federal not? Wikilinking will need attention. I also found weasly, "opinion" statements which call for citation. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, if you're willing to keep pointing out what needs work, I'm willing to fix it. I've already fixed what you've pointed out so far. I'm in process of adding some more footnotes. I guess this is what happens when a bunch of people collaborate on an article.Ferrylodge 02:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All right, I'll keep trudging through it - glad you're working on it - sorry for sounding irritated, but it's always frustrating when I'm the only reviewer working on a given article. Would sure appreciate more eyes on these FARs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another look:

  • Ref 3 appears to be a google cache - I believe those are not enduring? Needs a real source, and to be correctly formatted.
  • Still have problems with Answers.com as a source - it's a mirror, not reliable.
  • Please wikilink full dates in refs.
  • Ref 9 - e.g. see Ronald Reagan - isn't correctly formatted. See WP:CITE for examples, or use cite templates.
  • The formatting on the refs is bouncing all over the place - using cite templates might help impose some order. Last name first is helpful.
  • Prose problems still evident - examples:
  • Why are these two clauses joined with an "and": Roe is one of the most controversial and politically significant cases in U.S. Supreme Court history, and its lesser-known companion case was decided at the same time in 1973: Doe v. Bolton.
  • Whether a state can choose to deem the act of terminating ... surely that can be said in a much more straightforward way ?? The decision prompted national debate that continues to this day over whether a state can choose to deem the act of terminating a pregnancy
  • The lead is sounding weasly: Some critics of Roe also believe ...
  • Are law cases supposed to be italicized per WP:MOS - I'm not sure, pls check.
  • History of case is written in legalese - and - the people themselves arrived? Why do we care? Both "Jane Roe" and defendant Wade arrived at the Supreme Court on appeal, where the case was argued by Weddington and Texas Assistant Attorney General Jay Floyd on December 13, 1971.
  • Skipping down a few sections to see how citationn is coming along:
  • (This seems to introduce some POV, and is incorrectly punctuated) - A plurality of Reagan-Bush appointees, O'Connor, Kennedy, and Souter, reaffirmed that the Constitution protects a right of abortion.
  • (The opinions were joined by people? What does "as well as by each other mean?) Rehnquist and Scalia filed dissenting opinions which were joined by Justices White and Thomas, as well as by each other.
  • Decipher and cite this:
  • During the 1990s, attempts were made at the state level to ban certain late-term abortions, which were struck down, again by a 5-4 vote, in Stenberg v. Carhart (2000), with Justice Kennedy, co-author of the Casey decision, among the dissenters. Here is what Justice Kennedy wrote about those second trimester abortions that the states were not seeking to prohibit, in the Stenberg case: "The fetus, in many cases, dies just as a human adult or child would: It bleeds to death as it is torn from limb from limb. The fetus can be alive at the beginning of the dismemberment process and can survive for a time while its limbs are being torn off." This statement raises questions about Justice Kennedy's continued support for Casey and Roe.
  • Besides the prose and citation problems, "Here is what" is not formal encyclopedic tone. "Raises questions" is uncited, sounds like original research or opinion.

Many, many problems here - without serious attention to prose, citing, and references, this is on the express train to FARC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll get on it soon. I've made so many fix-ups to this article unilaterally that I've been hesitant to do more, for fear of seeming like a dictator. However, your comments SandyGeorgia really help justify more fixups. Good work. (Though I admit that one or two of the problems you cite may have been caused by my own edits, alas.) Ferrylodge 19:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC.)
Sorry 'bout that; I often intentionally do not look at the edit history so my comments will be general and hopefully not aimed at any one person :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Status Report edit

Okay, thanks again for the additional comments. I feel much better making so many fix-ups with someone else agreeing about them.

In Ref 3, I have replaced the google cache with a real source (pdf). I have eliminated the Answers.com source, and replaced it with a Wikimedia source. I have wikilinked the full dates in refs, and put last name first in the refs.

Wiki is not a reliable source - if something is sourced there, use the soruce directly in this article. 15:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I've fixed prose problems such as breaking this into two sentences: "Roe is one of the most controversial and politically significant cases in U.S. Supreme Court history, and its lesser-known companion case was decided at the same time in 1973: Doe v. Bolton." Also fixed the awkward phrase "Whether a state can choose to deem the act of terminating." Also eliminated weaselly sounding "Some critics of Roe also believe..."

Yes, all cases must be italicized per WP:MOS.

Thanks for letting me know that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've rewritten the "History of case" section to tone down the legalese (I'm not the one who wrote it in the first place!).

In the section on Planned Parenthood v. Casey, I've corrected punctuation and tried to eliminate any POV-sounding stuff. Yes, lawyers say that one judge "joined" another's opinion, but I've changed it to "signed" which non-lawyers might understand better. Also fixed awkward phrasing about who signed what.

In the section on Stenberg, I've hopefully deciphered it. Added quote and cite from Justice Ginsburg. Eliminated unencyclopedic tone, and appearance of original research/opinion.

I'm willing to work on this some more, with further guidance. I don't want to be editing this so heavily all by myself, without guidance. What does the "C" in "FARC" stand for, by the way? UPDATE: Never mind, I see it stands for "candidates".Ferrylodge 05:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have the same concern you have - currently, only you and I are reviewing the article - not good. I am pretty frustrated that no one else is helping out, as this topic is not in my area of interest, and not something I'm particularly familiar with. FAR = Featured article review; FARC = Featured article removal candidate. Articles move from review to removal candidates if improvements aren't made. We need more reviewers, particularly when we have an editor willing to do the work and looking for feedback. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are currently four possible sources for the Roe v. Wade District Court case (Roe v. Wade, 314 F. Supp. 1217 (1970)). Are any of the following four possible sources acceptable, or should I just omit a link entirely, and cite without a link?
1) http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0f/Roe.pdf
2) http://www.answers.com/topic/roe-v-wade-3#Roe_vol1_315-323
3) http://hometown.aol.com/abtrbng/roedist.htm
4) http://www.andrewhyman.com/roe.html
Ferrylodge 16:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You don't have to provide an online source for a legal document which should be available somewhere somehow in a library. Cite the document as one would cite a hardprint, legal document, and then provide (at the end of the cite) a courtesy link to wikimedia. How does a person locate this document in a library, for example? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks. Hopefully this cite is okay now. A person would use the case cite to find the case in a library. In any law library, there's a set of books titled "Federal Supplement", and that's what the case cite refers to ("F. Supp."). The footnote now says:
Roe v. Wade, 314 F. Supp. 1217 (1970), http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0f/Roe.pdf (courtesy link). Retrieved 2007-02-01.
Ferrylodge 19:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not my area, but I believe that works - what is important is that the person who cited the article verified the *actual* text, rather than relying on a non-reliable source (courtesy link). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Break edit

  • Comment. After feeling suitably chastised by Sandy, I had a look over the article and made minor changes (mostly to style/grammar, feel free to revert if I've made it worse). A few of the things I wasn't sure about (I have no expertise on this topic):
  • Not many state laws had been overturned by the Griswold case in 1965, whereas abortion was widely proscribed by state laws in the early 1970s. - I'm not following this. Had anything changed between 1965 and early 1970s? If not, the "whereas" is very confusing.
  • Valid state interests, however, must be weighed against the constitutionally protected rights of individuals in order to determine whether a law is a constitutional exercise of power - this feels a bit too assertive to me; it's written as a fact, and so has a different tone to the surrounding text. Could it be changed to something like "The court weight valid state..."?
  • The Court believed itself competent only to resolve the question of when a right to abortion begins. - is "competent" the right word to use? It may well be, I just feel it isn't right in line with the quotation.
  • Also, many Americans believe that, although some abortions should be allowed, Roe went too far. - I think this needs a cite to a survey of some sort. Although a relevant Wikipedia article is linked, it can't count as a reference, and this is a statement that could be challenged.

From reading the first half, it seems that this article is in pretty good shape, as good as a lot of the articles that come to FAC and pass. The prose is a little heavy-going, but that seems inevitable in a legal article. This can probably be saved. Trebor 19:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for the good comments, Trebor. I have just edited the article to address almost all of the points you raise, and I hope those edits will be satisfactory. I have not yet had a chance to address your last comment (regarding what "many Americans believe"), but will try to do so later today. My plan is to copy some of the footnotes from the relevant linked Wikipedia article.Ferrylodge 20:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reading through the controversy section, it could do with being trimmed and focused a bit. Certain sentences and paragraphs are pretty unrelated to Roe, and just give background on the pro-life debate. It's not bad, just a little rambling in places. Also:

  • The assertion that the Supreme Court was making a legislative decision is often repeated by opponents of the Court's decision. The "viability" criterion, which Justice Blackmun acknowledged was arbitrary, is still in effect, although the point of viability has receded toward conception as medical science has found ways to help premature babies survive. - I think the first sentence needs to be cited, and perhaps the second. Trebor 22:02, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I've done some more edits, footnoting the statement about what "many Americans believe", also footnoting that opponents say Roe was legislative, and also footnoting that viability has receded since 1973. And, I've trimmed and focussed the Controversy section a bit, so that it focuses more on Roe than on the general abortion issue. More comments are welcome, if you like. Certainly, this review has improved the article considerably, compared to its condition when the review began. Thanks Trebor and Sandy.Ferrylodge 00:38, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As of now, I'm through making edits for the time being, unless you suggest more.Ferrylodge 02:24, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As another example of prose and referencing problems, looking at the final section, which is one paragraph:

In 2003, Congress passed a Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, which is currently in litigation. The Supreme Court heard arguments in November 2006 on the issue, and a decision in Gonzales v. Carhart is expected in 2007. Despite the Court's previous ruling in Stenberg v. Carhart that banning partial birth abortion is unconstitutional because such a ban would not allow for the health of the mother, the Court is again deciding whether to allow this ban because Congress researched the issue and passed a law reflecting its conclusion that this type of abortion is never necessary for the health of the mother. While the Court can trump Congressional laws if they are unconstitutional, the Court typically defers to Congress's findings of fact. Whether the Court decides for itself if Congress was clearly wrong, defers to the judgement call of Congress if Congress was not clearly wrong but the issue is reasonably disputable, or simply decides to follow Congress is yet to be seen. It is also possible that the Court will take this opportunity to revisit its holding in Roe. The case may illuminate how the newly appointed Justices, John Roberts and Samuel Alito, reason about this and similar issues.
  • "currently" needs definition, or it will become outdated - this can be solved by joing the first and second sentences with a semi-colon. "On the issue"? Is there a case name? If the case name is Gonzalez v. Carhart, then re-write the entire thing to say so. The next sentence, beginning with "despite" is a snake - see Tony1a examples above. "Because Congress researched the issue and passed a law reflecting its conclusion that this type of abortion ... " SHEESH - before I get halfway through, I'm lost, and I've never been told what the law is or does. ... because Congress passed (name the law or whatever), allowing partial birth abortion. Why is the sentence beginning with "While" here? I don't see what it's adding to the article. The sentence beginning with Whether is not encyclopedic - it's speculation, not needed. Ditto for "IT is also possible". Ditt ofr "The case may ... " This is an encyclopedia, not a pro- or anti-anything article. Just the facts. This section is almost completely redundant. Someone still needs to take a major red pen to this article. IF it can be argued that any of this content stays, then it all needs to be referenced, or else it's original research and opinion. The redundancy throughout the article is a killer - I suggest printing out the article, looking at it on paper, and thinking about encyclopedic, factual content, succintly stated, opinions referenced and attributed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:49, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that that last paragraph could use a major rewrite, and I'm glad you agree. I'll get on it soon. By the way, I had nothing to do with writing it or revising it (except that I wrote the sentence "It is also possible that the Court will take this opportunity to revisit its holding in Roe" which I admit does sound a bit speculative although the fact is that the case does present that option). Anyway, I'll take a crack at revising the final paragraph. I already did a comprehensive prose edit of the Controversy section, but have not done so for the whole article. I am hesitant to try overhauling the whole article, because I really haven't gotten a sense whether you think the changes I've made thus far during this review have been okay as far as they went. If not, then someone else should comprehensively edit "throughout the article." I feel most comfortable having you point out specific sections and specific problems. Anyway, I'll get started on the last section this evening.Ferrylodge 03:05, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know it's not your writing, and I hate editing this article :-) I've gone now through the bottom half of the article; here are my changes. I'm finding a lack of attention to wikilinking, unattributed opinion, some subtle POV, and much redundancy - these edits should give you an example of what to look for throughout. Keep up the good work! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:21, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Sandy, I appreciate that you dove into this article even though it's not exactly an article about the Sound of Music. I'll dive back in as well.Ferrylodge 03:28, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here are a series of statements that simply must be rewritten:

  • Others have said that, ...
  • Also, many Americans believe that, ...
  • Many conservatives and other supporters of federalism ...
  • Some liberals have felt ...
  • several states enacted or attempted ...
  • Some academics ...
  • Many Americans vigorously support ...

Some of these statements are somewhat cited, but the statements are still weasly - rewording to avoid the vagueness will help.

  • Fueled by the intensity of feelings in both its supporters and critics, the controversy over Roe shows no sign of abating. Details about how millions of Americans view this issue can be found in polling data about abortion.
    • "No signs of abating"? This sort of commentary isn't an encyclopedic restating of the case - it's advocacy - reword it to just the facts. "Details about ..." is unencyclopedic prose - find a more seamless way to work the poll dat into the article text.

Keep going! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:34, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused about citation needs here - I don't want to slap on a bunch of cite tags when presumably a lot of the uncited direct quotes come from the opinions written by the Justices - but how do I know that? Do I have to read each case? <grrrr ... > Just not sure if more cites are needed on direct quotes, or if it's clear to others they come from the case, and which case. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:36, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That makes two of us who are confused.  :) If this were a law review article, then we would be footnoting every reference to a case, and describing the relevant page number of the case in each respective footnote (or including footnotes that say "Id."). However, I don't think that's as necessary here.Ferrylodge 05:27, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'm through for the day. I think all of Sandy's specific points have now been addressed. I should be able to get a job at Britannica after this.  :-) Ferrylodge 07:07, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here are all of my most recent edits, subsequent to Sandy's most recent edits. I am through editing, unless and until there are more comments or guidance here at the review page. Are we getting close to where we need to go?Ferrylodge 23:38, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't comment particularly on comprehensiveness or balance, which is why an editor more knowledgeable in legal matters would be useful. But I don't think we're miles off. Few more comments:

  • The accessdates are inconsistent: sometimes "retrieved" is capitalised, and sometimes they aren't there at all.
  • Most prominent among pro-choice groups is the National Abortion Rights Action League. Most prominent among pro-life groups is the National Right to Life Committee. - combine the sentences and save some words, it seems odd to phrase successive sentences in almost identical ways (I had to double read it to check they weren't the same).
  • Is there any expansion on public opinion? I'd be particularly interested in reactions immediately after the decision, and variation between then and now.

Keep up the good work :) Trebor 23:48, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for the comments, Trebor. I have now addressed those three points. Regarding public opinion, I have expanded that section, and inserted a new footnote that links to a graph showing the changing support for Roe since 1973.Ferrylodge 00:53, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding comprehensiveness and balance, I'm an attorney knowledgeable in legal matters. However, I have a bias against Roe.
I've tried to be completely neutral in this article. My personal opinion is laid out in an op/ed I wrote a few years ago (here). Regarding comprehensiveness, the present article does not discuss what a post-Roe legal regime might be like, but that would involve speculation, not to mention an almost limitless range of possibilities (including those mentioned in my op/ed).
I guess you'll have to decide whether we need an editor knowledgeable in legal matters, but who perhaps has a different personal viewpoint than mine. Anyway, I think the article is in good shape (but then again, I naively thought so up at the top of this page!).Ferrylodge 02:00, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh okay, I'm reassured by that (and would be worried if you were an attorney not knowledgeable in legal matters ;) ). Don't have time to check the changes now but will have a look later. Trebor 09:49, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe if more attorneys were knowledgeable in legal matters, there wouldn't be any Roe v. Wade decision.  :) Anyway, I just noticed that we're at 47 footnotes now. At the beginning of the year, there were only seven (7). Not that a lot of footnotes always make an article better, of course, but they certainly do make an article look more intimidating.  :) Ferrylodge 10:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, the Public Opinion section still needs work. That graph would be nice to include in the article, but I'm not sure about copyrights. I'd prefer the section to be more chronological and descriptive (of course, if sources allow). Something like, "Straight after the poll people felt like this, over the years this has changed, a recent poll said this". Hope you understand what I mean. Trebor 15:15, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Gosh, that's the same section I just happened to check - it is replete with weasle words, original research and unsourced opinion. "and it is known that ..." " the results of the poll are revealing, because the question has been asked consistently ever since Roe was decided. Judging by the poll results, ..." The article still has an advocacy rather than encyclopedic tone. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:07, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at another random section:

  • Rendundancies stil: Many l Liberal legal scholars have ...
  • refs in the wrong place: In a 1973 article in the Yale Law Journal,[20] Professor ... (put the ref here at the end of the direct quotes)
  • (snake for chopping): Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and other liberals such as legal affairs editor Jeffrey Rosen and Michael Kinsley, have also criticized the court's ruling in Roe v. Wade, for terminating a nascent democratic movement to liberalize abortion law which was a movement they contend might have built a more durable consensus in support of abortion rights. (also, reference for what "they contend"?)
  • Ref in wrong place, are editorials the best source for this section? Washington Post editorial writer Benjamin Wittes has written that Roe "is a lousy opinion that disenfranchised millions of conservatives on an issue about which they care deeply",[26] and his colleague Richard Cohen [27] has expressed a similar view.
  • redundant prose: Edward Lazarus, a former Blackmun clerk who "loved Roe’s author like a grandfather" has stated as follows: (said):

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to address these additional points. But, I'm a little hazy about what Trebor is referring to, about "copyrights" (which is kind of ironic since I'm an intellectual property attorney (patents, trademarks, and copyrights)). What's the copyright problem with the public opinion section? UPDATE: Oh, never mind, I get it. You're talking about the Harris poll graph. I should have figured that out. Ferrylodge 20:10, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Next break edit

I keep coming back, hoping we can consider this one done; every time I look at a sample section, there are still basic prose problems and easy to spot redundancies like these. Very controversial = controversial. about various aspects of this landmark ruling = about this landmark ruling. I'm going to list this article at WP:LoCE to see if we can convince a copyeditor to take a red pen to it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:36, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a table in the public opinion section. As for redundancy, I'm a lawyer after all.  :) But I have been trying to be encyclopedic (and unweaselly!). Ferrylodge 21:48, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I left some inline comments - in the article, so a search on <! to find inlines that need to be addressed. I have no idea what the numbers in that table are - plus and minus relative to what? We'll get you yet to write like an encyclopedia instead of a lawyer :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:31, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Trebor asked for a table. But there are problems. First, there's the copyright issue, because we can't just duplicate the graph at the Harris poll website. Second, I wouldn't even want to duplicate that graph, because the poll question was all messed up. Third, Harris seems to the the only pollster that is showing poll results ever since Roe was written in 1973.
In the table I made, consider the year 1976. It says +7% support. This is because the Harris Poll graph shows that support for Roe climbed from 52% to 59% between 1973 and 1976. Also, the table show -14% opposition in 1976. This is because the Harris poll graph shows that opposition to Roe fell from 42% to 28% between 1973 and 1976.Ferrylodge 22:40, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Did I want a table? Anyway, mine were just ideas for the section. I thought it would be nice to include something about the immediate public response, not just the current opinion. It doesn't have to track every year. Trebor 22:48, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You wanted the Harris graph, but a table's the next best thing, no? Anyway, I've just edited the table so maybe it's clearer now. What do you think?Ferrylodge 22:55, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Now it's clear. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:02, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it's good now. Trebor 23:26, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I dug in and did some editing myself, Trebor and FerryLodge have made great progress, this article is in much better shape than when featured, it's referenced, the prose is tuned up, I can't detect any more POV, close without FARC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:12, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Note on closing - the nominator left Wikipedia for health reasons.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Sandy and Trebor.  :)Ferrylodge 23:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree. After brilliant work from Sandy and Ferrylodge, this has got to the point where I can't see how to improve it. Unless someone new finds some major problems, close without FARC. Trebor 23:29, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. 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 23:39, 10 February 2007.

Mozilla Firefox edit

Review commentary edit

Messages left at Andrevan, Linux and Computing. Sandy (Talk) 21:59, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating the article Mozilla Firefox for a featured article review because it no longer meets attributes 1(a), 1(c), 1(d), 1(e), and 4 of the featured article criteria. There is an edit war going on, and editors are making poorly-sourced edits based on original research and in violation of Wikipedia:NPOV. The page has been flagged with {{NPOV}} and {{weasel}}, and includes many technical details which are unnecessary, citing pages from mozilla.org. Because of this, the article can also no longer be considered "Well written", since the prose is not necessarily compelling, and definitely not brilliant. This article needs significant amounts of work in order to maintain its featured article status. Vir4030 08:28, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Are you neutral, or a participant in this edit war and blatantly using FAR as a means to annoy those you're warring against? LuciferMorgan 14:28, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - from what I can see, the nominator has been registered since August 2005 and has not taken part in any editing of the Mozilla Firefox article or its talk page. I can't say anything about the IP addresses the nominator uses because I can't see them. Let's try and keep things WP:CIVIL. --tgheretford (talk) 17:35, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I am neutral. I am certainly not a participant in an edit war, and I have never "warred against" anyone. As far as I know, I have been nothing but a positive contributor to Wikipedia, and I would appreciate a little good faith. If we can get to the point, though, what did you think of the article? Vir4030 19:59, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have the right to ask such a question - nominators don't usually cite 5 violations of the FA criteria. Additionally, the nominator didn't say whether he was a participant or not. On a final note, wikilinking to guideline pages is rather tiring - numerous editors do it, and there's no point. It's like people are assuming I know nothing, which is rather derogatory. Rather than quote chapter and verse, how about common sense? LuciferMorgan 21:02, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The tone you're taking here is not called for, in relation to anything Vir4030 has written. I also have found some of your other comments on FAR potentially unfair to or angry toward others (e.g. Raul's recent FAR). I'm not an active participant here (though I still read), and the atmosphere is why. –Outriggr § 06:56, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think LuciferMorgan needs to chill out. Anyway, it seems that the article is nowhere near as good as it was when it became a FA. Some serious copyediting is needed. Andre (talk) 21:55, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • And I think differently - I asked a question which was taken the wrong way. LuciferMorgan 22:48, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • One of the reasons so many people interpreted your question as being unnecessarily aggressive may have been your use of the word blatantly. Udzu 15:32, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The page is protected do to an edit war (1e). It's perfectly acceptable to list a disputed FA here as well as cite 5 criterion. Accusing the nominator of bias is barely assuming good faith. -- Selmo (talk) 00:13, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Asking and accusing are different things - perhaps in good faith you could believe me when I say I was merely asking for clarification of the matter. LuciferMorgan 21:36, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But there is something wrong with the tone you are using, ok? The guy wrote some links and you took it as a personal insult. That's not assuming good faith either. PureRumble 06:44, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Quoting WP:CIVIL wasn't meant in good faith at all - and I didn't take it as a personal insult. Your assuming I took it as a personal insult. LuciferMorgan 13:06, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Let's get one thing straight here, I can respond to your latest comment with a whole load of things that I have to say, but I won't. Discussing your behavior and the comments you have written here is not the purpose of this nomination; reviewing the article about the web-browser Firefox in order to see if it still embodies the criteria of a featured article is. Now you have the answer to your initial question; you know the nominator is not biased and he tried to list those attributes of FAstatus that the article violates in good faith. Let us move on. PureRumble 16:41, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm not going to respond to your last comment PureRumble - it isn't worthy of my time for many reasons (I'm not gonna waste my time listing them for your pleasure). As for the article, it has short, choppy prose (1. a. violation) which needs addressing. Last time I checked, criterion 1. a. was on the latest chapter and verse you quoted - any other criteria you would like to comment upon regarding this article? LuciferMorgan 01:48, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If that is a objection or comment, then you should write it without indent and with the proper word written in bold. Otherwise I think people will just miss it, since they will think you are just continuing our initial discussion. PureRumble 07:04, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Object to removal of FA status. Unsourced edits should be removed, warring parties should be blocked, or article protected. If edit wars could get articles defeatured, trolls could kill our supply of FA's far too easily. - Mgm|(talk) 11:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Still has a POV tag, footnotes are not correctly formatted, doesn't follow WP:GTL. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:31, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - there is a minor issue with Image:Minefield-3.0a1-20060922.png. It's uploaded and tagged "copyrighted, but free software", but the image contains Microsoft's copyrighted Windows Media Center skin. It should be retaken on a free operating system for it to be truly a free (and therefore non-fair use) or it should be tagged as fair use. Given, this isn't really valid criticism for this article's FA star to be taken away, but an FA article should not have any copyright issues, so I believe that this should be fixed to make a stronger case for the FA star to stay. —msikma (user, talk) 12:45, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is a major issue with the image too. It currently shows the Places UI which has been scraped in favor restoring the firefox <2 history and bookmarks UI while still using a SQLite database [15]. Kbrosnan 05:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary edit

Suggested FA criteria concerns are writing 1(a), citations 1(c), POV 1(d), stability 1(e), and focus (4). Marskell 21:09, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove Besides other concerns, references need extensive work - it doesn't look like anyone is taking it on. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment If reference formatting is the main citation issue, I'll take it on. I can't help much with the other concerns, but this much I can do. I've just noticed this is already FARC. I'll finish the refs anyway (about halfway done) and keep out. Fvasconcellos 20:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • References done, to the best of my ability. Fvasconcellos 00:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove per Sandy's concerns. LuciferMorgan 22:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • We can hold off on closing this after some work by Fva. Are the refs good for you now Sandy? Writing next. Marskell 15:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hold pending further review - Fvasconcellos (talk · contribs) has tuned up the refs, POV tag is gone, striking my remove. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:29, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Are some cites for whole paragraphs? LuciferMorgan 13:16, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Why is there no definite criticism section? Is that a violation of NPOV itself? Darthnader37 00:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do you know of some criticism that isn't included and should be? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • My vote is still a remove if anyone is wondering, based on insufficient citations. I asked if the citations were for whole paragraphs, though nobody responded. LuciferMorgan 03:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you're basing a remove on an unanswered question, you might ping FVasoncellos and ask him. I know him to be a thorough citer, so I'm not concerned. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I never edited this article before FARC, so I'm not familiar with its history; I simply formatted and checked the existing citations—none of them are actually "mine". I suppose I could do a little verification. Are there any paragraphs you are particularly concerned with? Fvasconcellos 13:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • uh, oh. I didn't realize you hadn't cited it yourself - this could be a problem. Maybe Lucifer can let us know what else needs citation, with fact tags, and we can see where that leads. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Had another look - the prose is atrocious and there's a "confusing" tag I agree with. I have no idea what that section is trying to say, and it's completely unreferenced. If no one addresses these issues prontissimo, I'm a remove. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Update: I have since personally referenced :) several statements as per LuciferMorgan's concerns, Ubernostrum (talk · contribs) has rewritten and referenced the "Licensing" section and an unlikely rumor has just been removed. As of now, only one uncited statement remains, which I'll tackle as soon as time permits. I believe this warrants a fresh look, even if it's just to cement everyone's opinions. diff Fvasconcellos 12:30, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Before reading any further, I need to understand why a wiki is used as a source? It's a wiki - what makes it reliable? [16] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • For one thing, it's not anon-editable. Secondly, a sample of a few random users (very scientific, I know :/) showed mostly Mozilla developers, and a member of the Mozilla Foundation board. Still, it's a wiki, and subject to vandalism. If it's not to be used as a source anymore, I don't know where to go from here—it's apparently the source for official documentation; they even post their meeting minutes on the site. Damn community spirit :) Fvasconcellos 22:02, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • hmmm, tough call. What do we do with this? Sounds like it could be reliable even though it's a wiki? Would you be willing to make a post at the talk page of WP:RS, describing the site, to see if we can get some consensus there? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:34, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Sure, since you asked nicely :) First I'll try to learn some more about the website, so as not to put my foot in my mouth. I'll be very busy with work the next few days, so I will probably have to put Wikipedia on the back burner. Don't worry, though—I won't forget about it... Asked, albeit uninspiredly. I hope some editors will pick up on it. Fvasconcellos 01:39, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Just looking at this issue, at the very least we should link to a specific version of a page (or even a diff, although that might be a bit confusing), otherwise the source is too unstable. By that I mean link to this instead of that. Trebor 12:30, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • Good idea IMHO. I've let Sandy know, let's see what she and other reviewers think. Fvasconcellos 13:09, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • As far as I can tell, it's used as a primary source, not as a secondary source. Even without referencing a specific version, if the retrieval date is included (which it is) this strikes me as a non-issue. -- Rick Block (talk) 19:26, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • My thoughts exactly. If this is where developers discuss the product's progress, this is the best primary source we could have, Wiki or not; however, I'm still not sure we can circumvent this guideline. Fvasconcellos 19:43, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • My suggestion about a specific version was based on the fact that webpages may be archived only once a month, whereas it's possible for a wiki to change much more often. I don't see a particular problem with using it as a source; I think this s one of the places where we have to ignore the guideline and use common sense. We know with reasonable certainty who wrote this information, and what it means; I can't think of a compelling reason not to use it. Trebor 19:45, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Specific unaddressed concerns? edit

Can somebody summarize (or even better list) the remaining unaddressed concerns about this article? My assumption is concerns need to be specific and addressable (same rules as FAC). I'm willing to work on this, but vague, unaddressable criticisms (e.g. "the prose is atrocious") seem a bit unfair. -- Rick Block (talk) 18:23, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Curious that concern that we sort out whether a source is reliable isn't a specific enough concern? As to prose, disentangle this - yes, it's all one sentence - typical of the prose I encountered when I first read the article:
    • For distributions which wish to modify the code without using the official branding (for example, in order to produce a derivative work unencumbered by restrictions on the Firefox trademark), the Firefox source code contains a "branding switch"; this switch allows the code to be compiled without the official logo and name, which are replaced with a generic globe logo — which is freely redistributable — and the name of the release series from which the modified version was derived (e.g. "Deer Park" for derivatives of Firefox 1.5 and "Bon Echo" for derivatives of Firefox 2.0).
  • SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The issue of using the Mozilla wiki as a reference is amply specific (I should have listed it here as one that was being worked). Are there more examples of awkward prose, or is the paragraph you mention above the only one? And are there any other issues you or anyone else has with the article? -- Rick Block (talk) 21:21, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • That is a sample only - the first section I read somewhere in the middle of the article. I don't typically re-read every article under review in its entirety when there are still referencing and copyedit problems to be worked out; I gave a sample to indicate a serious copyedit is needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:27, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:V is pretty clear that primary sources can be used in specific circumstances. Is that the barometer we're using here? --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:10, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Pedantic point: the semi-colon in Sandy's example actually indicates two sentences. The prose is awful there, however. sneaks away... Marskell 12:44, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Rick Block is at work on the prose. If the prose can be cleaned up, I won't object to Keeping this article, but I won't support it either - I just can't go there with a wiki used as a source. In other words, I'll abstain if prose is cleaned up. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, I'm working on the prose (I've revised the paragraph quoted above and made some changes in the lead so far). -- Rick Block (talk) 19:08, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • To see if the Mozilla wiki has safeguards we don't (that is, not to be a dick in regards to this review) I started an account and just made two edits to the section you're citing. (Not vandalism—just changed a tense.) I'm sorry Rick, but wikis are not reliable sources. The only argument I could see is "Sources of dubious reliability should only be used in articles about the author(s)". This might apply if we had a page specifically about the Mozilla wiki and used a couple of sections from it for "colour"—but not for assertions of fact. Marskell 20:44, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • I've replaced three Wiki cites with secondary sources; one of these, however, is ad-supported. Would replacing the rest of them with equivalent secondary sources be acceptable? )For the record, I still think the Wikis are better sources, and linking to stable, vandalism-free revisions eliminates the issues raised by Marskell, but this is my humble opinion) Fvasconcellos 23:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Can someone who knows the topic determine if the info cited to the Wiki can just be removed? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • I see only four uses remaining, one of which can definitely go as it's a double cite. To Fva, if the source is otherwise reliable, an ad-supported source is preferable to a wiki and changing them would be appreciated. (The Times is ad-supported, after all.) This probably does seem a bit uptight, so three explanations:
            • a) I'm sure the wiki probably does appear a better source, because it's closer to the subject, but unless there's a locked, stable version we can't know who wrote it. See the general disclaimer for the site: "Satisfaction is not guaranteed."[17] Obviously tongue-in-cheek, but it also suggests "ya, this is our wiki, take it with a grain of salt."
            • b) It's verifiability, not truth. If Widgets Magazine has said Mozilla has said something, we should repeat that rather than simply quoting Mozilla itself (even if Mozilla itself seems more accurate.)
            • c) I'm concerned about the thin end of the wedge. We may trust User:Fvasconcellos and User:Rick Block in this instance, but I don't like imagining on some pop culture article in the future "ya, even our FAs use wikis, so what's the problem?" Best to lead by example.
            • Good work trying to take care of this. Marskell 08:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • That's three now :) OK, sorry for pushing the wiki thing this far. I have to agree with you on c), hadn't thought of that. As for ad-supported sources, I'm used to nuking ad-supported ELs, but I guess that's a different animal altogether—something for me to think about. Fvasconcellos 12:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • Where there are secondary sources I think this is a fine approach. On the other hand, I disagree with the sentiment here that a wiki should never be used as a source. At least a few open source projects are using wikis as their development coordination and documentation mechanisms. Imagine trying to write an FA about Wikipedia's policies without referencing pages in the en:wikipedia! I think this will become a moot point here, but let's continue this discussion at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources. My fear is that this restriction introduces a systemic bias against open source projects. -- Rick Block (talk) 14:41, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, not moot. The estimated release date of Nov 2007 for FF 3.0 is cited as from http://wiki.mozilla.org/index.php?title=ReleaseRoadmap&oldid=40597. This is the internal planning wiki for the project, which includes the disclaimer "Please do not edit these pages without permission of the Mozilla project drivers. Your feedback and comments are welcomed on the discussion page.". In fact, the most recent two changes to this page are one that changes the Nov 2007 date to Jan 2007 and a revert of this "suspicious" change. I've found various other web references to the release date of FF 3.0, but they point back to this page (usually an older version). It seems to me referencing the internal planning document for a projected release date is about the best primary source that exists. For project convenience it's kept on a wiki. This page is monitored and apparently carefully controlled, and we're currently referencing a specific (non-vandalized) version. What are the reasons that this should not be cited? -- Rick Block (talk) 15:27, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've actually tried unsuccessfully to find a secondary source for this statement—the closest I got (a CNET article) mentioned "Fall 2007". Fvasconcellos 15:35, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bluhahah. I'm trying to compartmentalize the larger issue of Wikis and this particular review:
On Wikis generally, I very much disagree with the implication that "Where there are secondary sources" is decisive. We either allow wikis as sources or we don't, regardless of whether another source can be used. If a secondary source does not exist for a piece of factual info, then we have to consider not adding the information. I've had variations of this debate many times (as, I'm sure, have both of you) and I'm struck by the fact that a restraint on not adding "the immediate" is seen as greatest harm. No. Greatest harm is adding unverifiable information.
So: if the estimated release date has only been published on the Mozilla wiki, then it is, for our purposes, unverifiable. We shouldn't add it. This page can still keep its star for what that's worth, and when Widgets Magazine reports something, we can add the info. Remember: Wikipedia is broadly tertiary, not secondary. It describes what has been reported about things. Marskell 20:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A last, incidental point: "Imagine trying to write an FA about Wikipedia's policies without referencing pages in the en:wikipedia!" You couldn't make an FA, at present, about Wikipedia's policies that literally conformed to Wikipedia's rules. Not everything can be an FA and Wikipedia is not acceptable to itself (per V and RS). There'll be no FAs about Wikipedia until academics really start talking about Wikipedia (which has happened briefly, and will happen again more, IMO); the Wikipedia article itself lost FA status six or seven months ago. Marskell 20:44, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're making this too difficult. WP:V and WP:RS imply Wikipedia is generally tertiary, not secondary, and is generally based on secondary, not primary, sources. Adding these together to conclude no wiki can ever be used as a reference is a leap I don't think needs to be made. Certainly most wikis should not be used as sources, since they're often not verifiable and/or not reliable. Wikis that allow links to specific versions pretty much cover the verifiability requirement (actually better than most web pages) which leaves reliability as a potential issue. Openly editable wikis are generally not too reliable. Wikis used as part of a development process (like this use of the Mozilla wiki), are (IMO) a reliable primary source. The expected release date of FF 3.0 is November 2007. We know this because it is the date listed, as of today, in the wiki being used to plan the development. We further know that any secondary source that lists a different date (like http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20061212-8409.html, which I'd bet you'd accept as a secondary source and lists the date as May 2007) is incorrect (or at least not current). In this case, any secondary source is less reliable than the primary source even though the primary source happens to be a wiki. I understand and support a general rule that says wikis can't be used as references (and support this). However, just as "generally based on secondary sources" doesn't mean primary sources can never be used, "generally don't use wikis as references" doesn't have to mean no wiki can ever be used as a reference.
Are we better off not having this specific fact in this specific article? Rather than remove it based on a fear that wiki references will become rampant, I think we might be better off keeping it as a, perhaps extraordinarily rare, example of an appropriate reference to a wiki. -- Rick Block (talk) 03:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Verifiability, not truth. Fundamental policy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But this is verifiable (and true). -- Rick Block (talk) 15:50, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Rick; we should be able to use common sense in these situations. If there's no reasonable doubt about where the information comes from, and the accuracy of it, then I don't see a problem. As above, ignoring the policies in this case would improve the encyclopaedia. Trebor 07:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is getting a touch circular; I thought I'd proven part of the point by going to the Mozilla wiki and editing it myself! Further, RS does not state "generally don't use wikis" but rather: "Posts to bulletin boards, Usenet, and wikis, or messages left on blogs, should not be used as sources." Your arstechnica link is not less reliable, it's less true, but truth doesn't matter. But if we need an exceedingly rare exception here, I'd suggest: "a release date of November 7 has been posted to the Mozilla wiki, but not yet confirmed by any official statement" etc. Marskell 08:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Did you edit the page with the release schedule (the one with the disclaimer about not editing it without permission of the Mozilla project drivers)? Focusing on the technology rather than the reliability and verifiability of the content seems wrong to me. In this case, the Mozilla wiki is the official statement, in much the same way that a post from Jimbo to a Wikipedia policy page would be "official". Seems like we may have to agree to disagree here. -- Rick Block (talk) 15:50, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"...but not yet reported elsewhere" then, or some such thing; I want to flag it at least, with an inline attribution/qualifier. Is that too much? I notice the number of wiki refs is still around five. As for which I edited, I followed our link here. I wouldn't, incidentally, consider a post from Jimbo official, but rather the Wikipedia:press releases (I don't know if "canonical," locked copies exist for those).
On the bright side, the prose has continued to improve after more work today. Marskell 20:04, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do you really object to linking to clean revisions? If the problem is "anyone can edit and make the ref unreliable" and not just "this is a primary source", I'm sorry, but I don't get it. (If it's the fact it is a primary source I won't go there again.) An aside: an editor has mentioned that the EULA is only available in English; I moved it out of the article body and into the infobox. Is that a problem (i.e., relevance-wise)? Fvasconcellos 20:14, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My main problem is that RS, and V implicitly, say we can't use it. Again, I know how these arguments go and how people get annoyed with wiki-lawyering. But, if not on FAC and FAR, then where do we have the highest bar? And again, I have no doubt a clean version is as close to true as we can find, but it doesn't make the source reliable (are there any locked versions?).
As for the primary source thing, it's been mis-represented above. If I cite a National Geographic from 1907 do describe cultural attitudes as represented in magazines in 1907, I'm using it as a primary source. If I cite it to back up a claim about Indonesia, I'm using it as a secondary source. The wiki cites are used as secondary sources in this article, when they should only be used descriptively as primary sources (e.g., when describing the Mozilla wiki directly, or when describing how developers went about their decision-making).
But note my last post was a compromise: can we at least flag the uses, inline? Marskell 20:49, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'd misunderstood then. Don't know about locked versions, don't think so. I wouldn't object to inline "flags". Fvasconcellos 21:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC) (We might want to dedent now)[reply]
(doing so) I still think this falls under "improving the encyclopaedia" so long as there's no reasonable date about the veracity of the information. I know it's "verifiability, not truth" but I always saw that as more of an attempt to stop original research, or people changing articles to put in their version of the "truth". For that reason, I don't think this is a V matter. RS is only a guideline, and as such should be taken with common sense. Would we rather an accurate encyclopaedia or one that strictly adheres to "the rules"? In the spirit of compromise though, an inline "flag" would be a passable solution. Trebor 21:25, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By "inline flag" I was thinking of altering the wording to specifically mention that a wiki is being used as a source ("X has said it is A" rather than "It is A"). Can someone familiar try that?
"RS is only a guideline." Indeed it is, and I understand what you mean. RS is funny: V is hopelessly short without it; it's as widely cited as any P&G; people are very attached to it; but it's never actually been policy. Certain sentences and paras of it are definitely canonical for Wiki, if nothing else.
But this is a V matter—everytime you're talking about sources you're talking about V. It's not just about keeping OR, cranks, etc. out of weak articles; it's about setting an example of best practice on strong articles. But I've had enough meta discussions for today :). Marskell 21:43, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I understand your idea of an "inline flag" and think it would be a good enough solution. Trebor 21:53, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Example: In the Version 3.0 section, how about replacing
The estimated release date for Firefox 3 is in November 2007.
with
According to information posted on the Mozilla Wiki "Release Roadmap" by Mozilla Vice-President of Products Christopher Beard, the estimated release date for Firefox 3 is in November 2007.
Thoughts? Fvasconcellos 22:04, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"A post on the Mozilla Wiki "Release Roadmap" from President of Products Christopher Beard suggests a release in November 2007." Shorter, and avoids the troublesome word "information" (it is troublesome--let's not go there). "Suggests" is a great word--it deprecates the information without deprecating it :). Then have a note explaining what the Mozilla wiki is, why it is not fundamentally reliable, but why it is considered so in this context. Marskell 23:00, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, I'm only suggesting a note describing the wiki for the first use of it.
I'm also thinking that, huffing and puffing aside, we may be devising a good template as to how to approach this issue on other articles. It's not all for nothing. Marskell 23:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK—why may it be considered reliable in this context? The fact we're linking to a specific revision, the fact Mozilla wiki is used for discussion of development, the fact somethings now cited to the wiki aren't yet adequately covered by the media/more conventional sources? I'm lost in the consensus :) I'll try and think of the appropriate wording tomorrow if no-one beats me to it. (feel free to though...) Fvasconcellos 00:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Shoot. To clarify my clarification, I only expect a footnote once. Every sentence with a wiki a source should say, "according to the wiki" inline.
"why may it be considered reliable in this context". I guess better phrasing is why it is official, rather than reliable (because according to the letter, it's not actually reliable). You might say Mozilla doesn't do press releases (?) and that developers announce things on the wiki instead, then point to the disclaimer quoted by Rick. Marskell 12:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Added a note to this effect. It's not at the first instance of Wiki citing (will change this later) and I'm not quite happy with the wording, please feel free to improve if you don't think it conveys the appropriate information. Fvasconcellos 19:28, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Copyedit?
  • Do you guys feel that a copyedit is a good idea here? — Deckiller 22:39, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Um, yes? Please? :) Fvasconcellos 22:44, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sure thing. It's probably going to need an extra person because of the complexity of the subject. I'll see if someone else from the LoC is interested in helping. — Deckiller 23:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can ce along with somebody else, if people like. I read through it today; my main thought was "boring for John Q." because of all the acronyms, but that's inevitable for a subject like this. The prose is close to passable, IMO; the review has already removed the main clunkers. Marskell 23:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just went through and removed a bunch of redundancies. Want to tag team? — Deckiller 23:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's starting to look passable for the most part IMO. — Deckiller 00:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I chopped at that snake. Almost there. Marskell 08:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Update
  • NPOV tag re-added by SqueakBox (talk · contribs). Fvasconcellos 01:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I strongly disagree with the NPOV tagging. This article has been operated on by some of Wikipedia's best, and if there are any issues with neutrality, they are extremely minor. — Deckiller 01:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I removed it, since no explanation was given. When good faith efforts have been underway for (what?) two months to rewrite the article, an editor having NPOV concerns should specifically detail them on the article talk page or on the FAR, with specific issues that can be addressed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since everything has stabilized, I'll say keep. — Deckiller 19:08, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Anybody else? Marskell 06:21, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Am I allowed to vote, having worked on the article? I'm new to this FAR thing :/ Fvasconcellos 14:27, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Here's where I tell you it's not a vote. You are perfectly free to make a vote-like-comment (as I call them :). Marskell 14:39, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Of course. Damn, I love WP :) I believe the prose has greatly improved, no statements remain uncited and the Wiki-as-RS discussion has been IMHO successfully resolved. I'm a keep. Fvasconcellos 15:09, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. 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 09:33, 9 February 2007.

Panavision edit

Review commentary edit

Messages left at Girolamo Savonarola, California, Filmmaking, Southern California, and Media. Sandy (Talk) 21:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A well written article, but has no inline citations and very few references (failing WP:WIAFA criteria 1c), images lack fair use rationales and detailed source info (failing 3), and there is no section dealing with criticism (I know that Panavision is not criticized very frequently, but I'm sure there's something or other that some people don't like about the company), failing 1d. Finally, the article is somewhat short compared to other recent FA's (which would fail 4). The image sources and fair use rationales can be fixed fairly quick, but the references and related items could take a while to fix. Green451 05:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ignoring the references and images, both of which I am sure someone else will comment upon or deal with, if the subject of an article is not criticised frequently, wouldn't adding a whole criticism section be undue weight? And "4" requires articles to be concise ("appropriate length, staying focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail") - making the article longer to fit some arbitrary length requirement would be counterproductive. Do you think something is missing, so it is not comprehensive, failing 1(b)? If so, what? -- ALoan (Talk) 15:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, you've got a point. This is the first time I've put something up for review, so I'm just feeling my way around. A google search for Panavision Criticism doesn't yield much except for a court case involving cybersquatting (which should possibly be mentioned in the article), but I agree that there is no point in giving undue weight. And yes, now that you mention it, there are other FA's that are actually shorter than this one, and the article seems fairly well detailed, so there goes my issue with the length. I have striked those out. Thank you for your comments. Green451 16:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can I ask for a clarification on the problem with the images? To my knowledge, all of them have fair use justifications on the image space - two are promotional images created by Panavision, one is their logo, and one is an excerpt from the credits of one of the Matrix films. Is there something else required? Reference-wise, it's an issue I've been well aware of for some time and just kept putting off doing, so I guess this'll force me to get it in gear! :) Now as far as criticism goes, I do hear various criticisms of the camera systems from time to time from people in the camera department. The thing is that everyone does grumble about one thing or another, and there are pro- and anti- opinions about virtually all camera equipment from someone or another. Unfortunately, most of this remains oral criticism, so it is tough to properly reference. How should/could this be handled? Many thanks, Girolamo Savonarola 21:23, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See Help:Image_page#Fair_use_rationale. I hope that helps. Jay32183 21:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments See also looks like it could use some pruning, or for some of those links to be incorporated into the article. References has a lot of blue links that need to be expanded. The article is completely uncited, and images should be examined per above. The lead needs attention - for example, it mentions spherical lenses without linking or defining those, and needs to summarize the article. Sandy (Talk) 01:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments: apart from the inline citations that is the most fatal failure of this article per WP:WIAFA,
  • Image:PanavisionCredit.jpg fails to satisfy WP:FAIR criterion #8 that the image is significant to the article. The image only serves for decorative purpose, because by writing "Filmed with PANAVISION(c) Camera and Lenses", as in the lead, is enough. Furthermore, the image is actually cropped version from a screenshot. I am not sure if it is allowed to make a derivation of a copyrighted screenshot.
  • External links section: link to the official site is used for reference, one link to a rental website, one link is broken currently (the master thesis), two links to the same site.
— Indon (reply) — 14:34, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Currently working on providing in-line citations. Fixed the broken link and eliminating some of the reference links. LACameraman 10:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary edit

Suggested FA criteria concerns are citations (1c) and images (3). Marskell 19:44, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • In progress I am currently working to address the citations deficit, and I expect that it should hopefully be complete by the end of the year at the latest. At the moment there are only a limited number of written sources on most of the company history, so I'm trying to obtain as wide a variety as possible in order to show some research diversity. I will also look into brushing up the lead a bit more.
  • Done I've removed the screenshot image as per request, even though I disagree, because I don't feel it's worth the effort of a contentious fair use debate. That being said, it would be nice to be able to include something similar, IMHO. I trust that the other images are fine, unless someone comments otherwise. (They do have documentation on their respective pages.) I've also moved the official page to the external links section, and am working on folding the references into the notes section (or vice versa).
  • Disagreement The two links from the same site which are mentioned above are links to separate topics within that same site. Unfortunately they don't have a common upper-level link which is specific enough, so I've left them as such for the moment.

Any further comments are welcomed. Many thanks! Girolamo Savonarola 23:07, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please expand on this entry. Is this a vote for removal of the article due to insufficient inline citations or is this a comment to remove the complaint of insufficient inline citations as it as been fixed? Please elaborate on your comment. LACameraman 23:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's a vote for remove on the grounds that there are not enough inline citations. Jay32183 23:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Remove - List: Hold, pending copyedit

  • There's a website in References: if it's used as a reference, it needs a last access date and full bibliographic information about the entry. Otherwise, move it to External links.
nothing in internet archive. I put retrieval date in. It is only an external ref now, anyway, since it is not used as an inline ref.Jeffpw 17:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Master's thesis also needs a last access date - if there is an internet archive link, that would be even better, since such links tend to go missing.
ditto. Jeffpw 17:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The thesis is listed as a reference *and* as an External link - which is it?
since it is not cited in the text, I pulled it from refs and left it as an external link. To be totally clear, I deleted the refs section, and moved everything there to external links. Everything cited in the article itself is under footnotes. Jeffpw 17:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most of the footnotes are just blue links that need to be expanded to include full biblio info and last access date. If the editors don't know how to do that manually, they can use the cite templates, or at least include manually the info specified in the cite templates. For example, a cite to everything2 article" is insufficient - we need to know the name of the article, pub date if available, etc. And, by the way, what is everything2? It loos suspiciously like a Wiki mirror, and doesn't seem to be a reliable source, which is another reason we need more information.
Done. Jeffpw 17:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
More needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Footnotes cleaned. LACameraman 04:14, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • See also needs pruning: work them into the text if possible, delete any already present in the text.
Done. Jeffpw 17:43, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Still wondering why common terms are listed in See also? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cleaned up See Also section considerably LACameraman 04:14, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • See WP:FN - footnotes are not properly placed. I'll fix those, but please learn to do them correctly.
  • Headings don't conform to WP:MSH
  • Article is seriously undercited - one random example - of which there are gazillions:
    • Following a number of attempts to marry up standard and high definition TV cameras with film-type lenses in the 1980s, Panavision entered into a joint partnership with Sony which produced the "Panavized" HD-900F "CineAlta" High Definition Camera System in 1999, first used by George Lucas for the second Star Wars installment, Attack of the Clones (2002). This is generally regarded the first commercial HD 24p camera system.
  • I'll let someone else examine the prose: given the high number of problems in the article, I suggest it will need examination. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Back for another look.
      • Can someone run through See also and determine why some of those very common terms are listed as See also, rather than linked into the article text?
      • References have very inconsistent formatting and punctuation - can we get Author last name comma author first name period, for example, rather than various versions thereof? Some have author buried in the reference rather than listed first - the reference formatting is all over the map.
      • Full biblio info is not given on many references - example: Panavision history; Retrieved on 2007-01-19 Who published this website? Who is the WideScreenMuseum? Does it have an author? Give us enough info to know it meets WP:RS. Blue links on websources need to be expanded enough for us to know who the publisher of the website is. There are no publishers listed on almost any website, so we can't determine the reliability without clicking on each one.
      • Everything2.com is still cited - it still looks like a Wiki mirror. Who is the publisher, is it a reliable source?
Removed LACameraman 04:14, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm still quite strongly in Remove territory - the references need work, and the prose needs even more work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note - I'm currently out of town on business for the next two weeks, so I may not be able to do too much at present, unfortunately. I'm going to try to get some more work done as time (and access) allows. I'd appreciate having some more review time for that, but if that can't be accommodated, I understand. Many thanks, Girolamo Savonarola 03:01, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please Hold - I am fairly new to FAR, so didn't know this was about to be delisted. I have done some work on it yesterday, and plan on working on the refs tomorrow (I am beginning tonight, but it's almost bedtime). With luck, all actionable objections will be addressed by Sunday evening. Jeffpw 19:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Time granted. Please update status Sunday. Joelito (talk) 19:54, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Status Update - I have referenced everything essential. I added about 50 references. I also changed a few sentences for style, removed all redlinks, changed the headers to what I think is conforming to WP:MSH, clarified the "spherical lens" term in the lead, and added a couple images. I realize one image was requested to be deleted, and the image I inserted is similar, but the caption gives the reason that I think the image needs to be there (as an example of the aspect ratio that cinema goers experienced). I also removed most of the external links, since they were used as references. I took some info from the links for some of my references, but not from the sections that are linked in the article. The referencing went easier than I had thought it would. I had a running start with what was already provided in the footnotes and external links. Here is a diff to show the work completed. If somebody could check the article out, I still have time to make more changes tomorrow. As a quick aside, I was surprised at how little editing was done on the article since it was listed at FAR. Is that typical of most nominations? Jeffpw 22:23, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove unless fresh eyes can be found to tighten up the prose. It's not bad, but not yet of the required "professional" standard—wouldn't take the LoC long. I shouldn't be able to find little problems, for example, in the lead:
    • "Unlike most of its competition, including rival Arri, Panavision operates"—"competitors".
    • Redundant "also"; redundant "currently" (what is the present tense for, otherwise?).
    • "Any major production that uses Panavision's services is contractually obliged to provide a credit that says"—Do we need to grammatically mark the first point? Why not "Major productions that use ..."? "Display", not "provide". Tony 23:40, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Tony1. I only referenced and fixed the most glaring errors. (Full sentences inside of brackets with a period are an error. Yes?) I left a message at LoC this evening, and will also try to copy edit myself, tomorrow. Jeffpw 23:59, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Both Girolamo Savonarola and I have been working and unable to attend this issue. I have, however, taken a considerable stab at copy editing through the first two sections of the article. I will continue late tomorrow and into the week. One major problem with this kind of article is that the expert Wiki editors are often working and unable to attend the needs on such tight time constraints. Please continue to be patient with this process - I was not fully aware of the editorial requests until today. All the best, LACameraman 10:28, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To add to LACamerman's comment, the article was not submitted to FAR for prose issues, but rather citation problems. That has been dealt with. The prose was not suggested as a possible issue until January 5, when it went to FARC. I went back and checked the version that was made FA, and see that the prose issues Tony1 cited were in the article at that point, so I am not sure it is appropriate to demote the article on those grounds. It's not as if the prose degraded in the time between being made FA and now. I see that LACameraman has done a lot of work on the copy yesterday. I suggest letting him do more before making a decision about removing this from Features. Jeffpw 10:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter when the issues came to light or on what basis the article was nominated; if 1a (or any other criteria) is not met, it's an issue. Many articles get by FAC with FA deficiencies. Time is always allowed when ongoing progress is evident. (I haven't yet had time to go back and check the concerns I had.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've been back through my list now (see above) - the references still need a lot of work, in addition to the ce needs raised by Tony. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Prose concerns are appropiate for a review regardless of when they were raised and an article will be demoted if they are not met. Prose is one of the FA criteria and all criteria are judged equally. FA criteria are not ranked by importance, i.e. all are equal. Joelito (talk) 20:32, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • References have now been cleaned up and See also is pruned: I'm still strongly in the Remove category. The lead is inadequate, and the sourcing is not up to the standard required for a featured article. Everything2.com is a wiki - it is not a reliable source. I've been raising the issue for quite a while, but it's still there. There is nothing on http://www.widescreenmuseum.com to indicate it's a reliable source, and plenty that argues against it, including the disclaimer. Too much of the article relies on the widescreenmuseum website. The article has been dramatically improved during review, but in my opinion does not fulfill 1c. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:59, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update MUCH work has been done. The prose has had several copy-editing passes, and I'll make one or two more. The footnotes have been revised and reformatted. Any controversial footnotes (such as Everything2.com) have been eliminated. There are now considerable references cited. I'm not really sure how the FARC should go from this point, but I would like to request a re-evaluation and, I suppose, a re-vote to return this article back to FA status. All the best, LACameraman 04:14, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only concerns registered so far are mine, Lucifer's, and Tony's - I'll have a second look soon. Tony is quite busy - you might leave a note on his talk page asking him to re-evaluate the prose, and a note to Lucifer asking if there is any specific text he'd like to see cited. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:27, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My remaining concerns are that the WP:LEAD doesn't summarize the article, and the reliability of http://www.widescreenmuseum.com hasn't been established - it is used extensively and, as far as I can tell, is one man's personal website. I'm still a remove based on 1c and 2. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:38, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I must wholeheartedly disagree. Widescreenmuseum.com is a highly respected and oft-cited source. In my 10 years of professional technical writing, I have NEVER found a single inaccuracy in Martin Hart's work. He is a recoginized expert in the field. His work has been recognized by many reliable sources including American Cinematographer, Entertainment Weekly and Reel.com among many others. To discredit his work is to discredit the entire concept of the Internet as a resource. There is more accuracy in Martin's work than 20% of the published magazine articles I read. This is not some Blogger who spouts out random information, but a film historian and scholar who provides considerable information that cannot be easily found elsewhere. This article covers highly specialized information that is not compiled in too many published texts. In addition, there are only 8 references to Martin Heart's writings out of 61 total cited references. That is only 13% of the citations. If it is determined by consensus that his work is not acceptable, I can work to replace Martin's references - but that research could take weeks, if not months, to track down - even with my extraordinary resources and expertise in the field. I'll also point out that Martin's work does not violate reliability, in that he IS a peer-reviewed site who will amend his text, if found to be in err. In addition, reliability is a guideline, not a policy. As far as the lead is concerned, I will certainly take a look at that and revise, and invite anyone (yourself included, SandyGeorgia) to BE BOLD, as is the Wikipedia policy, and make the editorial change yourself if you see a minor inadequacy. LACameraman 20:25, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I've been asking for about ten days for some indication of reliability - glad to have some. No one is discrediting his work: I'm asking the editors who added that as a source to establish its reliability, since his website doesn't seem to do that. Please give us some means of verifying who exactly he is and what makes him an expert. Do you have links or info about others who cite him or defer to him as an expert? Is any of this available on his site (I couldn't find it) or elsewhere on the web? If it's not on the web, can you quote something from any source in hardprint? What do you mean his site is peer reviewed - by whom? His website doesn't establish who vets his work, what is his expertise, whether he has any affiliations that could contribute to bias, etc. - please give us something to go on. And, no, I won't write someone else's lead - to me, the lead is much too "personal" to have an outside reviewer writing it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:36, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia - Fair enough. I think I'm getting a little too emotional as I feel some kind of personal responsibility as a founding member of Project Filmmaking to defend this article. But, contrary to that, I do have to disagree with you on the "personal" note with reference to editing the lead. Wikipedia is for everyone. The very spirit of the entire Wikipedia is that no one owns any article, you - as an editor - are invited and welcome to make any and all edits to any page. With my busy schedule, the amount of time I can dedicate to a project like this is incredibly limited, so it is frustrating to me to recieve criticism that threatens the FA status of this article - without any assistance; especially with something like the article lead which does not require technical expertise to edit. In any case, as far as Martin's references - here is a quick list I found with sites referencing Martin's work (ignoring Wikipedia, within which he is one of the most cited authors I've seen):

Also - please note the supporters/contributors of/to Hart's work on his "Benefactors" page:

  • Jack Cardiff, Academy Award winning cinematographer of Black Narcissus and three-time Oscar nominated for War and Peace, Sons and Lovers and Fanny. Jack was also given an Honorary Lifetime Achievement Oscar in 2001. Note that many of Jack's early films were CinemaScope, VistaVision, etc. the very subject of Martin's Website.
  • Greg Kimball a visual effects artist with work on Independence Day, Star Trek: First Contact, Bravehard, Seven, The Right Stuff, Clockwork Orange Greg was also a key researcher for the Cinerama Adventure project.
  • M. David Mullen, ASC - one of the chief technology experts for the ASC (American Society of Cinematographers). David will also be the editor of the 10th edition of the ASC Manual.
  • Academy Award Winning John Pytlak - Senior Technical Specialist EI Worldwide Technical Services Eastman Kodak Company
  • Roy H. Wagner, ASC, Emmy and ASC award winning cinematographer.
  • The Smithsonian - U.S.A.
  • International Film Archive - U.S.A
  • He's also received the endorsement from Brittannica Online.
  • Please note Martin's involvement with Cinerama Adventure

As a technical editor for American Cinematographer Magazine, I have utilized Martin's site many times - unfortunately for the magazine we don't cite references in our articles, so I have nothing in "hard print" to show you.

Martin is very much like Leonard Maltin, a film buff turned historian/schollar. Martin is only missing the published work as he's concentrated on the Internet for his work. As far as peer review, Martin's site has been scrutinized and reviewed by all of the above. As I said before, if a consensus decides that Martin's work does not qualify for reliability, I can find othe sources to support the 8 citations to Martin's work - but it will take time. I humbly request that this not be a factor that puts this article's status in jeopardy. All the best, Jay Holben LACameraman 21:50, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

allrighty, sources above look good, thank you for establishing reliability of the widescreenmuseum. As soon as you expand the lead (per WP:LEAD to be a complete, stand-along summary of the article) and copyedit concerns are addressed, I'll be a Keep - I'm now satisfied with the referencing. If I tried to edit every article I review, I'd have no life :-) Reviewers can help you retain your star, but we can't do all the work. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:43, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I understand the limitation of time quite intimately. I appreciate your support and will get to work on that lead. All the best LACameraman 04:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Hi there. Sorry I sort of abandonded this after nominating it, but I've been on wikibreak for a while. One comment about the lead; the information about "Filmed in Panavision" demoting the use of anamorphic lenses is not true anymore (see the discussion on the Panavision talk page). Green451 03:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent point. I didn't really feel it belonged in the lead anyway. It will be removed. LACameraman 04:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not surprised - that's why I questioned a fact sourced to everything2.com - which is a wiki - a good example of the need for highest quality, independent, reliable sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a couple of passes on the lead - but I'm not very happy with it. I'll return to it and try to refine, but I'd love some help with this. LACameraman 05:09, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've made a pass at refining the lead. Jay's prose was quite good to start out with, so I mostly tried to tone down what seemed to me as a "Panavision is great!" undertone. As well, I would say that Super 35 is now the most commonly used widescreen format, and anamorphic (as much as I love it) is falling in popularity. I also split the sentence into two paragraphs, as it was difficult to read the huge block of text. Comments, anyone? Green451 16:16, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • From the lead, is anyone else having a problem with this prose?
  • This allows Panavision to invest the most research and development funding and integrate the highest quality manufacturing into every product without worrying about the end retail value. Maintaining their entire inventory also allows Panavision to constantly update their existing equipment and apply those updates to every model in the inventory, as opposed to just the newest models getting the upgrades.
  • "Most"? "Without worrying"? Maintaining their own inventory? As opposed to clause is strange.
  • What is the meaning of "common" here? Frequent? Commoners?
  • At the time of Panavision's formation, Gottschalk owned a camera shop in Westwood Village, California, where some of his most common customers were cinematographers.
  • What is this sentence saying?
  • The technology was originally designed during World War I to increase the field of view on tank periscopes by horizontally "squeezing" thus allowing a wider field of view once unsqueezed by complementary anamorphic optical element.
  • Why say "to utilize" when you can say "to use" or "for use"? Can't it just say "for use in underwater photography"?
  • Gottschalk and Moore bought some of these lenses from C.P. Goerz, a New York optics company, to utilize in their underwater photography.

I'm not finding this prose at all accessible; maybe it's just me and perhaps this is just stylistic, but I'd feel much better if Tony had a look - I know he's quite busy, but there's something about this prose that isn't working for me. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gawd, this review... Two months and so much done, but just a little more needed for 1a. Anyone still watching? I took care of the clunker in the lead. Marskell 05:42, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed WP:MOS issues: wikilinking on full dates, [18] non-breaking hard spaces between numbers and units of measurement, [19] and m-dashes. [20] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:49, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. That was a lot of tedious work, thank you Sandy for taking the time to fix the non-breaking spaces, dashes, etc. I don't see any full dates except in the citations - do those need to be Wikified? If so - that was totally my mistake, I removed all the Wikilinks on dates when I reformatted the citations - I wasn't clear on the MOS for full dates. If that work needs to be done, I'll re-do that as I'm the one who mucked it up to begin with! Have you contacted Tony to take a pass at the prose? All the best, LACameraman 10:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dates with a month and a day should always be wikilinked to allow date preferences to kick in. Trebor 13:03, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tony's talkpage indicates he's real-life busy - the last person who requested he have a look resulted in Tony placing a larger "I'm busy" message at the top of his talk page :-) Deckiller is having a look now, I think - he does good ce work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:07, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bottom-up ce underway.—DCGeist 22:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DC is an expert on the subject, so he'll improve the meaning more accurately than the rest of us; I'll give it a followup afterward. — Deckiller 00:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've taken a pass after DC's excellent rewording, and I believe the prose is close to meeting the 1a standard. — Deckiller 22:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Much better; but. Wikilinking. Needs a serious review. I hit a number of technical terms that weren't linked or defined, as well as a number of terms that are wikilinked repeatedly, rather than only on first occurrence. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:03, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dashes are usually the same as commas; it's mostly a stylistic difference. — Deckiller 03:20, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know - aiming for consistency (which I may not have achieved, because I lost interest). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the issues with the prose, consistency, and wikilinks are done, although I'm going to give the wikilinks another pass. — Deckiller 05:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm almost a Keep at this point. I'm just waiting on the answer to a technical query I put to LACameraman regarding the latter-day exhibition of old Ultra Panavision movies. He was able to make a small edit suggestion, but has passed the heart of the query on to his projection expert. That's my last significant (and hardly crucial) concern. General query: are there any still-obscure technical terms in the article that it would be particularly helpful to explicate in a sentence or so?—DCGeist 08:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep on my end, although I'd like to see DCGeist's concerns addressed if possible. — Deckiller 09:29, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ultra Panavision query resolved. A few additional brief explanations provided. Keep.—DCGeist 21:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I've had a bash at the prose, the lead should read a lot better now. I also rooted out a few typos (integratated? Bauch and Lomb?) it seemed everyone missed. A few techy terms could do with being better defined (or at least appropriately linked). There's one claim that really could do with a cite in the introduction ('groundbreaking') that I commented out for now. Keep, though, it's just about there. Proto::► 22:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, and "nonanamorphic" is not a word. It's "non-anamorphic" - "unsqueezed", "nonwidescreen", and "takeup" also got a damned good hyphenating. Proto::► 22:54, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, they got a "damned" improper hyphenating (except for the debatable "take-up"). Non- and un- compounds were consistently closed per Chicago Manual of Style and Merriam-Webster's Dictionary, as they are again. Consistent and proper styling of em-dashes has also been restored. Taking the effort to become familiar with the range of acceptable, proper, and preferred styles of English orthography and punctuation is a good idea for any Wikipedia editor. Within the bounds of acceptable styles, you can apply your personal preferences to articles you are the primary writer on or that reflect a jumble of styles when you encounter them; in other cases, recognize when a consistent style is already in place and leave it be. Thanks for catching the typos and for many of the substantive edits.
Good (partial) catch on the lead: it's the Millennium XL, rather than the first-generation Millennium, that was truly "groundbreaking." No cite necessary in intro. The article text details precisely how each of the two cameras in question was groundbreaking.—DCGeist 23:28, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, a lot of the edits were mostly stylisic, but many thanks for catching the lingering redundancies and typos that we missed. — Deckiller 02:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. 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 13:42, 3 February 2007.

Superman edit

Messages left at Modemac, Comics, Superman and Films. Sandy (Talk) 22:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Review commentary edit

2006 edit

I love Superman but this article has insufficient cites. Wiki-newbie 17:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Article has a large references section, actually. Hiding Talk 21:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It seems like it doesn't clearly define where it is getting its information. It has a large reference list, but it doesn't say what goes where. It almost seems like some original research edits have taken over the article in places: Like "It is implied in the One Year Later Superman story.." is an example. It appears to draw conclusions as to what the "One Year Later" story is saying. I don't know if this is just incorrect writing, and the "One Year Later" story was clear in its meaning (i don't know, because I haven't read it) but trying to guess what a story is "implying" seems a bit OR to me. I think that is the value behind "in text citations", because it's easy to check sources (at least the online ones). Bignole 23:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, my. The cleanup tag says it best. Yikes. If anyone is willing to dig in, I'll supply a long list. Sandy (Talk) 00:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gimme. WesleyDodds 10:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, a list would be helpful. Hiding Talk 13:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article is getting lots of cite tags. Wiki-newbie 15:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Finding sources where I can. Hiding Talk 17:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List

  • Ineffective use of Summary style and incorrect use of template tags. The overall article size is fine at 72KB, but because the article is undercited, most of that KB is in prose, with prose at a whopping 53KB. Too much of the prose is taken up with re-telling the Superman story, and not enough encyclopedic content; the article needs about a 10KB reduction in prose.
  • Several of the summary templates are the Main template, when the daughter articles are not summarized back to the main article. Summary style could be better used, or at least some of the templates switched to Further info or See also.
  • The lead is two paragraphs, one long. An article of this size warrants a three or four-paragraph lead, and the lead needs to be rewritten to adequately summarize the article.
  • Notes - it's hard to tell what is going on - they are numbered to 11, and then start over again at 1. Some of the notes are just blue links that need to be expanded.
  • References - it's not clear that these are actually references - some of them may need to be pruned, or may be better listed as External links. If they are References, they should be expanded to include full biblio information, and last access date.
  • Additional reading is a curious mix of See also, Further reading, and External links (or external jumps). It uses no consistent style, should be cleaned up, with each entry allocated to the correct category (External link, See also, or Further reading). See WP:LAYOUT
  • ISBNs on all books, last access dates on all websites.
  • Two entire sections (at least) are very speculative, ORish, weasly, and largely uncited : Superman in popular culture, and Cultural influences. Can't these two sections be merged, and summarized from a daughter article, since the article is too long? A lot of the info in those two sections needs to be cited, or deleted.
  • The overall article organization is strange and rambling, bouncing from topic to topic. We usually find awards listed almost last, just above See also (by the way, since awards is basically empty, it should be expanded or deleted). There are multiple sections covering characters, and they're all over place, in no overall order that makes sense. A restructuring of the article may help cut down the bloated prose size.
  • An example of Summary style/template issues is found in the section, Powers and abilities. It says the main article is Powers and abilities of Superman, but the content summarized back to this article is very large, and it doesn't appear to be a summary of that article. Summary style is not used correctly or effectively.
  • There is strange and sporadic use of bolding in the article.
  • There are many needs for citation, and more that can be added as work progresses. I added some very obvious cite needed tags to the Cultural sections.
  • I'll fix footnotes per WP:FN, where to place ref tags next, but there aren't many to fix.
  • External jumps (mostly in the Progeny section) need to be corrected by converting them to Wikified text or referenced text.
  • This is not compelling prose, for example: "Comedian Jerry Seinfeld is known to be a very big Superman fan.[citation needed] In many episodes of Seinfeld, there are many references to Superman in addition to various memorabilia placed in Jerry's apartment."
  • Once the entire article is reorganized and rewritten, Wikilinking needs attention. Unimportant words shouldn't be linked, and words should be linked on first occurrence. For example, the word Kryptonian is linked repeatedly.
  • Extensive inline comments and questions which should be dealt with.
  • I see there is an External link to the DMOZ category on Superman: pls review other external links, and eliminate them if they are already listed at DMOZ.
  • Mixed reference styles - there are some Harvard-style inline references that need to be converted to cite.php.

There is an edit summary which says, "(Cleaned up some stuff. Is this article's condition really bad enough to merit that "quality standards" tag?)" Yes.

Once some of these structural issues are addressed, a closer look at the prose would be beneficial. Sandy (Talk) 01:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You mentioned the reference sections going 1-11, then starting over. I believe someone has add trivia to the notes section thinking that was where it should be added, and not realizing that it was a place for in-text citations. It should probably just be removed (maybe better place if it can be..didn't read through all of it to see how encyclopedic). Bignole 01:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My main concern is with the fictional biography. It needs to be written more in the style of Batman's (simply the best comics article around), summarising the main points. Wiki-newbie 10:47, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would devote time to it, but right now I'm overseas. I'll be back home in over a week, so here's hoping someone can help substantially with that section. It helped when I was reworking the Batman article that I had the Les Daniels book on hand. The author released a companion book for Superman a year before the Batman book (1998, Superman's 60 anniversary), and it should be widely available at libraries and bookstores for those who want to take a crack at it. WesleyDodds 11:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've got a family funeral to prepare for, but I'm going to nab the book from the library within the week, it's not in my local one so I'll have to run around to get it. Sandy, do we still get an extension if we are showing good faith in improving the article? I don't really dispute any of the concerns to the point that it makes a difference this second, but I'm willing to put the work in, it's just this review is perhaps at the worst possible time in the calendar year. I'm thinking it may be an idea to work this one up in a temp page, because it gets hit by vandals quite badly, which makes progress even harder. Any thoughts or objections? Hiding Talk 13:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We always give extensions when we know people are working on it and retaining status is within the realm of possibility, but since so many of you are busy in real life, please be sure to keep us posted - we have defeatured articles when we get no feedback for several weeks and see no progress, and then people are mad at us :-) Keep us posted, so we *know* there's progress. There's a lot to be done. As I have time, I'll see if there's anything on the list I can do. Sandy (Talk) 15:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I've had a bash at the further reading, see also and external links, but please feel free to take it further. I'm not sure how many fictional works we should have in the further reading, I'm worried it will become a dumping ground for every story ever written about Superman. I've tried to keep it to the works typically considered important parts of the canon, but I'm open to other people's thinking on that. Off to make dinner. Probably won't be back until middle of next week, but I hope to be armed with some good reference works. Hiding Talk 17:55, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and took care of the "Kryptonian" linking. I left the Infobox's link and the link in the "Golden Age" section. Bignole 19:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think we could take out a lot of the examples of Superman's abilities, from the "Powers and Abilities" section? I've read some things that I believed were either unnecessary or OR, and some of them were examples of his powers (ex. His powers have again increased, he can now throw mountains......). I'm not a frequent editor of this page, so I don't want to step on other's toes by jumping at things. Bignole 20:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My "opinion" is that it would be more effective to first trim and reorganize a LOT of the text, before referencing and wikilinking. A LOT of content needs to go to daughter articles, or should just be deleted. It will be easier to work on a trimmer article. Sandy (Talk) 22:02, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC, more work needed. Much improved, but still largely uncited, and has imbedded links (external jumps). Sandy (Talk) 00:36, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wait! Can you hold off on FARC until after the Christmas holidays? This is a busy time of year for many people. And I'd hate to see it needlessly stripped of FA status while we're still working on fixing the article. - Lex 04:50, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Seconded. I won't be able to work on this until after New Year's. WesleyDodds 06:33, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, we'll wait til first or second and see. Marskell 19:40, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Any chance you could wait until the 7th or 8th, I mean the first or second doesn't really give a huge amount of time. I'm still waiting for relevant books to come back to the library my end, above having contribution time cut by the kids being off school. Hiding Talk 10:06, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Got a couple of books from the library, so am going to attack in the next few days. Hiding Talk 17:06, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2007 edit
  • Okay, I'm making headway. I'm workshopping new legacy and influences sections in a user sandbox and I've restarted the publication history. I think it'll take me about a week to address all the concerns I can, so I'd appreciate that time. I hope you'll grant it. The popular culture section I intend to rewrite as well as I go. Hopefully, once I get the article built and sourced, people can address my prose, the layout will assert itself and more minor issues such as wikifying and citation formats can be hit. Is that okay? Hiding Talk 10:51, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's fine. Wiki-newbie 10:52, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We can leave it open until your done. Do you think "In popular culture" is a redundant title given that it's popular culture top-to-bottom? Sections of this sort have also been denigrated here as trivia. Perhaps "In other media"? Marskell 07:25, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Other media was my thinking, yes, it's how such sections are treated elsewhere. Thanks for extending. Hiding Talk 09:09, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My main concern with a cleaning up the article is taking away emphasis in the four particular stories in the Modern Age section. The likes of The Death of Superman, Birthright etc may be high points but we need to follow the Batman article and summarise the main points of these tales. The Man of Steel and Birthright could share a paragraph on retcons as well as discussing the other 1990s stories that made a big fuss like Death. I've not read all Superman stories so I'm unsure of how to summarise them, but I'll try. Wiki-newbie 09:44, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At 50KB of prose, the article is too long, and needs to lose some content via better use of summary style. Prose size should ideally come down to around 35 - 40 KB. See WP:LENGTH. If you first decide what content to summarize to daughter articles, the rest of the cleanup needed will be easier. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:18, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article is 70 KB, we're making a little progress I guess. Wiki-newbie 15:28, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
With respect to the end product, please keep an eye on *prose* size, not overall size - it's the amount of text our reader has to digest that shouldn't get too long. You started at 72KB about a month ago, so you still haven't done any of the necessary trimming. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:32, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cleaned-up Man of Steel and Birthright sections, down to 65 KB overall (sorry, I can't measure KB at all). Wiki-newbie 15:43, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've got a script from dr pda that does it auto :-) Prose size is now at 45KB - still too long - should get down to around 35 - 40. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:01, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • My plan was to assimilate what sources I've got and then trim afterwards, but I guess this is a collaborative project. I was going to sort out all the summary issues once I knew how the article looked once I'd finished writing it, if you see what I mean. Hiding Talk 18:40, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • oops (sorry) ... but I mentioned three weeks ago that prose size was an issue. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:02, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm sorry I hadn't made it clear that was going to be addressed. Hiding Talk 20:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think we can cut down on the "Powers and abilities" section, since it has a separate article anyway and it seems like one of the more fancrufty sections. WesleyDodds 05:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. That's one of the problems I've been wanting to jump in and help out with, but I want to make sure I'm familiar with the summary style before I do. - Lex 10:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Status? Editors requested til the 7th or 8th - the FAR has been up for a month, yet the article is still not cited - how is it coming? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've been working, had the flu and had my hands tied up elsewhere the last few days. Tintin was on the main page Friday and that took all my attention keeping an eye on it. I've set some time aside this week to hit it hard. Sorry to keep asking for delays, I am willing to pull this around, it's just other things get in the way. Appreciate whatever slack can be cut. Am settling in for an hour of work now. Hiding Talk 13:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep citing there: the recent Warner Bros DVD collection of the films has done some good with the cites. I've also cleaned up the powers section. Wiki-newbie 18:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Right, I've hit the Cultural influences section, renaming it influences. I've referenced what I can, jettisoned what I can't and added what I've found. I'm off to bed now, more work later in the week. Hiding Talk 23:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A note to editors: CITE THE COMICS. It'll bump it up in no time. Look at Storm (comics). Wiki-newbie 21:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Okay, I've hit the publication section, tried to break it into more relevant sections. I'm thinking the best bet is to merge the Character history section into the History of Superman article, with a summary installed. Then rewrite the popular culture section as "In other media", sort the awards section out, I'm thinking a legacy section, and then add a crticisms section. Then have a look at what to trim, sort out the citations for the comic books rewrite the lead and get some proper featured article writers to maybe hit over the text for style. Hope that's okay. I'll try and pull another hour now, and then another three or four tomorrow. Hopefully get this sorted sooner rather than later. Appreciate the slack on offer here. Hiding Talk 23:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good lord, what a clean-up. Keep referencing. Wiki-newbie 16:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ta. Nice work yourself. I've done the other media section. Next up is a sandboxing of legacy and criticisms sections. I think then it's a question of what to cut. Hiding Talk 23:21, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I feel "Cultural influences" should be a part of "origins" in the publication history, instead of its own separate section further down in the article. WesleyDodds 01:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm putting Progeny into the main Abilities article. I think influences should go into the History section and Awards expanded into all about his popularity. Overall the article is short enough now. Wiki-newbie 21:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just had a peek; the size is reasonable now and the TOC looks streamlined - nice work so far. On quick glance, I saw an awkward sentence, but assume ce hasn't been done yet. Another Biblical figure Superman is often seen as being an analogy for is Jesus. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:07, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Status I'm willing to close this one if people feel it's within the criteria. Any glaring violations left? Marskell 11:35, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article isn't quite broad enough yet, the Popularity section is a stub and we need to write about alternate versions of the character: I'll start that to use up the remain citations in the Further Reading section. Wiki-newbie 11:45, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not there yet. Many of the references aren't complete (just blue links, with no biblio info), there are still cite tags, and I just saw chunks of text that need citation in Personality and character ("Recent writers have attempted to deepen ..." and "Survivor's guilt has also been cited ...") Statements like this need to be attributed: I didn't read further. Holidays are behind us: it's really time to pick up the pace here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:14, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm working over the weekend. My plan was to bash out a legacy section, a criticisms section, hive off the character and cast sections to a separate article and then get a better writer than me in to copy-edit. Hopefully I could pull my end through by Weds or Thurs, if that's okay? Hiding Talk 19:28, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • When I say working over the weekend, I mean working off wiki, not on the article, just to make that clear. Hiding Talk 19:28, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reorganisation of the article is pretty much done now, I think there's still inline comments to look at and the summary style issues, and I know I've got a couple of short sections I've just put in, I'm going to think them over tonight, but I think it's nearly there. Thoughts? Hiding Talk 00:41, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great on the Cultural Impact, but I'm restoring the Fictional Biography. Wiki-newbie 19:41, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is my response to a message from Hiding, I personally feel when a user comes to the article they would want information on Superman as a character, not a personality in pop culture. I'll cut down the internal links and move some stuff about Superman's popularity. Wiki-newbie 20:20, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm of the opinion that we're targeting a general audience and our top level article on Superman should explore the character as an icon, rather than as a comic book character. I think the comic book side is well served by the article, and that the fictional biography and powers and abilities sections are not written entirly from an out of universe view, and that such a detailed look is better served in a sub-article where greater detail can be developed. Hiding Talk 21:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that Superman is in a sense beyond comics now, being an American pop icon, and that deserves to be covered extensively. However, I agree with Wiki-newbie that the edits unfortunately caused a situation where almost all details of the character itself were removed from the main article aside from the lead section, and placed in hard-to-navigate sub-article. It's oddly the opposite situation we've run into often with other comcis articles, where its all fictional bio but nothing about the character's relevance. My opinion is to try and style it after Batman and Captain Marvel (DC Comics) but more succinctly since we already have those FAs as templates. WesleyDodds 02:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Batman is larger than Superman at the minute, and Captain Marvel isn't of the same stature. The Adventures of Tintin is another FA and is another one to consider. Personally I feel the balance is about right at the minute, because a lot of the detail on the comic side of the character are in sub-articles which are summarised back. This will help the article since it will stop editors from adding details to the top level article, and will thus give it a greater degree of stability, and help avoid recentism and bloat as people add the minor details of the latest Superman stories. Like I say, there needs to be some idea of the structure of the article. A lot of the sub-articles really need a lot of time invested on them as well, they are full of original research and unsourced material. Hiding Talk 22:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary edit

Initial criteria concern was citations (1c); on-going debate on focus of material (4) and comprehensiveness (1b). Marskell 12:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The last few comments indicate that more work is required before people are going to be happy with this. It has been in the review section for 6 weeks, which is far and away a record, and I don't like the precedent of not moving a review after so long. There'll still be another two weeks in FARC, at least. People can perhaps hold off on kp/rm for a little while longer. Marskell 12:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Funny how we went from one issue to another. It is now factually accurate but no longer comprehensive. Wiki-newbie 18:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • How on earth is it not comprehensive? It covers every aspect of the topic. I'm bemused. I think there may be a misunderstanding of what summary style is. The larger sections, such as the fictional biography and the powers and abilities, have been split off into sub-articles. Hiding Talk 22:40, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Size question. The article is now 62 KB, which I would consider fine due to the amount of references we have. That's one short of Batman, which overall is an article not in need of a review. Any objections? Wiki-newbie 11:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Should I attach those categories at the (Category:Fictional orphans, e.g.) to Category:Supermen?--Rmky87 15:11, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nevermind.--Rmky87 05:05, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Status?. The size is now an adequate 35KB of prose. If 1a (prose) and 1b (comprehensive) issues are now settled, we can turn our attention to 1c - cleaning up the refs, which are formatted all over the map. Are you all settled on the prose, now? If so, I'll give you a list of issues to be dealt with in the references, and we can begin to review the prose. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's fine then if the article is short enough now. What's wrong with the references? Wiki-newbie 16:05, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about the {{fact}} tags that are apparently still there? Scroll down to the bottom if you don't believe me.--Rmky87 21:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Lots - I'll start a sample list below. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:26, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References

The following are samples only - all should be checked:

  • Is this a news source? The link to the Herald goes to a dab page, and the author name should follow a standardized format similar to other refs - author last name first, etc. Seriously, Perilously" The Herald (Glasgow); Sep 29, 1998; Grant Morrison; p. 14 . Is Grant Morrison the author? Also, newspaper titles are italicized. Punctuation after the title? You need not use the cite templates, but they can give you an idea of standardized format. (Missing quote on Seriously, also.)
  • Look at your ref number 6 vs. your ref number 2 - does author go before the book or after? Does date go after the author or after the publisher? Please use a standardized format, whichever you choose. Engle, Gary. "What Makes Superman So Darned American?" Superman at Fifty: The Persistence of a Legend. Dennis Dooley and Gary Engle, eds. Cleveland, OH: Octavia, 1987. or Daniels, Les (1998). Superman: The Complete History, 1st, Titan Books. ISBN 1-85286-988-7.
  • Inconsistency throughout - look at this example in relation to others: Richard von Busack "Superman Versus the KKK" July 2-8, 1998 Metro. . Author last name first or not? Who is the website publisher? Where do dates go - they are different in each. Again, review the cite templates or any of the citation styles at the end of WP:CITE to choose a standardized format.
  • What is this? No publisher, no last access date (all websources need last access date and identification of the publisher, also author and date if those are given). Superman vs. the KKK (or Stetson Kennedy vs. Freakonomics)- The story behind Superman's battle against prejudice
  • Is this a news source? Is there no online link? Author name first? No punctuation between article name and newspaper name, newspaper name should be italicized. "Up, up and oy vey" The Times (London); Mar 5, 2005; Howard Jacobson; p. 5 .

*Your current reference number 24 is blank - got lost somewhere back in the edits, needs to be found in edit history. Those are samples only from the first few refs - please run through all of the references and employ a standardized biblio format, so the reader can tell what's what. Also, there are no page numbers given on book references. All websources need last access date, author names should be listed first, with last name first, decide what style you are going to use for pub dates, and all websources need publishers. Please keep us posted when the referencing is finished; if your text adjustments have settled down, we should begin to look at the prose. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:26, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And what on earth is this:
Scott Bukatman has discussed Superman, and the superhero in general, and discussed the ways in which the humanize large urban areas through their use of the space, noting especially Superman's ability to soar over the large skyscrapers of Metropolis.
supposed to mean?--Rmky87 22:09, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's a literary analysis, a critical theory of Superman's cultural worth and an examination of the manner in which superhero comics work. Bukatman argues that one of the reasons they are so popular is that on one level they grant the reader a mastery of otherwise soulless built up areas. He notes the superhero becomes popular at roughly the same time as skyscrapers become popular, with the Chrysler building and The Empire State Building, and that the superhero iterates or fulfils a subconscious desire within humanity to assert supremacy over such towering objects. It's in part perhaps to a response of fear that some felt of such tall buildings. Does that help? Hiding Talk 22:36, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment—It's not badly written, so I guess it should stay. Pity there are still a few glitches, though, like:
    • "Initially titled The Superman, Siegel and Shuster created a comic book story and offered it to Consolidated Book Publishing, who at that time had published a 48 page black and white comic book entitled ...". Siegel and Schuster weren't titled that, were they? Publisher is not a person. Black-and-white as a triple adjective, like the existing "pants-over-tights outfit".
    • "This third version of the character was also given extraordinary abilities". Remove "also" and it's smoother.
    • Why are the simple years blued out? Real nuisance to our readers. Normally, I'd say remove just on that basis. Tony 10:28, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't understand these comments, could you explain in more detail what the issues are, sorry. Hiding Talk 16:09, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Since Tony is more or less satisfied with the prose, I will be a keep as soon as the references are cleaned up and the solo years are unwiki'd. Please keep us posted on progress. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I just had another look: not only are solo years linked, but full dates are not linked. There is also a significant amount of legal text having to do with coyrights and lawsuits that is not cited at all. And I found a strange wiki references stranded mid-article. This article has been an awfully long time in review - it would be good to get it finished up. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:13, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I cleaned up the dates myself - it seems there are still a lot of External links that should be pruned per WP:EL and WP:NOT. 17:40, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I just turned my attention fully back to this article, wikilinking full dates and cleaning up prose. Wiki-newbie 18:01, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How much prose do we have now? Wiki-newbie 18:39, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
37KB prose - good. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:32, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think I've done the references to how you wanted them? Hiding Talk 00:53, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I cleaned up the refs, so considering Tony didn't object to the prose, it looks good enough - but I do think it would be good for an eagle eye to run through the prose. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How about the others involved? Are we at keep? Marskell 05:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, if my comment counts, I'm a keep. Like Sandy I would like to get someone in on the prose though, if that's okay. That's my weakest area. Hiding Talk 13:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Of course your comment counts :). I have asked Wiki-newbie for another opinion. Marskell 07:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy, how much prose now? Wiki-newbie 19:49, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I can answer that. 41kb, still under Sandy's target of 43kb based on the comment at top of page of knocking 10kb off the then 53kb size. Hiding Talk 19:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, Dr pda script confirms 41KB prose - longer than I like, but not object territory - you all will need to keep a close eye on it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:48, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/archive/February_2007&oldid=141647227"