Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article review/archive/February 2008

< Wikipedia:Featured article review‎ | archive

Kept status edit

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

The article was kept 16:33, 29 February 2008.

My Belarusy edit

Review commentary edit

Main editor User:Zscout370 aware of review.

I am not sure this article is anywhere near the FA referencing criteria. It has very few references and they aren't even formatted. Nergaal (talk) 11:36, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nergaal, are you doing notifications? DrKiernan (talk) 12:11, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The status of one of the images is unclear: Image:735832177106 0 BG.jpg. DrKiernan (talk) 12:15, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The image does have an author and source, but just need to be renamed. References will be reformatted ASAP. Keep in mind that the anthem has been adopted in 2002, so while more sources would have showed up, I don't see much talk about the anthem now. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 19:10, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I added about 3 sources now, and I am using [1] for formatting the cites. Keep in mind this was written as an FA some time ago and probably done things then that would not be OK now. Just give me some time and I will do what I can to make it up to date. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 19:38, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Getting back to the image, the purported author, Nabil Al-Tikriti, shares the same surname as Saddam Hussein. Has one of his relations uploaded images of the Belorussian national anthem to wikipedia under a CC license? Something smells fishy with the image's tagging, and it needs to be resolved. DrKiernan (talk) 08:09, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in mind since it was an observer mission to Belarus, there was people from around the world in Belarus to watch the elections. I wouldn't be surprised if he from the Middle East observer group. I asked other Belarusian users to take photos of the lyrics or something else related to the anthem, no results yet. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 04:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removed photo, still working on the format of the cites. About halfway done. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 05:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary edit

Suggested FA criteria concerns are referencing (1c), formatting (2), and images (3). Marskell (talk) 19:54, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The previous image was deleted from Wikipedia. A lead image isn't required for FAC status; when it was on the front page, the Belarusian flag was used. I formatted the references already and added 3 references during the FAR process. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 20:07, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I no longer have a problem with any of the three FA criteria concerns suggested above. DrKiernan (talk) 09:04, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as the main editor. I fixed all of the formating, except for one link to Wikisource. The image in question was removed from Wikipedia, but we have various images in the article for the sheet music. 5 references were added during the FARC process and more can be added when needed. I wish there was more about the anthem, but I haven't been able to find much. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 09:12, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Great work guys!
There's a couple of ref formatting issues. Number 5, to Wikisource, isn't done. (What's our stance on Wikisource? Can the original source be used instead?) Date formatting should be made consistent. I'm getting an error accessing the tenth source.
Also, could few more sentences be added to the lead? The themes, music, and political issues aren't really summarized. Marskell (talk) 19:39, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nice job. For future work, be aware that quotes aren't italicized (WP:ITALICS), MOS:CAPS#All caps, and empty parameters in cite templates add unnecessary clunk to the article.[2] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to find the original source, but it has died. I know it was in the paper "Soviet Belorussia" in 2002 in June, when the contest finalists were announced. Will add to the lead now. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 05:07, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept 18:44, 22 February 2008.

Shoe polish edit

Review commentary edit

This article is quite unreferenced, having entire paragraphs/sections without a single footnote. In my opinion it wouldn't meet the criteria even for a GA-class article. --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 12:58, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, this is User:Neil's pride and joy. Eurocopter, can you please drop him a note about this review. Marskell (talk) 16:46, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have a feeling this FAR is chiefly motivated by Eurocopter being annoyed I blocked one of his countrymen. See User talk:Anittas for context. Irrespective of that, the article is fully referenced - it was given featured status a long time ago now, when inline citations were not deemed mandatory. All references are presented on the article. The fact they are not after every single sentence is a stylistic issue (personally, I feel we've gone way overboard on requiring everything to have its own reference) stemming from its FAC being back in November 2005. I count 20 references, so "quite unreferenced" is untrue. Neil ☎ 00:51, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, sorry Neil for respecting WP guidelines in this case, but it clearly doesn't look like an FA to me. Also, it doesn't meet WP:FACR 1.(c). I will have a closer look at this article to see if it meets all other criterias properly. --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 13:36, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that based on the current FAC criteria, 1(c) is the one that may not be fully met at present - it does depend on whether you require all facts to be directly cited (they are all referenced, but the reference tends to be at the end of a paragraph or section, rather than at the end of every sentence). 1(a),(b),(d),(e), 2, 3 and 4 are all met. Nevertheless, that is a stylistic issue that can be remedied fairly easily. All that needs doing is some copying and pasting of reference cite tags to have all appropriate sentences referenced directly. My net access is limited at the moment as I'm in the process of moving house. Give me a month or so and if it's not remedied, then by all means revisit this review process then. Neil ☎ 09:06, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, that means I should assume good faith, even if you didn't do this in one of your recent actions - actualy you didn't want to reach a compromise supported by many other people, not just by me. So, you would like to be treated well by the others, while you don't assume good faith in your actions. I'm sorry, but I can't do this. Maybe it is better to work out on the article after you move, and then propose it again for FA when it will be fully prepared. --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 14:49, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that statement proves you're solely doing this to make a point. It would be great if whoever reviews these could close it and we can all move on. If I haven't sorted the cites out in a month I'd have no objection to this being reopened. Neil ☎ 17:45, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that wiki rules must be respected and good faith should always be assumed. That's why this review will not be closed. --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 18:31, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Maybe it is better to work out on the article after you move, and then propose it again for FA when it will be fully prepared." What is this? Please comment on the content.
This can probably be closed soon. Sandy has helped unpack the ref info (access dates and so one, though the date formatting is inconsistent), which was my first concern in looking at it. I think the LEAD could say a little more and the single sentence Other methods should be incorporated into the rest of it or expanded. Otherwise, there's not a lot a to do. As noted previously, a cite should cover everything behind it until the last ref; if Neil is telling us the article does that, we can trust him. If there's any particularly startling statement you think needs a ref Eurocopter, list it. Marskell (talk) 19:16, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can someone please merge the one-sentence section ("Other methods") somewhere? Marskell, which date formatting is inconsistent? The article uses manual formatting, so I may have missed something. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:18, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I actually added some fact tags and a template where I thought it was necessary. Also, the lead has to be expanded a bit to meet WP:FACR 2(a). Sincerelly Marskell, if this article would be a Featured article candidate (in its current form), would it ever be promoted to FA in this days?? --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 19:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's something wrong here that I don't know how to fix, because I don't speak this language. Some of the footnotes are not being generated in the citations, for example: Kiwi was acquired by the American company [[Sara Lee]] following its purchase of Reckitt and Colman in 1991 and Knomark in 1987. {{ref label|rCOMP2|1|b}} They also have spaces incorrectly forced before the footnote. What is rCOMP2 ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:25, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aha - a few references had been overzealously removed (basically, any reference about Kiwi shoe polish). They have been recovered and restored. Should be better now. I'll continue to work on it. Neil ☎ 10:08, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sandy, I meant the accessed date formats. I think I've fixed most, using "Accessed November 29, 2007." I much prefer this, although the templates are coded for "Retrieved on 2007-11-27." Marskell (talk) 08:49, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Those ref labels are still dead and need to be fixed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:07, 1 December 2007 (UTC) I guess that wasn't very clear; see two citations in flagged in the "Modern day" section; they go to dead reflabels. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:13, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  Done. A reference had got lost in the ether some time over the last 2 years. Recovered and restored. Neil ☎ 11:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, unless anyone has more citation needs, the current citation formatting is good. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are still many paragraphs without a single citation, but if you think this article would pass an FAR in its current form, feel free to close the review. --Eurocopter tigre 12:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary edit

Suggested FA criteria concern is referencing (1c). Marskell (talk) 23:39, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This one is very close. I suggested a few more references to Neil. Marskell (talk) 23:39, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Add some sourcing to "Surge in popularity" and I'll be a Keep. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:11, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delist The Lead is still inadequate. It is at once too short (doesn't fully summarize the article) and trivial in places (for example, the dialectical slang for one particular location). The article has serious flow and referencing and other problems, for example look at this sentance from the "usage" section:
"A floor cleaning product called 'Klear' is often used as an alternative. However, it can fade black leather blue when exposed to moisture and crack over time. Used by some cadets, it is not at all recommended, as the extreme results are obvious and could be unfavourable in inspections."
It is completely unreferenced, and doesn't even seem to belong in the part of the text it is included in. Cadets? Cadets where? The whole article suffers from these problems, and it would seem that given that it has been under FARC for months, has had adequate time to be fixed. It hasn't, and thus should be removed from the FA list... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do your homework - that section on "Klear" was added recently, after I'd initially addressed all the points of this review. I've now removed it as it is indeed original research and unhelpful. Back in December I fixed all these problems, and thought the article had been removed from FARC (I do not know why it remained). The rest of the article does not "suffer from these problems"; please do point out any examples and I will try and resolve them. Neıl ☎ 11:39, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have asked Neil for an update. I'll admit that some of these FARs are getting so long that people seem to forget about them. Marskell (talk) 11:34, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I thought it had been removed back in December. You and Sandy asked for more references and I put them in - I didn't actually check to see if the review had been closed, though. Neıl ☎ 11:39, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Removing the bogus new stuff has improved the article. I would still like to see the lead expanded somewhat. My concerns over the lead haven't been addressed, but I suppose we can let that slide... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 14:17, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I did expand the lead somewhat, mentioning the rise of leather shoes, the World Wars, and the Kiwi brand. For a shortish article, I think the lead is an appropriate size.
Neil, this remained open for the simple reason that I didn't have enough comments to close it. I'll do so soon unless Jayron has other examples of flow problems? A few people did go over it and I don't have issues with the flow. Marskell (talk) 14:35, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for expanding the lead. It seems much better. The rest of the article reads fine, and I will not hold this up any more. From my perspective, you can close this review, this is a fine article as it is now. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 15:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thanks Tim. You are the bestest. Neıl ☎ 16:21, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept 21:10, 21 February 2008.

F-4 Phantom II edit

Review commentary edit

Notified - Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history and about a dozen recent editors.

There are relatively few inline citations in some sections of the F-4 Phantom II article. These are needed to show verification. See criteria Wikipedia:Featured article criteria 1c. Snowman (talk) 11:05, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "flying the Phantom" section needs to be enhanced, to show why it was so popular.
Further, it might be useful to break out the gun and smoke concerns, and put them, with such things as the other country modification requests, to put them into a section on "problems, fixes, and variants" Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 15:57, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A candidate for GA or FA cannot have any {{fact}} tags. This one has two, one in the Iran section, one in the Preserved aircraft section. The one in the Iran section is in the middle of a sentence, and there's a ref at the end of the sentence which cites a book. Whoever has this book needs to check to see if the ref covers the bit of info that's tagged. I've made a few minor changes, combining the two redundant sections that refer to the Collings Foundation plane, and added a caption to a thumb, because without a caption, thumbs squish the text to the left when viewed in some editions of netscape. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 17:35, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FAR candidates should have {{fact}} tags in the article body since contributers need to see where the problems are and thus what needs to be cited. My suggestions for improvement are as follows:

  • The lead section is too short, and provides insuffucent context for the rest of the article. It needs to be expanded.
  • Any claims related to numerical values should be cited. Case in point: "overview", paragraph one: "When production ended in 1981, 5,195 Phantom IIs had been built, making it the most numerous American supersonic military aircraft. Until the advent of the F-15 Eagle, the F-4 also held a record for the longest continuous production with a run of 24 years." Most numerous and longest continous production need cites.
  • Is it absolutely nessicary to have so many tables in the article body? They do convey the information accurately, bu they seem a little out of place and in my opinion unessicarily extend the length of the article.
  • Why do we need a specification section at the bottom? Can that information be presented in the top infobox like our ships articles, or is that not possible?

Remember these are only suggestions, so feel free to ingore them. Good luck on the FAR. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:34, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct, and I mis-typed...a candidate can have the fact tags, but to be promoted there can't be any. As for the specs section at the bottom, that's part of the WP:AIR page layout, and should be there. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 21:47, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary edit

Suggested FA criteria concern is referencing (1c). Marskell (talk) 19:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It would be helpful to know where references/cites are needed. The article already has a large number of references.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:54, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Revisted later, see below. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:25, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lots of fixes needed to be brought to standard. Unformatted references; external link farm needs to be pruned per WP:EL, WP:RS, WP:NOT; layout doesn't conform with WP:GTL; irritating amount of WP:MOSBOLD breaches throughout; portals belong in See also and commons belong in External links; WP:DASH breaches throughout (endashes on page and number ranges); short, stubby and listy sections (see Preserved Phantoms as one example, but many sections are listy); WP:UNITS breaches everywhere I checked, no non-breaking hardspaces; WP:MOSDATE issues (solo years aren't linked); Wikilinking needs attention (noticed Sandia labs); WP:MOS#Captions punctuation on sentence fragments; text redundancies indicating need for copyedit (However, acquisition of the Phantom would have required disbanding at least one Dassault Mirage III squadron in order to provide the necessary aircrew ... ); WP:FN footnote placement (I'll fix that); sentences that start with numbers (WP:MOSNUM); numbers less than 10 should be spelled out (WP:MOSNUM, sample: Cunningham and Driscoll would become aces for the USN by shooting down 5 or more enemy aircraft ... ); inadequate WP:LEAD. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just out of curiosity - where does the layout not conform with WP:GTL? --Rlandmann (talk) 11:52, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually it does. WP:GTL says: It is okay to change the sequence of these appendices, but the "Notes" and "References" sections should be next to each other. [They are] For example, you may put "See also" above "Further reading" or "Notes and references" above "See also". I believe the burden of Sandy's complaint is it is more usual to put the External Links last, but it is not required. There seem to be clear reasons for the order you have chosen, which should be enough for any rational reviewer. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:15, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • And what precisely is wrong with the formatting of the references - MOS explicitly states no preference for {{cite format.Nigel Ish (talk) 12:18, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draft enlarged lead paras are here. Please comment here or on the article talk page.Nigel Ish (talk) 22:56, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Revised lead paras have now been moved to the article.Nigel Ish (talk) 12:19, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Am I looking at the same article as SandyGeorgia? I've managed to find one incidence within (not throughout) the main body of text where a hyphen was used instead of an endash, plus a few within the reference footnotes. She states "WP:UNITS breaches everywhere I checked, no non-breaking hardspaces"—having checked through the scores of entries, non-breaking hardspaces were everywhere excepting two or three instances that needed correcting. Similarly WP:MOSNUM breaches—just a couple of numerals below 10, and it could be argued that one of those was part of a list and should have been left as it was for consistency. I'll check again, but I couldn't find a sentence that started with numerals rather than written numbers. I agree that all of these MOS guidelines should be adhered to, but disagree with the comments about listy sections—lists are sometimes the best means of dealing with some types of information.
Have I been staring at the page for too long or have I misunderstood something? --Red Sunset 21:35, 22 December 2007 (UTC) Update: I've dealt with a sentence starting with a number, and replaced some bolding in the body of the text with quotation marks and removed the rest. --Red Sunset 18:03, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Requirement to follow MOS: Please do not be deceived by Manderson's entreaties to ignore Criterion 2. While WPians "should follow" MOS in all article, FAs have a special imperative. The rationale is that without some kind of centralised guidance as to style and formatting, the project will lose cohesion and readers may as well just google their query. Standardisation—in moderation—is one thing that lends WP authority and makes it easier to write and read (even though contributors have to read and absorb the guidelines, sorry). Over the past six months, Manderson and one or two off-siders have been mounting a campaign to reduce MOS to the status of mere dawdlings that should be ignored or followed as you please. The campaign has, at its worst, taken on a personal edge, as you see above. Tony (talk) 00:23, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now, there are silly things that aren't hard to fix: read MOS on final period in captions. The first one, for example, is not a full sentence, but a noun phrase ("F-4E" is the head; "USAF" is the premodifier and the rest is the postmodifier. Please audit thoughout. (The second caption is a full sentence.) "not broken" --> "unbroken" (just a little more normal). I've removed the autoformatting from the full dates in one section, to discover that the wrong raw format was used (see new rules at MOSNUM). This is a US-related article, yes? You no longer have to autoformat, and not doing so shows up what 99% of our readers see (here, the wrong format). MOS says avoid bold except right at the start.

  • The clause is five of the speed records were not broken until 1975. It might be better to make this positive: were broken only in 1975. (and I'm not sure, the stress is on the length of time the record endured), but unbroken does not sound idiomatic here. Third opinion? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:40, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's otherwise an excellent article. I hope the contributors can fix it up (a few refs needed, too). Tony (talk) 00:39, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong retain It is an excellent article; none of Tony's nitpicks affect the clarity or content on the article. MOScruft should always be ignored; for example, WP:MOSDATE is a recommendation - nothing stronger would have consensus. It is not grounds to oppose; as above. If some editor wishes to revise the article for this and there is consensus to let him, fine; if not, no matter how many hobby-horses are stalled at the so-called Manual of Style, they will not make the difference between an article which is FA and one which is not. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:55, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As for citation: this is another article with a primary source: The book by David Donald and Jon Lake, specifically on the F-4, supplemented by the article by Fricker on the Phantom. As with other articles, please supply a list of assertions which are both likely to challenged and do not have an obvious source; and I will see if I can lay hands on the sources. (It will not be immediate; the holidays will interfere.) Mere vague grumbles are not actionable. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:08, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mostly corrected, will revisit once sources are straightened out. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:29, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixes still needed. Checking back, almost two weeks later. I see numerous improvements, but work still needed. There is still incorrect use of bolding for emphasis in the text (see WP:MOSBOLD, example: The F-4Ds reverted to using Sidewinders under the Rivet Haste program in early 1968, ... ). There are still copyedit needs (sample: The Spook has followed the Phantom around the world adopting local fashions, for example, the British Spook sometimes wears a bowler hat and smokes a pipe.[44] and re-adapted to the US "Phantom Man".) Also, the prose suffers from WP:PROSELINE in the "World record breaker" section. There are citation tags. There are undefined acronyms (example, DASA). There's a strange section called "Preserved Phantoms" which looks like a list of trivia, yet has a strange access date as if it's actually a list of references (??). There are also external jumps in that section. There are still unformatted references with no publishers identified (see WP:CITE/ES). There are still WP:GTL issues (commons belong in External links, not See also, and per WP:MOS, external links should be last). Another few days, leaning towards Remove. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC) oops, one more, the bolding and linking in the first line of the article is incorrect, see WP:LEAD. There are also WP:MOSNUM issues (example: The Navy claimed 40 air-to-air victories at the cost of 71 Phantoms lost in combat (five to aircraft, 13 to SAMs, and 53 to AAA).) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I wrote the revision that originally received the FA status. A few comments:
    • The article was originally written to follow the WP:Air MOS, please familiarize yourself with it before commenting on "why the specs are at the bottom" etc.
    • The reason I no longer actively participate in Wikipedia is because I got tired of constant bastardization (even if well-intentioned) of other people's hard work (yes, WP:Own blah blah blah). The original MOS-compliant long lead was rapidly pruned by people screaming about the length of text, the country sections got bloated with nationalistic drivel, the fanboys dragged in links and unreferenced material from lord-knows-where, etc. As they say, "if you don't want your work edited by others, don't contribute" and I took that advice to heart. Will be happy to return to Wikipedia when the rights of productive contributors will be valued above those of idiot children with Internet access. - Emt147 Burninate! 05:54, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The country sections are certainly irritating, so I understand your sentiments (some of it may be extended lists of trivia). With respect to the Air Project's manual of style, it should be understood that featured articles must comply with Wikipedia's manual of style and the Air Project's style guidelines don't come into play wrt WP:WIAFA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:45, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Remove, hard to understand why issues aren't being addressed, even with more than a month since commentary introduced. There are still uncited sections, references aren't fully formatted (missing publishers), and there's a strange section (Preserved Phantoms) with external jumps and citation-looking statements. Can't this article be finished up? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:53, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • As far as I can see ALL of the print referneces have publishers - Please explain what is the problem is with the references?Nigel Ish (talk) 18:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Having publishers and listing them are two different things. Marskell (talk) 19:53, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • All the print references have publisher LISTED.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • The web publishers do not. My first complaint would be the massive ToC. Serious pruning needed. Marskell (talk) 07:36, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • Reliability of websources cannot be easily evaluated if publishers aren't provided. And there is still the matter of small things that aren't being fixed; for example, Commons links belong in external links (WP:GTL). The last time I looked, I saw uncited hard data and opinion. All of this should be addressed so the article can close. I won't be around next week; if these things are addressed, Marskell will ignore my Remove. I suggest contacting the author of the recently promoted Boeing 747; he may be able to help bring this article into compliance. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:34, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Checking in again two weeks after my last comment, TOC doesn't appear to have changed, there are still cite needed tags, publishers are still missing, and there are now blue link unformatted citations to personal websites as well (Baugher's McDonnell F-4K Phantom FG.Mk.1). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • While Joe Baugher's site is a personal website it is well references - with all the pages quoting several sources - so it does seem a reasoble reference to use in the article - although the cites should point to the actual page making the claim rather than the index page.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • We don't source to personal, hobby pages. You would need to track down the original sources and cite them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:19, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not willing to close this with substantial work in the recent history. Can we do this basic thing first: every reference (web and book) gets a listed publisher. That done, we can come back and discuss the massive TOC. (Perhaps the countries can be spun off to a separate list.) Marskell (talk) 18:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I left a series of sample edits to show how to format refs to identify publishers. In the few sections I worked on, I found numerouos sources of dubious reliability, personal websites, etc. This article needs massive amounts of work to come to standard. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:18, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Questionable sources found so far in F-4 Phantom II‎.

    1. Greg Goebel's http://www.vectorsite.net/
    2. Somebody named Joe Baugher, whose personal webpage index is dead: http://home.att.net/~jbaugher/ (These two are the source for an enormous portion of the article).
    3. Can't determine authorship here: http://www.tomcatalley.com/ Removed
    4. Personal website of Tornsten Anft http://www.anft.net/f-14/torsten.htm Removed
    5. Can't determine authorship here, and whether this is a "real" or "virtual" museum: http://www.wingsandrotors.org/ Real
    6. Can't determine authorship here: http://www.aero-web.org/
    7. Someone named Richard Seaman, The Flying Kiwi: http://www.richard-seaman.com/ Replaced
    8. Commercial, personal website: http://www.flightchief.com/about.html Removed
    9. No idea how to locate this: Lewis, David S. Jr. Personal Memoirs. 1993. Replaced

    SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:03, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    That's all I can do for now, until the reliability of sources is sorted out ... can someone please check this edit? Something was off in the dates. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:26, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I checked out the Joe Baugher guy, and he seems fairly reliable. His website may look amateurish, but the articles he writes are sourced and well-written. According to his bio, he has a PhD and has published books and articles in the academic world. Of course, that doesn't mean that relying on his site meets Wikipedia's standards. Given that he lists his sources, perhaps an editor with access to a library can use them instead. BuddingJournalist 14:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I looked and couldn't see a single publication that was aviation related. Thus he doesn't meet policy. He's definitely of a better cut than your average hobbyist, so it is tough. Marskell (talk) 20:03, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • These are the sources listed at the bottom of virtually every Phantom article on Baugher's page, please look again.
    • McDonnell Douglas Aircraft Since 1920: Volume II, Rene J. Francillon, Naval Institute Press, 1990.
    • McDonnell F-4 Phantom: Spirit in the Skies. Airtime Publishing, 1992.
    • Modern Air Combat, Bill Gunston and Mike Spick, Crescent, 1983.
    • The American Fighter, Enzo Angelucci and Peter Bowers, Orion, 1987.
    • Post-World War II Fighters: 1945-1973, Marcelle Size Knaac, Office of Air Force History, 1986.
    • The World Guide to Combat Planes, William Green, Macdonald, 1966.
    • The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Aircraft Armament, Bill Gunston, Orion, 1988.
    • The World's Great Attack Aircraft, Gallery, 1988.
    I would say that he has made a large effort to show that his pages are not original research. Nimbus227 (talk) 00:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps you're misunderstanding Marskell's input. Unless Baugher himself has academic publications in reliable sources related to aviation, his personal website does not get an exemption from our sourcing policies. If he cites those sources on his webpages, those are the sources that should be located and used to cite our article. We can't take his (personal website's) word for it. We use the reliable sources. He can make mistakes. Since he's given you the sources, you all can locate and use those. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Re-checking, now almost two months into review and three weeks since my last post, I don't see that any one of the 9 sources listed above has been addressed or removed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Made some progress. The tomcatalley, anft.net, flightchief sites above ones have been replaced and/or removed. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wings and Rotor is a real Museum - see [3] - which has the aircraft in question.Nigel Ish (talk) 19:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Pinged the talk. Yes, some progress. Willing to wait, difficult as it seems. I think we have good people here who can continue to improve. Marskell (talk) 20:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nimbus, if you don't mind, can you add comments below my list, and I'll strike my comments as I review? Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:10, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, sorry my mistake, keen to show that things are being addressed, Commons has been moved into external links by someone, that has not been acknowledged either. Nimbus227 (talk) 00:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No problem; don't sweat the little stuff in the lists above. I think most of it has been attended to, but will recheck once the more important policy issue of WP:V is sorted out. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:23, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Layout Guide says the Commons link should be in the External Links section. That's why I moved it there. Sister projects are considered external. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:28, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes of course, that is where it should be, I was highlighting the fact that you had moved it there, which solved an earlier complaint of it being in the wrong place. With regard to the list of sources Baugher uses, I was replying to the direct comment 'could not see a single publication that was aviation related', hopefully that was not unreasonable. Flying Kiwi reference removed BTW. Nimbus227 (talk) 00:38, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh, I had missed your point before. Good deal... -Fnlayson (talk) 00:42, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    * After many edit conflicts, Marskell was referring to our policy on self-published sources. Baugher doesn't appear to be a published aviation expert, so his website isn't "exempt" from our policy. He cites his sources; we should use those sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:48, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    (Return) The second source listed by Baugher is being used in this article, I note that he lists 'American Fighter' by Angelucci, this has not been used but I have this book and have only just realised its importance here. Will see how many contested references that I can replace with it. Nimbus227 (talk) 01:00, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    A new, unformatted ref has crept in: ^ Kunsan Airbase F-4 Phantom II SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Would [4] count as a WP:RS? It appears to be the product of the Malta Aviation Society - and has an (un-named) editor. If it passes muster it may be able to allow some of the remaining Baugher links to be removed.Nigel Ish (talk) 19:28, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It looks like (maybe I'm wrong?) that source just takes its info directly from Baugher, which is according to what I've been told, an issue in a lot of aviation literature (other sources duplicate Baugher's content, rather than going back to reliable sources, so errors may get propogated). Unless convinced otherwise, I'm inclined to say no, and to prefer ya'll go back to the original published sources that Baugher uses. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Continued

    Added a header to make editing easier. Yes, that Kunsan reference is copied from Baugher, if someone could look in the books that he mentions to find the original reference for naming that would be useful, I don't have it in my references. I have replaced some more Baugher references and a vectorsite reference. Nimbus227 (talk) 13:51, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Baugher is basically gone. I won't hold it up for one out of ninety. One last thing is a bit ToC rationalizing. For instance, the Design and development section begins "The origins of McDonnell’s..." and yet two subheadings down we have Origins again (should Attack Fighter be capitalized there?). Stub sections, such as Naming the aircraft can be merged. Flight testing can probably go into Flight characteristics. The countries list is still a bit unsightly, but at least its out of the ToC. That done, I think this can finally close. Marskell (talk) 12:38, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I have acted on most of your comments and agree that the article looks better for it. There is often a naming header in aircraft articles which helps readers to go straight to that section, I have expanded that section slightly and it can be further expanded when we find a good reference (it appears James McDonnell named it himself). I had a look at the 'non-US operators' section, the spacing problems are being caused by the table position (which I tried to move slightly but it did not work) and the possibly excessive number of photos filling the right side of the page. Perhaps some of these photos could be moved to the main article on that section. I am glad that the article is no longer in the 'danger zone' and as it is on many editors watchlists now hopefully we can maintain the standard. Cheers. Nimbus227 (talk) 13:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nice work. You still have this unformatted citation (Kunsan Airbase F-4 Phantom II); I think that's a reliable source, not sure? This needs more info (United States Naval Aviation 1910-1995 - Part 9 - The Sixth Decade 1960–1969. Naval Historical Centre. ) like accessdate. Can anything be done to replace Goebel (Goebel, Greg. Phantom Over Southeast Asia. Vectorsite.net. Retrieved: January 18, 2008. ) although I agree we shouldn't hold up over one or two citations. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The Kunsan Airbase website is a copy of the relavent Baugher page - However if all else fails the referenced info is also found here

    and here

    Nigel Ish (talk) 20:26, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    IMO, it's close enough. I don't enter a keep as long as there are a few outstanding issues, but I think we can close this one if Marskell's other organizational issues are addressed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:29, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    While the references may not be quite perfect, and my organizational issues aren't quite perfectly addressed, there's also no perfect article. More than three months on, this can be kept; these enormous reviews have to be closed eventually. Congratulations to all involved! Marskell (talk) 21:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was kept 12:28, 21 February 2008.

    Blade Runner edit

    Review commentary edit

    Notified WP Films and WP Science Fiction.

    The article was promoted as a FA in mid 2005 when rules for getting an article to FA status were less strict. This article is messy, it is lacking many citations, it is written fairly well - yet does not represent the best writing style on Wikipedia, and features some bad grammar, there is no proper fair use disclaimer for many of the images and the reaction section mainly goes on about what Roger Ebert thought of the film. Cinefile81 (talk) 09:18, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Please notify the original FAC nominator and involved editors, identifiable through article stats as described in the WP:FAR instructions. Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:15, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Images do have fair use rationales, and I trimmed Ebert a bit. Some citations are already in the article and simply need to be replicated to other sections. Messy? Please be more specific. - RoyBoy 800 03:44, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Non-free images need to be significant, per #8 of WP:NFC#Policy. This means there needs to be critical commentary about each screenshot used, otherwise any screenshot from the film could be inserted for decorative purposes. A screenshot should directly tie into the content that exists in the article. Fight Club (film), in my opinion, represents how to utilize such screenshots in connection with the content. Basically, how do the existing screenshots in Blade Runner tie directly into the content? For example, the unicorn screenshot is probably the most appropriate of all the images with a large purpose behind it. There needs to be the same kind of purpose behind other images used. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 05:20, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the suggestion. I happen to really like Fight Club too. - RoyBoy 800 19:18, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, such context does exist for most of the images. If there is a danger of them being deleted (yet again), then I may be able to address any ongoing concern. - RoyBoy 800 20:03, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If there is context for the images, then my suggestion would be to ensure that fair use rationales are described fully and that the captions are written to explain the images in context. For example, "Romeo and Juliet kiss" = "Look, a pretty picture", where "Romeo and Juliet kiss in a fashion intended by the director to evoke that of the 19XX film" would be more directly tied. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:26, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I've added rationales/context to three of the images. - RoyBoy 800 04:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    See also and External links have been nuked, much to my annoyance and IMO a detriment to the article. Caption and dash, uh no thanks. Focused on removing lists. Largest task was references, which I've improved upon somewhat. - RoyBoy 800 03:44, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    For the Reception section, would it be preferable to use commas instead of em dashes? - RoyBoy 800 04:29, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Would a table be preferable for the list of changes in the Final Cut? - RoyBoy 800 19:18, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Perhaps a possibility would be retrieving the specific revision when this article was nominated and make a diff between that revision and today's revision? We can see what kind of content has been added and possibly trim any unnecessary information that's been added since. Of course, I agree with the nominator that this article needs a closer look beyond that. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:18, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • In reviewing the article, I believe that its largest issue is its dependence on online sources, which is not appropriate for a film made in 1982. I have recently hunted down and found a staggering amount of resources through FilmReference.com (excellent website for resources on older films) and Film Index International. You can found them compiled at User:Erik/Blade Runner. I have yet to go through Google Books or Google Scholar, which may have additional resources about the film. With so many print sources that are not utilized in the article, I am unsure if the Featured Article can be improved in short time. If you want to improve the article, feel free to utilize the resources for which I have provided citations at my subpage. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:20, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    As a modern classic from the 1980s, it of course will have considerable material written about it. However, with the exception of specifics from the BR - Bible, most necessary references can be found online. The cyberpunk theme compliments the idea of early adopters of the internet, discussing and referencing Blade Runner online. Excellent list though. - RoyBoy 800 03:44, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Is there not a possibility that the existing online sources may not effectively reiterate the content of the offline sources? There's more offline sources than this article has online sources, and I'm not sure if online sources serve as a comprehensive coverage of this film. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 05:23, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Online references are never comprehensive, but I think they can be adequate for this FA. Just need to find a few more references; and ultimately I might be able to get all I need from the new edition of the BR Bible. - RoyBoy 800 19:18, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Would it be practical to split off Future Noir into its own article? -Malkinann 02:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    If it matures/expands further, certainly. - RoyBoy 800 00:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    What might be necessary is to split the versions section into a separate article as it has become very listy, detailed and large. - RoyBoy 800 04:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC) Done. - RoyBoy 800 04:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment I removed the most blatant OR statements from the video game section, but there are still no references for the second paragraph. --Mika1h (talk) 21:28, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The recently-released DVD has a long documentary on the making of the film that would make an excellent source (among other things, we learn that Pris's makeup was Daryl Hannah's idea during the screen test, not inspired by the eponymous character in We Can Build You as the article says. Daniel Case (talk) 07:09, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I think moving the "Influence in film" and "Cultural references" down below, between "Novel" and "Folklore" would be logical. Present all the relevant info about the film, then go into how the film influenced other works. Phyesalis (talk) 22:21, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    FARC commentary edit

    Suggested FA criteria concerns are referencing (1c), images (3), and focus (4). Joelito (talk) 12:34, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The Cultural References section needs cleanup and strays into Trivia territory at times. BuddingJournalist 20:44, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Almost a month now, and the Cultural influence section still needs major clean-up to remove trivial items ("The 2006 shooter Gears of War contains a revolver used as a side-arm by players that looks and sounds very similar to the pistol used by Deckard throughout the film.") and add references. References in general need clean-up for proper formatting (there's also a reference to a Youtube video [and the video is a copyright violation, from the looks of it]). BuddingJournalist 23:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm concerned by some of the references: given the extensive academic analysis of the film, we should be using hard sources rather than websites. I think the images are OK: they're not free but they do have rationales. I'm concerned a little by the focus: the article over-concentrates on the Final Cut (fans seem determined to skew the article in that direction) but the article should be about Blade Runner not about one out of seven versions. If the article goes that way it will lack comprehensiveness and will, in a sense, only cover one seventh of the material. The plot and themes section should cover the joint plot and joint themes in all the versions, with the specific detail of each version restricted to the Versions of Blade Runner article. The article is still being worked on (or worked over) so it's too soon for me to vote yet. DrKiernan (talk) 15:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Work needed; Publishers are not identified on many sources, there are unformatted citations, publication dates are not included on news sources (possibly others), Folklore section is uncited, Novel is undercited, Documentaries is mostly uncited, there's a lot of trivia (The film and music inspired a Subaru commercial.[44]) and trivia lists (There are several other songs influenced by the film (and book):), there's an entire section with a citation tag. MOS issues on ellipses and mixed use of em and endashes for punctuation. I don't think this article is going to make it; I'll check back in a few days to see if there has been a large improvement. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree with DrK. This is on shortlist of sf material that has received serious consideration. (Don't trust me, trust google scholar.) More of that should be in the article. It's also not properly rationalized, as the overwhelming TOC shows. Marskell (talk) 18:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • In case it has not been noticed, I have a subpage at User:Erik/Blade Runner that reflects a multitude of print sources that would benefit this article. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • And also look at the offline references used in the German featured article for Blade Runner, many of them in English, some from 1982. In fact having skimmed the German article it is clear the English article could be much improved. -Wikianon (talk) 11:47, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Several of the points above aggravate me. Feel free to comment within my post.
    The German article, less information, fewer contributors, easier to maintain. Offline English sources are used here, with the exception of Retrofitting Blade Runner as I haven't read it, and it is a collection of essays... so I consider it less notable.
    Why are the documentary sections in dire need of citation? Is someone challenging the content?
    I spent a bloody hour on the dashes and its still being brought up!! Not happy.
    The Music section is difficult to reference, I'm all for referencing our best work... I'm at a loss about the necessity here; I'll shred it and see if anyone actually cares. - RoyBoy 800 04:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Improved. OK, more detail. See WP:DASH; in some places, the article uses unspaced endashes, in others it uses unspaced emdashes, and in others it uses hyphens. Pls pick one and be consistent (the one most often used is unspaced endashes). I found missing hyphens as well (see my edit summaries). Some dates in citations are linked, others are not, and two different formats are used (Barber, Lynn (2002-01-06), "Scott's Corner", The Observer, <http://film.guardian.co.uk/interview/interviewpages/0,,628186,00.html>. Retrieved on 22 February 2007) Linking the date parameter will solve many of those. This should be April 2006: "In Conversation with Harrison Ford", Empire (no. 202): 140, 2006-04. See MOS:CAPS#All caps, example: Fischer, Russ (08/2/2007). INTERVIEW: CHARLES DE LAUZIRIKA (BLADE RUNNER). CHUD.com. Incomplete citations, example missing author at ^ "A Cult Classic, Restored Again", New York Times, 2007-9-30. Retrieved on January 21, 2008. These are samples only. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:09, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Removed mdashes except one in quotes, which I shall check. Dates linked. References use citation templates. Screamer caps removed. Author added. DrKiernan (talk) 12:24, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Default keep It's been three months with no "remove"s. One thing that still niggles me though is the listing of contents of DVDs. I don't find it especially edifying. DrKiernan (talk) 08:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I agree. We have to keep this stuff moving. Closing. Marskell (talk) 12:26, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was kept 13:20, 18 February 2008.

    Apollo 8 edit

    User:Abebenjoe,‎ User:Reubenbarton‎, User:Evil Monkey and Wikipedia:WikiProject Space notified.

    This is quite an old FA, which I think needs a lot of work to bring it up to modern high standards. A few issues I have noticed:

    • 1(a)/1(b): Too list heavy - this makes it tiresome to read. For example, the "Crew" section gives no information about the main crew apart from their names. I'm sure there's lots of good information that could be added here.
      • Done - The Crew and Mission Parameters have been converted to prose. I need to add additional language, but the lists have been removed. I also added inline citations and additional sources. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 16:21, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • 1(c)/2(c): Quite poorly referenced. There are only 7 inline references and 16 more uncited. Many sections have no inline references at all.
      • I've added references to the article, both from what was uncited and other sources. I'm working on sourcing what's there before doing major rewrites, though I'm starting to think that we may be able to keep more than I had initially believed. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 15:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm continuing to add references - I'm using four primary sources with additional citations throughout the article. Still making progress. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 19:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Almost done. I need a citation for the documentary films, and I need to pull specific citations out of the Saturn V flight manual for background on the Saturn V section - but everything else has citations and additional references. At your convenience, please check my work. I'll start copyediting once I've got these last refs in place. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 21:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Done - All sections have been thoroughly referenced, with over 40 inline citations now documenting every section of the article. I've left the non-inline citations for now, as I did not use some of them as inlines, and might wish to during copyediting. I've also left external links alone, as that will be edited to fit the final version of the article (during this review, anyway). Now that that's done, could someone check me for any sections I may have missed? Thanks. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 04:48, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • 1(a): Needs a thorough copyedit. This is too general a requirement to give an exhaustive list of examples. It applies to just about all the sections. We can look at specifics once the article has been thoroughly cleaned up.
      • I've totally rewritten several sections, most notably the Saturn V section. I'll start to look through the other sections, but are there additional examples of problems to fix? Some of the language isn't that bad, actually, and might be worth keeping. This being my first FAR, I'd welcome any guidance. Thank you. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 04:48, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • 1(a)/2(b): I have marked several section stubs that need to be expanded, removed or merged with other sections.
    • 3: Non-free Time magazine cover is marked for speedy deletion as there is no fair use rationale.
      • Image was deleted as a fair use violation

    Any more comments would be appreciated. Papa November (talk) 19:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment - This looks like it's been here for a while, but I just noticed it. I know there are sources out there that could be added, and I have a plan for expanding the crew section (with additional notes and commentary from additional sources). I plan to work through the copyediting (these spaceflight articles can get wordy), but would like a couple examples of the most egregious examples of bad copy, to get the ball rolling. If it doesn't delay things too badly, I'd like a few days to work through some of these issues. Thanks, UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 04:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Some non-exhaustive examples from the first two paragraphs of the lead section only are...
    • "...voyage to another celestial body" (Compared with what? No manned mission had visited a celestial body before. Also, voyage may imply that the mission landed on the celestial body - better to explicitly say that it was a near pass.
    • "...became the first humans to escape Earth's gravity and the first humans to see the..." (unnecessary repetition)
    • "It was also the first manned launch of the Saturn V rocket." (Apollo 8 was a complete mission - more than just a launch. Better to say it involved the first launch...)
    • "To beat the Soviet Union to the moon, in August 1968 NASA changed Apollo 8's mission from the planned low-earth orbit Lunar Module/Command Module test to a lunar orbital flight." (complex phrasing and a lot of information to take in here)
    • Why was it important to beat the Soviets to the moon? What Soviet action inspired the sudden change in US mission objective? Better to briefly mention the background of the Space Race and the Soviet advances before this sentence.
    • It takes some thought to work out the order of events here. Why not mention the initial plan first and then talk about how it changed?
    • Relevant technical phrases such as "celestial body" and "gravity" should be wikilinked to build context.
    • Try to avoid varying lengths of sentences and paragraphs too much. For example, the first paragraph contains a long, complex sentence sandwiched between two short simple sentences. This exaggerates the complexity of the middle sentence, while giving the illusion that the content of the short ones is trivial.
    • "Uncharacteristically very short" ("very" is redundant)
    • "Adding to the sense of urgency" (Was there really a sense of urgency? All that has been mentioned is the short timeframe. This could have been the result of new manufacturing technology for example, rather than urgency, so a reference or clarification would be nice here. Were the Soviet advances actually the primary cause of the urgency, rather than just an addition?)
    • "...than the Americans' that December." (We've just mentioned December, maybe this is redundant?)
    The whole article needs a good tidy, aiming to reduce redundancy, clarify complex sentences etc. I hope that helps! Papa November (talk) 23:53, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree, there's some cleaning to do. I've combined the small sections you marked, deleted the capsule location section (redundant to a clearer mention under recovery), and moved the mission insignia to the Crew (since it describes them, and was their creation). I'll work on the rest starting tomorrow. Unless you object, I'll annotate your concerns above with checkmarks when I've addressed them, for clarity's sake. Thanks, UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 03:21, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Please don't add graphics to the page; it slows down load time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:30, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I left this up in the review section because it seemed to be moving along. What's the status? Marskell (talk) 10:21, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • User:Ultraexactzz is doing a great job addressing the concerns I listed, but I think there's a huge amount of work still to do before the prose meets current FA standards. It would be good to get another couple of opinions here. Papa November (talk) 10:37, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • At this point, Copyediting is the biggest task. The only existing section I've managed is the Saturn V section, which I re-wrote to fit the references I found. The Crew section is entirely new, having been converted from a list - the same with Mission Parameters, at the end. If these look OK, then I'll tackle the other sections in similar fashion. The article needs to be clear and linear, but it's almost like a memoir in a few spots. The cites will help, and I added them first specifically to frame the copyediting. I have a checklist here of what I've done so far, and, if there are no objections, I'll continue to work through the article over the course of the next week or so. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 14:22, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed - I've made the change. I also (temporarily) pulled the references to fears about the Soviet Zond program, as I can't find a source that explicitly cites that as a reason to move the Lunar Orbital mission forward. Everything I'm finding cites the LM delay as a main reason. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 15:19, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Fixes needed:

    • Why is Apollo 8 sometimes italicized, sometimes not?
    • WP:NBSP, non-breaking hard spaces or {{nowrap}} needed to prevent line wrap between Apollo and 8 (and any other item that is numerical and non-numerial element). For example, I'm getting line wrap on Gemini 7 in the first section.
    • I see several uses of "the" in section headings, see WP:MSH.
    • Capitalization of Support? "During the mission, backup crew members would serve as members of the Support crew.[4]"
    • Single-sentence sections, example: "Flight directors".
    • Incorrect use of WP:MOSBOLD, The Saturn V rocket used by Apollo 8 was designated SA-503, or the 03rd model of the Saturn 5 (V) Rocket to be used in the Saturn-Apollo program.
    • Incorrect use of WP:HYPHENs instead of WP:DASHes: during flight - two failed engines ... the article uses three different types of dashes/hyphens for punctuation, hyphen (-), endash (–) and emdash (—). See WP:DASH and use consistently either an unspaced emdash or spaced endash.
    • Acronyms (like NASA) need to be fully defined on first occurrence.
    • Loads of missing WP:NBSPs in "Launch and trans-lunar injection" and a whole lot of uncited hard data there.
    • WP:OVERLINKing: I noticed vomit and television, for example. Words commonly known to English speakers need not be linked, but technical and less common terms need to be linked on first occurrence (I didn't see NASA linked on first use, for example).
    • WP:MSH#Captions, punctuation on full sentences vs. sentence fragments.
    • Uncited direct quotes.
    • Lots of incorrect use of WP:MOSBOLD in Mission parameters.
    • Items mentioned within the article should not be in See also, and See also should be minimized. See WP:GTL. Example, NASA is in See also.
    • Missing publishers on citations, example: Courtney G Brooks, James M. Grimwood, Loyd S. Swenson (1979). "Chapter 11 Part 6", Chariots for Apollo: A History of Manned Lunar Spacecraft. Retrieved on January 29, 2008. And many more. Here's another one: NSSDC Master Catalog Display. Retrieved on September 15, 2007.
    • Double punctuation on citation: Genesis: The Story of Apollo 8.. Four Wall
    • Unformatted ciations. ^ "The Effects of Long-Duration Space Flight on Eye, Head, and Trunk Coordination During Locomotion (9307191)", NASA, http://lsda.jsc.nasa.gov/scripts/experiment/exper.cfm?exp_index=747

    Please do not alter my text by introducing graphics or checkmarks; I will check the items when done. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:30, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    No problem. I've done some work tonight, and will attack the other tasks tomorrow (probably mid-afternoon). UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 04:52, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've completed the edits you specify above, as well as several similar edits in other areas of the article. Please have a look, at your convenience. Thanks, UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 16:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Much improved, still a bit more to do. If you don't mind, pls review my edit summaries so I don't have to retype it all. Are you also working on the Saturn V FAR? If so, please ping me when the same sorts of issues have all been reviewed, and I'll have a look. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:42, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've attempted to address all of your concerns - and I copied down your edit summaries for future reference. I'm starting in on Saturn V today, though that article has much further to go than this one does (or did). I think it's salvageable, though. Thanks again for your assistance, UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 16:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You might want to ping Papa November to see if there are any outstanding issues. I'll look at Saturn V in a few days. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:54, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    ← It's much better now - you've done a fantastic job. It would still be nice to hear some more views on this, but we can live without! The paragraph lengths may want some attention - for the sake of readability, it's not great to have too much variation there. Also, some of the text seems rather informally written. The "Mission" section in particular reads more like a story than an encyclopaedia article, with phrases like "somewhat strangely", and "Then they finally got their first glimpses of the Moon" being a bit too informal for an encyclopaedia. Papa November (talk) 22:41, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment I can have a go at a general copyedit tomorrow. --Laser brain (talk) 04:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I got through part of it today (Launch and trans-lunar injection heading) but need to pick it up again tomorrow. It is tedious work because I keep running into things I have to clarify with the sources (which are thankfully online). --Laser brain (talk) 06:14, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:UNITS problem throughout, miles is abbreviated to mi, main unit should be spelled out according to UNITS. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:52, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think I caught all of the miles, and all of the Kilometres are parenthetical, so I left them as km. There was one feet per second that I converted, but the subsequent instances were left as-is (as that abbreviation is both cumbersome and clearer in the ft/sec context, once explained). I also switched hz to hertz. I left g alone, because "g" refers directly to gravitational force (as a percentage of normal earth gravity, e.g. 0.25 g), and doesn't seem to stand for gravities or gravitons or anything similar to which I would expand the abbreviation to clarify the point. There was also a wikilink at "g" to g force, which explains the concept clearly. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 04:26, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Status check? How is the copyedit coming? Can this be kept without FARC? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:52, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      It's certainly a lot better. I'm still a little concerned about the informal style of writing, but I don't think it's bad enough to go to FARC. Papa November (talk) 13:06, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Concur. It is on my radar and I will continue to copyedit. --Laser brain (talk) 02:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Agreed. I'll also keep this article on my short list for detail work, but I think we've addressed every other major concern. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 05:44, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was kept 08:56, 13 February 2008.

    James T. Aubrey, Jr. edit

    Review commentary edit

    Notified User:PedanticallySpeaking‎ as by far the primary editor and also the FA nominator
    Notified WikiProjects Film and Biography.

    Promoted just over two years ago but current version does not appear to meet FA requirements. If nothing else, sourcing is extremely light so 1(c) is strongly implicated as is 2(c) by the bibliography section which needs to be incorporated as appropriate inline citations. Otto4711 (talk) 19:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Please notify relevant WikiProjects per the instructions at WP:FAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:16, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, a lot of the sentences kind of have inline citations. For example, there are references to specific articles: "The New York Times Magazine in 1964 called..." or "told the Los Angeles Times in 1986:", both of which can be found in the Bibliography section. Unfortunately, some specific items or quotations are not introduced in such a manner, leaving readers guessing where they might be from. Should be fixable though, since I'm assuming all the sources are in the bibliography section. My other concern is the prose. The article over-relies on quotes so that many sentences are quite awkward (for example, the third paragraph of "Early years"). This becomes especially taxing on readers when the specific paper is introduced ("so and so said on this date in the New York Times that..."). There are also issues with the flow of the article (under Early years, it's quoting articles written about him in the 1960s; "Enters broadcasting in radio" section has no reference date in the beginning, so we don't know what "within two years" means; right after he is described as having been named president, one of the sentences begins: "After he was fired,"). It's a well-researched article though, with lots of great stories about his life, so hopefully this one can be saved. 69.202.60.86 (talk) 23:08, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have access to the relevant news archives that I could go through and add in-line citations to this article. I won't have a chance to do this until next week though. Is it possible to hold this until then? If 1c and 2c are the only issues I'm pretty sure I can save this one. --JayHenry (talk) 03:43, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Can I get some guidance on this? If all that's needed is adding the inline citations I can do that. If it's going to later be challenged on other grounds as well, I think I could more productively spend my energy on different projects. I'm happy to do this if the only concern is 1c and 2c. --JayHenry (talk) 06:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    FARC commentary edit

    Suggested FA criteria concerns are references (1c) and their formatting (2c). Marskell (talk) 08:19, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm about 70 percent done fixing the citations. I've read a lot of the sources -- the article's very comprehensive and interesting. Who was PedanticallySpeaking and why did he leave? If his work was usually this quality than we lost somebody pretty good indeed. --JayHenry (talk) 00:12, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, I've read all the sources and reworked the article to using the inline citation method. There are a few minor issues that I couldn't find citation for (no idea where the birthday of his son is from). As far as I'm concerned we can remove this information. At any rate, this article now satisfies 1c and 2c with 55 references providing around 100 inline citations. --JayHenry (talk) 23:19, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Excellent work Jay. Let's get a second opinion or two. If information is trivial and can't be sourced, just remove it. Marskell (talk) 18:36, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I saw a few direct quotes that need citation, and I'm a bit concerned about the quotes in the lead, since the WP:LEAD is ideally an overview/summary of material elsewhere in the article. Not a big deal though. If you can cite the direct quotes, it's close enough. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    PedanticallySpeaking used quotes heavily. I assume he was trained as some sort of journalist (or a frequent reader of newspapers) and he used an interesting journalistic/encyclopedic hybrid style. I actually find it kind of refreshing -- no need for everything to be too homogeneous -- but it was time-consuming to find all the quotations. I didn't realize that I'd missed a few. Will try to find source or, barring that, remove if unnecessary. I was planning on going through and revising the language around the quotes. Now that they're inline cited I don't think it's necessary to say "Variety wrote in 2004" quite so often... Will think about the lead too. Thanks for tagging the ones I missed. Will try to find those soon. --JayHenry (t) 00:34, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've since addressed the points above. In general I've reduced the use of quotation. But I did leave the long quote in the lead. Although a quote, it's one that nicely summarizes several of the themes in the article. I've also given a general copy edit, fixed the parts of the MOS I'm familiar with (and will correct any points I may have missed, if pointed out), references all checked and verified. What's the process at this point? --JayHenry (talk) 06:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Have you asked the nominator (Otto4711) to revisit? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:05, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think this is basically a keep. I have made one edit, feel free to revert or rephrase. --Peter Andersen (talk) 18:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was kept 01:13, 11 February 2008.

    RNA interference edit

    Review commentary edit

    Notified: User:Narayanese, User:David D. User:Opabinia regalis, User:Brighterorange, User:MarcoTolo

    In most ways, this is a very good article, but its prose is unduly difficult - we could do a lot better in explaining the basic concepts of RNA interference to the layman without that much difficulty, but as it stands, this article makes no attempt to do so. I don't think this is an insurmountable problem, perhaps not even a difficult one to fix; however, this process seems a good way to pull editors in, and, with exams and a certain amount of stress in my life, I'm in no state to go it alone. Vanished user talk 21:36, 29 November 2007 (UTC) Criteria in doubt: 1a (well-written) 2a (lead prepares reader for the rest of the article)[reply]

    Is TimVickers on board? Also, please follow the instructions at the top of the WP:FAR page regarding notifications, and post notice back to here (see other FARs for sample). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:49, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I will have a go at this. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:02, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I reduced the length of the image captions and made some minor modifications and clarafications throughout the article. I also added short definitions for some of the more obscure terms in the article so that the reader does not have to follow the links to find them. In response to Vanished user's objection about the difficulty of the prose for the layman, I think that this article's topic is relatively advanced and thus it is appropriate to use quite a few advanced terms. If the readers do not understand the terms that are not defined (and there aren't very many that are not defined in the article), they are welcome to follow the links for a definition. I feel that it would be distracting to exhaustively explain every term in this article.
    One other potential problem I saw is that the "History and Discovery" section may not provide citatations for some of its statements. It is probably ok how it is, but I mean, we are talking about FA here, so someone may want to look at it. If that section is ok as is, I feel this article is FA status. Thingg (talk) 17:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I have to disagree: It's actually, at its heart, a relatively simple process (for a biological process). It's just newly discovered. If we can successfully explain protein transcription, DNA replication, the Krebs cycle, and glycolosis to school children, we can explain this to them too, and may well do so in schools in another couple decades. At the least, the lead should be simple and clear. Vanished user talk 22:29, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, maybe you're right. I'll have to take another look at it. Thingg (talk) 04:02, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I realize that the trend here has been toward simplification and accessibility for a long time now, and I actually think quite a bit of the article has improved fairly noticeably since the featured version, but the lead isn't one of those places. The current one contains less information for what doesn't look to be a significant advantage in clarity. Here's the diff from the featured version: [5]. We've lost a reference to miRNA and to the fact that this is a mechanism found only in eukaryotes - both important facts. Call me crazy and/or out of touch, but I don't see what is gained by putting the (ordinary English) term 'cleave' in quotes, or parenthetically defining the word 'endogenous' (again, not really a technical term), or changing 'hexaploid wheat' to 'wheat which is hexaploid'.
    This isn't really that esoteric a subject, but we can't be re-teaching transcription and translation in every related article. What here is unclear to someone who's already familiar with those processes? Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    FARC commentary edit

    Suggested FA criteria concerns are prose (1a) and LEAD (2a). Marskell (talk) 02:18, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Remove As a layperson, I would expect to understand the lead, which "should be written in a clear, accessible style", but I'm afraid, I don't. I haven't read the rest, as I would not expect to understand the body of the article, which obviously should go into the detail of it, and be written for an audience more or less familiar with the field. DrKiernan (talk) 15:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    But is this article aimed at the layperson? For me, a better guide would be can a biology undergraduate understand it. This topic clearly requires some understanding of the terminology. Should this go against it being an featured article? David D. (Talk) 17:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I must say I'm reassured by your acceptance of my proposed rewrite of the lead, which indicates that I did, in fact, understand it. So, I'm striking my remove. DrKiernan (talk) 17:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    There are only a few uncited paragraphs here; if we could get them cited, I don't see a need to remove this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:16, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep, looks fine after TimVickers, GrahamColm, Narayanese, and David D. got in there and fixed the issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:57, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was kept 18:36, 10 February 2008.

    Geography of Ireland edit

    Review commentary edit

    Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland, Portal:Ireland, Wikipedia:WikiProject Geography notified, the top 3 editors (Filiocht, Zoney, Rparle) are MIA or not active. feydey (talk) 20:37, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Fails FACs 1c and 2c, having basically 0 sources. Our standards have changed a lot since 2004. I am a little embarrassed to put an {{unreferenced}} tag on a featured article. This one needs a lot of work. feydey (talk) 20:29, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment Note that for some reason, the References section got renamed to Further reading, and some of the links were moved to External links. I have pasted back the References section as it was when the article was promoted. BuddingJournalist 14:39, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would endorse the above assessment. The total lack of inline cites makes it impossible to verify specific statistics and other challengable material in the article. The referencing standards expected of an FA are clearly not being met here. This would not even pass GA standards, and possibly not even B-class standards. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 06:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Correction: As a matter of correction feydey the Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland, Portal:Ireland were only notified today of this review by DrKiernan, so hold on a second please. ww2censor (talk) 15:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That's my fault, I didn't update the time on the notifications. DrKiernan (talk) 16:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No problem DrK. There is a lot to do but most of it should be available online. Hopefully there is someone else, besides me, interested in keeping the Irish FAs alive. Thanks ww2censor (talk) 17:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Mainly this is just a victim of the current fad for inline citations. Inline citations shouldn't be an absolute requirement, except for possibly controversial statements that might be challenged. Doesn't WP:CITE in fact say that, despite inline-cite proponents even having a template to plonk on articles lacking inline cites? There are plenty of references in this article. It's this kind of nonsense that makes Wikipedia an unpleasant place these days. zoney ♣ talk 16:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    FARC commentary edit

    Suggested FA criteria concerns are references (1c) and their formatting (2c). Marskell (talk) 18:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think (2c) is an issue now (have you any examples? - they all look good to me) and I, and possibly some others, are working on (1c). ww2censor (talk) 19:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Fixes needed:

    • Incorrect bolding/linking in the first sentence, see WP:LEAD and WP:MOSBOLD.
    • WP:MOS#Captions, punctuation on full sentences, not on sentence fragments.
    • Inconsistent conversions, example: 1,041 m (3,414 ft) high,[1][15] is in the Macgillycuddy's Reeks, a range of glacier-carved sandstone mountains in County Kerry, in the south-west of the island. The mountains are not high – only three peaks are over 1000 m[16] and another 457 exceed 500 m.[17]
    • The table in Climate is very hard to read; can it be made into a table like in other geography articles (search WP:FA until you find one you like).
    • Missing publication date (I think it's in the URL), and incorrect italics: Deegan, Gordon. "Blasting threatens future of stalactite". Irish Examiner, Retrieved on January 23, 2008.

    SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:38, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Unless I've missed something, I think all your above concerns are fixed properly. If not, please them out. ww2censor (talk) 05:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Have had this watchlisted since the FAR began. Great work Ww2censor; its a fine article and I don't see any need to go to FARC. Well done, again! Ceoil (talk) 10:44, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was kept 10:33, 6 February 2008.

    Abbey Theatre edit

    Notified WikiProject Ireland, WikiProject Theatre.

    A Filiocht promotion from September 2004 currently listed on Wikipedia:Featured articles with citation problems. I think its a fine article and meets current standards, though it would benefit from a copy edit if anybody would like to help out. Ceoil (talk) 10:34, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, it could use a read through. I'd volunteer, but I've done that with a few too many other things. Maybe ask one of the usual suspects? Marskell (talk) 17:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Judging from the recent article history, it has been read through by me, Geogre, Ceoil, Ww2censor, SandyGeorgia and Pagrashtak. DrKiernan (talk) 10:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it's fine. I gave it a once over as well. Marskell (talk) 10:10, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was kept 10:33, 6 February 2008.

    Everton F.C. edit

    Review commentary edit

    Notified Wikipedia:WikiProject England, Wikipedia:WikiProject Football and User:SenorKristobbal

    I don't think this article meets FA criteria 1c. Large sections have little or no refs.

    Examples:

    • Colours section, no refs
    • Crest section, no refs
    • First six paragraphs of History section have a total of 2 refs.

    Buc 14:57, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)
    Yeah, fair enough I reckon. So, I've now fixed the history section, referenced all paragraphs, it turned out that the majority of the text was sourced from the Everton F.C. history pages so it was easily remedied. I'll see what I can do about the rest of Buc's issues. -- The Rambling Man (talk) 16:55, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    All of Buc's concerns above now dealt with. -- The Rambling Man (talk) 17:11, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have concerns about the quality of the writing. There are several stubby paragraphs. The Academy section is just a link to another article. Is that an improperly formatted see also or a summary style split without leaving a summary? -- Jay32183 (talk) 20:57, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, I'm sure the quality of writing could be improved so we'll work on that. Not sure what your last sentence means - there is no "See also" section. Please expand so we can help! The Rambling Man (talk) 23:49, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm wondering if it is supposed to be a see also section but isn't? More likely it should have a summary of the other article, but none was written. I can't really tell what the intention was though. Either a summary should be written or it should be moved to a see also section towards the bottom, in proper manual of style order. Jay32183 (talk) 06:32, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yep this was going to be my next piont after the large ref holes had been addressed. The wording in a lot of places is sloppy and the sub sections after "Honours". A see also section does sound like a good idea, I hadn't thought of that. Buc (talk) 10:17, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't remember a See also section being a requisite for FA. Seems like we're not really focussing on the main issues. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:55, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    No it isn't, but in this case it might be useful. Buc (talk) 11:46, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Surely not as useful as improving the prose?! And exactly how would it be useful in this particular case? The Rambling Man (talk) 11:47, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Instead of the sub sections at the bottem, just a suggestion. Buc (talk) 20:19, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    How is listing a set of items at the bottom, better than having sections in the text. I agree it could be restructured, preferably with a players section with subheadings underneath. That would seem better to me. Perhaps give a brief summary of the academy. e.g.:
    ==Players==
===Current squad===
===Academy===
===Notable players===
;Etc
;Etc
    The ";" is used to prevent the TOC being swamped. I think putting it in a see also section is inadvisable. I use the see also section as an area where i place links that should be worked into the text. Really there is little need for them in a Featured article. Woodym555 (talk) 20:23, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • My point was that a see also should be the only section that is just a link to another article. If you want an Academy section, there should be at least a paragraph about the academy. Jay32183 (talk) 23:37, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • There could be an issue with the use of Image:Everton crest.PNG. The uploader states it was made from "old uncopyrighted logos", however I doubt they are in the public domain unless all were used prior to 1923. If they are still copyrighted then a fair use rationale is required. Dave101→talk  13:56, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • It looks like neither non-free image has a fair use rationale. Jay32183 (talk) 23:39, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    FARC commentary edit

    Suggested FA criteria concerns are referencing (1c), prose (1a), and images (3).

    Improvement here. Moving down to see how people feel. Marskell (talk) 09:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment Unclear what the European Record section adds to the article - also, it seems like a bad precedent (someone's already tried to add a similar thing to the Liverpool article). Robotforaday (talk) 22:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Remove Prose still an issue. Buc (talk) 12:30, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment Still some refs need sorting, albeit one that is generally perceived as more respectful than in particular needs referencing. The Image:Everton crest.PNG still needs individual sources or it should be removed/deleted. What exactly is the point about including the Stallone bit, hardly important in relative terms. Still needs some work, but generally the prose is good, a few bits to go though. Woody (talk) 21:05, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment Surely H2G2 can't be considered a reliable source??? I think that particular reference (in the Nickname section) should be replaced. --Jameboy (talk) 22:53, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment I easily spotted (and fixed) a textual redundancy; can anything be done about the three one- and two-sentence sections? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Stub sections are gone. Refs have inconsistent date formatting and I'm sure some of them have more info that could be unpacked. On the whole though, this is close. Anyone still around? Marskell (talk) 20:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I can help. Shoot me some specifics. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Refs should now be formatted consistently.--Peter Andersen (talk) 22:47, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The lead was expanded a touch, the crest image removed, and some prose improved. Thank you, Peter, for the tedious work of ref formatting. Marskell (talk) 10:31, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was kept 09:53, 1 February 2008.

    Hurricane Irene (2005) edit

    Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones and User:Hurricanehink notified.

    I believe this article is well under-refferenced to be FA. There are a lot of statements that should be referenced for the article to be a true FA. Furthermore, I do not think that because the article is so short, it is ok to have only 6 distinct references (Featured article with only 6 sources?). Nergaal (talk) 19:18, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • NOTE: Not listed at FAR until 1 February, found on talk page. Please do notifications per WP:FAR instructions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:02, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually completed nomination on Feb 1, 2008.Nergaal (talk) 01:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree. Despite its brevity, the article is comprehensive, and thus it is ok to have 7 distinct references (I added one). The the storm was very non-notable, but as notability is not a criterion for becoming featured, it is not a problem. Large portions of the article are sourced by the tropical cyclone report, which is the official report from the National Hurricane Center. I severely doubt there would be many more useful sources, FWIW. --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You were quick in removing the tag I placed on the article. You are rushing before others express their opinions? Ok, I placed 8 tags instead in the text that definately require referencing for a fetured article. Please do not remve those tags, at least before discussing them. Also, there are two places in the infobox that should also have references, - otherwise it is possible that somebody could have just made them up. Nergaal (talk) 21:28, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You added 8 mostly unneeded tags. I fixed a few minor statements (based on when the article was originally made), but all of the statements were sourced before you visited the article. That is why I removed the original tag so quickly. The lede does not need references, as it is a summary of the article and the information is posted elsewhere in the article. The same goes with the Infobox. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:39, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I added back some more tags where numbers are unreferrenced, or where facts are stated such as in " increased the risk of rip currents along..."Nergaal (talk) 00:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I double checked all of the references, and seeing that the info was in the sources, I removed them again. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't see the problem. If everything is referenced, how can there be not enough references? Of course it is a legitimate question whether there's more information that should be included in the article, as it is obviously rather short. But aside from more statistics I don't really see what else could be included. — jdorje (talk) 23:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment. I don't see any problems here -- it's short, but there's no FA rule about length. Not only does it appear to be thoroughly cited, but Hurricanehink has gone through and (re-)verified the citations to be sure that all the questioned information really is covered in the sources. As far as I can see this article is in compliance with the FA criteria. Mike Christie (talk) 00:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: Nergaal, this was on the article talk page for a week without being transcluded to WP:FAR, so dates will need to be adjusted. Please follow the instructions at WP:FAR and complete the notifications. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:02, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Move to close I agree with Mike: I'm happy with Hink's re-verification of the material, and the article does seem to meet the criteria. DrKiernan (talk) 09:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Having had Hink go back over it, we have no reason to doubt its factual accuracy. Closing. Marskell (talk) 09:52, 1 February 2008 (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.

    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 18:44, 22 February 2008.

    History of Cape Colony from 1870 to 1899 edit

    Review commentary edit

    Notified Wikipedia:WikiProject South Africa, Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa, User:Hmains and User:PZFUN

    Same issues as its companion piece History of Cape Colony from 1806 to 1870, which was recently removed. Most important issue is no inline citations (1c). --Peter Andersen (talk) 17:12, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    FARC commentary edit

    Suggested FA criteria concern is citations (1c). Marskell (talk) 10:23, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Remove Judging from previous history, no-one is going to work on this article, so I think an early vote is justifiable. DrKiernan (talk) 10:28, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Remove - per nom. --Peter Andersen (talk) 14:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong retain. We've been here before. A well-written, comprehensive, article, with clear principal sources. The only instances of citations requested are quotes with such prose attributions as:
      • A pamphlet written in 1885 for an association called the Empire League on the behalf of the Bond, stated the following:
      • a speech he [Cecil Rhodes] gave in 1894 in Cape Town:
    It would be nice to know the title of the pamphlet, and the exact volume of Rhodes' works in which the speech is to be found, but neither should be difficult to verify; I recognize the Rhodes quotation myself, and I am neither South African nor an expert on their history.
    Beyond that, complaints of lack of citations should have instances of claims which are hard for the reader to verify and likely to be challenged; otherwise this becomes "delist: I didn't count enough footnotes", which is not actionable, and impossible to fix. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, we've heard that before too. It is pointless and unnecessary to insert citation needed markers when virtually every other sentence requires one. DrKiernan (talk) 18:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Remove The points made be Manderson are reasonable and sensible, but the problems remain, in my view, that with this sort of articles it's very hard to understand what is unsourced, because it comes from the first utterly unsourced version, and what is sourced. Also, in historical topics on not-too-well-known areas, it is best to know which points are covered by which specific sources, with the page numbers included to make easier verification.--Aldux (talk) 16:02, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was removed 13:14, 18 February 2008.

    Governor-General of India edit

    Review commentary edit

    Notified Wikipedia:WikiProject History of India and Portal:Government of India. DrKiernan (talk) 15:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    This article has no in-line citations, which is a current standard for Featured articles. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    FARC commentary edit

    Suggested FA criteria concerns is citations (1c). Marskell (talk) 20:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Remove barring commitment by someone to improve citations. If that happens then we can give it some time. gren グレン 15:10, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Remove I thought I might, but I'm not. I actually think listifying the tables has made the article worse than it was. DrKiernan (talk) 10:33, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was removed 13:14, 18 February 2008.

    Monopoly (game) edit

    Review commentary edit

    User:JohnDBuell‎, User:Njr75003, User:Colorvision‎, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Board and table games notified.
    Monopoly (game) is currently a featured article, as everybody knows, but there are some minor problems that need to be fixed: The section, Dealing and bargaining has been tagged with original research or unverified claims, and in section Stock Exchange there's only one statement that needs to have a citation:

    The player who lands on Free Parking/Stock Exchange can also choose to buy a share if any remain – should the player decline, the Bank auctions a share off to the highest bidder. The 1936 rules are ambiguous with regards to the stock that is put up for auction, and convention has it that the winner of the auction chooses the stock to be received.

    Please check to find the mistakes in the article that I just said. And it may affect the featured article status. --Healthykid (talk) 17:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I don't think the article's organisation, content and sourcing compares to established FAs. The major problems are the lack of references and some geographical bias. Here's some problems I think should be fixed in the article:
      • Only one reference in "History".
      • No references in "Rich Uncle Pennybags"
      • The "Board" section is very unbalanced. There's no apparent rules of which version should be mentioned or detailed. The full board of the Atlantic City and London version are the only one displayed and detailed. The United Kingdom version have its places listed, while only few European countries' versions are listed alongside McDonald. What I think shoule be changed is:
        • Only display the full layout of the most popular Monopoly board.
        • The trivia about each board (eg. how the streets are misspelled) are not relevant in this page. Some informations about why the city or streets of the most popular board have been chosen could be added.
        • Make a "Regional editions" section, but not as a list, but more as a description of how Monopoly spread to countries editions.
        • Another section about the special editions (McDonald, Star Wars...). But again not as a list but describe the popularity of these games, mention the first one, the most popular...
        • What are the "Here and Now editions"? Are there other editions?
      • The "Equipment" and "Rules" section:
        • Remove the information about the One-Of-A-Kind Monopoly. Really unnecessary.
        • Same for the Christmas Wish Book
        • Merge the Equipement and Rules sections, since equipment is part of the rules.
        • Remove too much detailed information like the bills in the US game.
        • Rerwrite the Rules. The Official Rules should be reformatted to be at least clear and readable. Unless you provide a reference that proves that House Rule is as popular, this section should be removed
      • The strategy section is also too detailed. Just give an overview of the different strategies and tactics followed by different players.
      • Add-ons needs to be referenced.

    These are merely fast suggestions that came up to my mind. I didn't have the time to read the whole article. And these are just my opinions and thoughts. In addition the article Chess stands as a good model for game articles. You should check it. Until now I strongly support its delisting from FA. CG (talk) 07:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Someone should fork off the Here and Now Editions' information too - now that so many countries have them and followed the US model of voting for popular cities/landmarks. I don't agree that the special editions information should be lost altogether - perhaps merged into the list articles of the various editions. I thought this article should have been on FAR months ago when it was looking like an advertisement for certain Here and Now Edition voting, but I've had far too many other things on my plate in the last eight months. Delist unless situations are remedied. --JohnDBuell (talk) 03:38, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment It needs copyediting, too. I noticed three things that need fixing in the first paragraph alone (minor things, including a missing space, but FAs shouldn't have problems like that); I don't know what the rest of it looks like yet, but I suspect it's more of the same. I suggest the article be submitted to the League of Copyeditors, now or once it's been reorganized. (If it's going to be reworked, do the copyediting last.) atakdoug (talk) 19:33, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    FARC commentary edit

    Suggested FA criteria concerns are referencing and OR (1c), organization (4), and prose (1a). Marskell (talk) 07:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Remove for all the suggested criteria concerns. CG (talk) 08:49, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Remove - several unreferenced sections (1c). --Peter Andersen (talk) 14:22, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was removed 13:14, 18 February 2008.

    Cape Town edit

    Review commentary edit

    Notified Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities, Wikipedia:WikiProject South Africa, User:PZFUN and User:Htonl

    This article needs more references esp. in the sections of:

    • History (currently no reference)
    • Geography (currently no reference)
    • Government (more references are needed)
    • Sports teams and stadiums (more references are needed)

    This section needs expansion:

    • Forced Removals

    This section may need to rewrite/merge with another/other sections or remove:

    • Skylines
    • Sports event experience

    The reference basically do not follow the format of MoS and also there are many dead/invalid links. [6] Coloane 15:53, 2 January 2008

    FARC commentary edit

    Suggested FA criteria concerns are referencing (1c) and comprehensiveness (1b). Marskell (talk) 07:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was removed 09:26, 15 February 2008.

    Porgy and Bess edit

    Review commentary edit

    Notified WP Musical Theatre and WP Opera. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 17:15, 18 December 2007 (UTC) Message left at AlbertSM. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:04, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    This page will need some serious work if it's to stay a featured article. There are no sources whatsoever in nearly half of the article; whole sections are totally devoid of sources. In addition, at least one of the source links is dead. The sources that do exist are also cited inconsistently (such as the use of "See note 3").

    Some passages also read as original research, such as the following:

    • "...a daring and visionary artistic choice at the time..."
    • "...it was not widely accepted in the United States as a legitimate opera until 1976 when the Houston Grand Opera... established it as an artistic triumph..."
    • "Despite this success, the opera has been controversial; some, from the outset, have considered it racist."

    For these reasons, I believe that this article should undergo a review. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 17:10, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree that a review is appropriate but I'm not convinced by all you points. All the WP:OR examples you give are quotations from the lead section and much of it is summarising the article. The race issue is certainly expanded on in a section below and I have no problem with that sentence in the lede. I agree that the referencing is rather sparse and that "See note 3" is rather odd. Content-wise I would hope that an FA would have rather more detail in sections such as "compositional history". There were a lot of contributors? How did they work together? I know Puccini corresponded heavily with his librettists and demanded rewrites. Was Gershwin like that? How many drafts were there? How long did it take to write? etc.--Peter cohen (talk) 19:54, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I think the article, on the whole, is extremely well written. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:51, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I didn't say it wasn't well written (except for a couple unverified claims). It's just largely unreferenced, and FA-class articles are supposed to be fully referenced. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 18:06, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • None of the passages quoted above read like OR to me, although they may need referencing. Johnbod (talk) 09:47, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    FARC commentary edit

    Suggested FA criteria concerns are referencing and (1c). Marskell (talk) 13:42, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Strong remove:

    • WP:MOS#Captions, full sentences have punctuation at end, sentence fragments do not.
    • The first thing the reader encounters in the article is a list, with no prose describing the characters, significance of their roles, etc. Suggest reviewing guidelines at WP:FILM for guidance on how to better write this section, and review some FILM FAs. A straightforward character list as the first item in the article is just not compelling prose, and the article may need to be restructured.
    • Incorrect use of WP:HYPHENs where WP:DASHes should be used, see Plot section for example. Throughout the text, mixture of hyphens and unspaced emdashes.
    • Cite needed tags throughout.
    • Insufficient information about the writing and development of the musical; very thin on development.
    • WP:MOSNUM, recorded a 3-LP album ...
    • Incorrect use of WP:MOSBOLD in film and television.
    • Unformatted citations and raw URLs.

    I'm surprised this article is FA: it is seriously deficient at this point and appears abandoned. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:32, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Keep if improved on points. SG's points need addressing, and the list of characters and plot summary should go lower down, below a longer lead, a story summary and maybe the history of the composition (but not the production history). But certainly capable of saving, if someone is ready to get stuck in. Johnbod (talk) 21:41, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Remove - Of course it would be a keep if improved! However this seems unlikely at present and this therefore should be removed per 1c, character section etc. --Peter Andersen (talk) 18:12, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The article was removed 08:56, 13 February 2008.

    South Africa edit

    Review commentary edit

    Notified PZFUN, John, FayssalF, WikiProject Africa, WikiProject Countries, WikiProject South Africa

    There are many tags for "citation needed" need to be fixed. One can easily detect that many paragraphs or even sections don't have any source to verify or support the facts. References and reading basiclly don't follow the correct format. Coloane (talk) 00:30, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree, references are a problem. Prose size currently stands at 55kb while there are only 3kb of references per Dr. pda script. As a consequences there are notable gaps in the article's sourcing. For instance in the "History" section there's only two inline citations thus, several potentially controversial statements lack sources. If anybody is up for improving this article it might also be a good idea to reduce its extension, 55kb is a lot of text. Useful guidelines on what needs to be in country articles and what can be moved to subarticles can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries#Structure. --Victor12 (talk) 01:14, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    FARC commentary edit

    Suggested FA criteria concerns are references (1c) and formatting (2). Marskell (talk) 15:02, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Remove:

    • Inadequate WP:LEAD, choppy, one-sentence paras.
    • Uncited history section.
    • Uncited data in Government and politics.
    • Uncited hard data in geography, hyphens there which should be minus signs.
    • WP:MOS#Captions, punctuation on sentence fragments vs. full sentences.
    • Mixed citation style, inline URLs for citations.
    • Moving on, uncited hard data everywhere I look.
    • Cite needed tags.
    • Captions too long, WP:MOS#Captions
    • Unformatted, incomplete citations.

    SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:38, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Remove: Almost a month and a half after this article was put up for FAR no major work has been done. As nobody seems interested in improving this article I think there is no point in keeping it here much longer. --Victor12 (talk) 15:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The article was removed 07:37, 12 February 2008.

    Plate tectonics edit

    Review commentary edit

    Left a note on the talk pages of Avala, Vsmith, Geologyguy, Tmangray, and Plumbago, as well as on the wikiprojects Geology, Volcanoes, Physics, and Environment.

    I was motivated to put this on FAR because of the external peer review that appeared in PC Pro, which criticizes a messy description of outer earth layering in the lead. The prose could use improvement elsewhere as well, many sections lack references and could be arranged more logically. Lesgles (talk) 16:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    FARC commentary edit

    Suggested FA criteria concerns are prose (1a), organization (4), and referencing (1c). Marskell (talk) 08:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Remove, some work done in the last six weeks,[7] but the article is still largely uncited, has a cite tag, has external jumps in the text and an external link farm, has short stubby sections, and has incorrectly formatted citations. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Revisit, still in remove territory three weeks later. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:20, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Having nominated this for FAR, I don't know if I'm supposed to vote (I would vote "remove"). But in case I was too vague in my criticism of the referencing, I have added fact tags where I believe inline citations would be appropriate. Lesgles (talk) 19:57, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment:There are a couple of us currently working on the article. It's gradually getting better, but still has a long way to go to meet current FA standards. If I had to vote now, I'd say "remove", but I'm still hopeful that it could be improved sufficiently in the next month or so. -- Avenue (talk) 08:13, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Remove. There doesn't seem to be anyone else really working on it lately, and I won't be able to do much in the next two weeks due to other commitments. -- Avenue (talk) 00:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep, article might not match the level of Britannica but it doesn't mean the article is bad. On contrary it's a fine example of a featured article but which always stays open for expansion. --Avala (talk) 20:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Remove: Short on references. Narayanese (talk) 19:28, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, clearly short on 1c. The ToC also needs to be far better rationalized and stub sections removed. No sustained work happening, so closing. Marskell (talk) 07:35, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was removed 00:13, 9 February 2008.

    Roche limit edit

    Review commentary edit

    Notified Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics, User:Doradus, User:Noren and User:Urhixidur‎.--Peter Andersen (talk) 16:34, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Other editors have tagged this article for urgent attention. __meco (talk) 09:24, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    FARC commentary edit

    Suggested FA criteria is referencing and content attention tags (1c). Marskell (talk) 08:45, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I've left notifications at Wikipedia:WikiProject Space, Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomy and Portal:Physics in the hope of generating some comments. DrKiernan (talk) 15:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment—The article is in need of better referencing. The lead section is not a concise overview of the article, so most it should be moved down into the main body and a new lead written. I don't think the two "Derivation of the formula" sections are beneficial for most readers—they should be moved to a technical overview main article on the Derivation of the Roche limit. I'd like to see some discussion of the roche limit for solar mass black holes and SMBHs. Thanks.—RJH (talk) 20:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was removed 10:33, 6 February 2008.

    Nightwish edit

    Review commentary edit

    Nominator notified original author (User:SoothingR). Messages left at Wikiprojects Musicians, Finland, and Metal. BuddingJournalist 21:49, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    This article severly needs cleanup if it is going to keep FA status. I counted 12 fact templates, 7 dead links, and tons of other issues. Thank you,
    Skeeker [Talk] 23:04, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Please follow the instructions at WP:FAR to complete notifications. Also, providing the "tons of other issues" would be helpful. Joelito (talk) 23:45, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    POV is an issue. The table of members takes up alot of unneeded room (I'm not sure if it is a problem, but it looks tacky). Too many external links. They have a vast discography and there should be a seperate page for it. Thank you,
    Burningclean [Speak the truth!] 04:21, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Please follow the instructions at WP:FAR to notify and post a list of notifications back to this page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:17, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • There seems to be an excessive number of completely unnecessary non-free images (album covers) peppered throughout the Band history section. There is no critical commentary on the images themselves that I can see so I don't see how it's covered under fair use. Rehevkor (talk) 01:29, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I notified User:AkiShinji (157 edits), User:SoothingR (99 edits), User:ReyBrujo (90 edits), and User:Painjoiker (53 edits).
    Thank you,
    Burningclean [Speak the truth!] 23:16, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    There are {{fact}} templates in the article, non free images, txt issues, the table for line up changes could do without it takes up alot of un-needed space, there should be a page for the discography, alot of dead links, unreliable sources (Metal Archives ref 7) A WIKI! thats not reliable! (ref 13), the sources are not proper {{cite web}} formating, and too many External links (WP:EL). This article has some major issues, it shouldn't be FA anymore. It is not up to todays standards. Look at the newest Metal FAs (Godsmack and Tool).
    Thank you,
    Burningclean [Speak the truth!] 23:26, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    It's not the articles fault if references turn into dead links after time. And according to policies, it doesn't matter. Someone just should try finding them at http://www.archive.org or similiar. --Pudeo⺮ 14:43, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    That still doesn't take care of the other problems. This going really slow. Burningclean [Speak the truth!] 20:53, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    FARC commentary edit

    Suggested FA criteria concerns are citations (1c), general clean-up (2), and POV (1d). Marskell (talk) 08:47, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Remove Unnecessary overuse of fair use pictures, a huge table of members which should be separated from this article, references need to be formatted, variation in formatting songs and albums-quotes or italics, bad prose-in one section each paragraph starts with "On DATE..", [citation needed] tags, POV and OR-"some fans and medias suggest the band's turn to be pop metal. This is seen the clearest on songs such as". I could go on but I'll stop there. M3tal H3ad (talk) 11:27, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Remove as nominator, and nothing is being done about the issues listed on here. Too many tables, not enough sources, and they are not in the proper format. There are way too many problems for just a slight cleanup. —Burningclean [Speak the truth!] 00:45, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Remove. Very poor FA. Brutal use of non free images, poor sourcing (not to mention the lack of formatting on the sources...) and even basic stuff like formatting album titles in italics is not followed. One redeeming feature is the infobox image, which I think is a great idea, and should be taken advantage of in other articles. With some cleaning, this could be a good article, but it is gonna take more than a little cleaning for it to be worthy of FA. J Milburn (talk) 17:45, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Remove for now - article has promise, but there is a lot of clutter - everything past the "Line Up" header needs to be cut, (former members, charts, singles all that stuff) or moved to it's own article, as Slayer's and Megadeth's lineups/singles, ect are. I am not knowlegable in the band, but for someone that is this one is prety close. I can try and clean up some of the wording issues, and other small things. Skeletor2112 (talk) 11:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've begun a revamp of the article, although it is a bit tough being that I am not familiar with the band. Yeah... it's a lot farther off that I thought. Lots of work needed here, it seems the original aurthor might not have been a native English speaker? Prose needs major work thoughout. I'll keep working on it. Skeletor2112 (talk) 12:24, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    On hold. Marskell (talk) 07:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    • It actually may be better to delist this one for now, and when a dedicated editor comes around, resubmit to FAC - this thing is going to need major work, and I don't know how much I am going to be able to do in the next little while. Skeletor2112 (talk) 11:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, thanks for the work you did do, Skeletor. Marskell (talk) 10:30, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was removed 18:20, 3 February 2008.

    National parks of England and Wales edit

    Review commentary edit

    I have informed WP UK geography, WP England, WP Protected areas, ALoan (original proposer) & major contributors Naturenet, Grstain, Keith Edkins, Morwen & Dunharris - what else do you want me to do?— Rod talk 20:58, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    A week ago I discoevred this article was an FA (& had been sicne 2004) with no inline citations to verify the information given. The list of references which was given was really External links as it's not clear which bit of information comes from which source. I have organised the old references section as external links and added a few inline citations to comply with 1(c) of the Wikipedia:Featured article criteria which says "that claims are verifiable against reliable sources and accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge. Claims are supported with specific evidence and external citations; this involves the provision of a "References" section in which sources are set out, complemented by inline citations where appropriate." I also put a message on the articles talk page and that of several relevant WikiProjects asking for help with citations but these have not been forthcoming. I think significant work is needed to source and back up the statements made.— Rod talk 20:22, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Please follow the instructions at WP:FAR to complete notifications. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:47, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't know what this is saying or how to fix it:
      • The Inquiry sat for 90 days in 2004 before being formally closed on 23 March 2005, [8]. Defra information for public consultation [9] on 2 July 2007, and may decide to reopen the South Downs public inquiry in late 2007.
    • SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:47, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The edit that distorted this text happened four month ago, in August; perhaps someone who knows the topic can sort it out. Unless someone else gets to it first, I'll try later. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:07, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Bad faith nomination again. Is it a surprise or coincidence that the primary author of this and the Lisbon Earthquake left last week and two articles are on FAR this week? These articles were fine for a long time, apparently, and just got bad as soon as the author left. Why? Geogre (talk) 02:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    We can't call this bad faith without evidence Rodw meant ill. I think mav is the guy to contact. He does American parks, but might have some ideas here. Marskell (talk) 19:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I had no idea about the "leaving" of the primary author & I've never even looked at the Lisbon Earthquake article. I found this when I was trying to get Exmoor (one of the national parks) up to GA status & was checking links & looking for ideas for how to improve the Exmoor article. I posted notes on the relevant wikiproject pages, a week or so ago, to see if anyone was willing/able to hep improve it but nothing was forthcoming. I added some citations myself on 4th & 5th Dec to try to improve it before nominating it for FAR.— Rod talk 19:53, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    This was certainly FA quality in 2004 but standards have become more rigorous since then. Is the only major issue the lack of inline citations? If so, I should be able to help. But if a significant or major expansion is in order, then I won't be able to help due to the fact that I only have books on U.S. parks and the scant web references available on this subject is not sufficient. Either way, I won't be able to help until the weekend since I'm currently trying to get Oxygen ready for FAC. --mav (talk) 02:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I looked over this article and tried to add some cites but I've come to the conclusion that unless the article is expanded to include sections on what is being preserved (landscapes/wildlife) and how people enjoy it (tourism/activities), then I'm afraid that no amount of citing will do. I'm not able to help much in this area because I don't have access to the necessary references and the information online is not organized in way to make creating such a synthesis piece easy. --mav (talk) 02:54, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    FARC commentary edit

    Suggested FA criteria concerns are citations (1c) and comprehensiveness (1b). Marskell (talk) 16:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - not too much wrong with it – fixed some refs and left comments re some updates needed, but nothing critical to warrant delisting.--mervyn (talk) 16:18, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Remove Erm.....not yet - really needs some updating as there is material from 2005-07 discussed in the present or future tense. Also under-referenced. Not too fussed about much of it but there are some statements which really ought to be referenced. cheers, I hate to say this, but really needs work in 1c (referencing) and, more importantly in someways, 1b. Significant portions need to be updated from 2006 to 2008, also needs some ecological work as per Mav. I'd get stuck into it myself but I am in Oz and not UK and am not too familiar with the material. sorry. Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Closing: I hate to do it to another one of ALoan's, but per mav and Cas this clearly has citation and comprehensiveness issues. Marskell (talk) 18:17, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/archive/February_2008&oldid=195280664"