Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article review/archive/July 2010

< Wikipedia:Featured article review‎ | archive

Kept status edit

Removed status edit

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

The article was removed by YellowAssessmentMonkey 01:46, 30 July 2010 [1].

Islam edit

Review commentary edit

Notified: Listed Wikiprojects; top editors long inactive.
Please list the notifications with links to the talk pages. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:37, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Near the top of Wikipedia:Featured articles/Cleanup listing. Seems to have problems with 1a, 1c, 1d.

  • Lots of [improper synthesis] tags in the first section.
  • [citation needed]s under the "Rise of the caliphate and civil war (632–750)" header.
  • "New dynasties and colonialism (1030–1918)" breaks down into proseline in the last three (very short) paragraphs.
  • Most of the "mosques" header is unsourced.
  • Sunni and Shi'a sections under "Denominations" end in one-sentence paragraphs.
  • What the heck is up with all the bullet lists in the references section? That's a hot mess and a half. I honestly have no clue who thought that was a good idea.
  • Several bare URLs in the references.
  • What makes this a RS? (ref #17 at time of review)

Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 03:17, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments Certainly needs a brush-up. This article gets about 12,000 views per day, & ought to meet the highest standards. I am slightly alarmed by the editing stats; the most prolific editors have not edited the article in a long time, often years, and most editors with 2010 edit dates have just edited for a few days.
  • The first sentence is not a good start - too much crammed in & not really grammatical: "...and by the Prophet of Islam Muhammad's demonstrations and real-life examples..." needs rephasing. Done, ok.
  • Lots of tags - I don't know how valid these are. All seem gone, ok
  • In "articles of faith" "Also, there are other beliefs that differ between particular sects" seems a questionable link. - rewritten, ok
  • The law section is somewhat unclear as to when & how Islamic law has been applied. - seems unchanged. Still an issue.
  • In the history the period from roughly the 16th to early 20th century - the Early Modern period in Western terms - is very sketchily handled indeed. The overtaking of the Islamic world by the West is politely passed over. - Not much change, if any
  • The history section is not very well written, and the reader struggles to see the wood for the trees. - rather better now?
  • No mention of economic aspects of history at all - still true
  • The Maratha Empire was Hindu, not Sikh as stated. - corrected.
  • The 1st para of "Islamic revival and Islamist movements" is unreferenced. - still the case
  • The "Denominations" section has too many short sections and paragraphs. Either roll them up or, better, expand them. - Improved; more could perhaps be done.
  • No section on clergy, professional scholars and others with religiously-sanctioned positions. - short section added; could be longer.
  • No coverage of Islam and either the arts or sciences, either historically or today. No touching on the role of the Arabic language, or the resistance until extremely late towards printing here for example. - Still the case
  • No mention of slavery, either from the historical or religious aspects. - Still the case
  • The (unreferenced) picture caption "Islam prohibits women from showing their hair in public" would not be accepted by very many Muslims. - changed; ok
  • Coverage of a number of areas seems generally rather brief. - Not too much change here
  • Some of the references seem questionable - there are too many old & general encyclopedias for one thing. Are they all actually used? The References contain a total of 8 works by Bernard Lewis, but I can't see that any of them are actually cited! Uncited works should be used, moved to Further reading, or dropped. - Still the case, though I can only see 7 Lewises now!
  • The prose throughout is at best serviceable, and sometimes clunky and unclear. - has improved. UPDATES Johnbod (talk) 16:49, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Johnbod (talk) 03:05, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The last FAR Wikipedia:Featured article review/Islam/archive1 btw was a pointy & abortive attempt to win an edit war. There was effectively no review of the article as it then was. Maybe one should look at the article that passed FAC in 2007? Johnbod (talk) 18:31, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Or something; the article was once in good shape, and I doubt that Islam has changed all that much in the interim :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:33, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That revision still has the yucky bullet-listed sources, which IMO should be demolished and rebuilt in a more accessible, less MOS-shredding format. Also, that revision still has many of the problems pointed out by Johnbod. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 02:33, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you want i could contribute to some changes. Leave me a specific note on my talk page if im needed.Iwanttoeditthissh (talk) 18:51, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary edit

Featured article criterion of concern are prose, sourcing, comprehensiveness YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 01:23, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hold since the above user wishes to fix the problems. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 16:39, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
He hasn't edited the article yet, & no "specific note" has been left. Johnbod (talk) 16:03, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Okay, i will try to address some of the problems in the Islam article right now. Iwanttoeditthissh (talk) 16:00, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Sunni and Shi'a sections under "Denominations" end in one-sentence paragraphs." I dont see any problems with them. Can you be more specific?Iwanttoeditthissh (talk) 16:13, 28 May 2010 (UTC) "What makes this a RS? (ref #17 at time of review)" adherents is a reliable source in my opinionIwanttoeditthissh (talk) 16:15, 28 May 2010 (UTC) "the Early Modern period in Western terms" - i think you should make this edit yourself Iwanttoeditthissh (talk) 17:19, 28 May 2010 (UTC) "The 1st para of "Islamic revival and Islamist movements" is unreferenced."should i delete it? I cant find any sources Iwanttoeditthissh (talk) 17:33, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • No mention of economic aspects of history at all - actually, jizyah is mentioned under tax (unsigned - was that you Iwanttoeditthissh?)
  • Iwanttoeditthissh continues to deal with points, but a little edit war has broken out of the numbers/%s of Sunni & Shia. I don't have time to look at this now, but there must be firm sources for figures somewhere, maybe in one of the other articles on the topic. Johnbod (talk) 11:22, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • A notice was left on my talk page: "But so far we only have sources on statistics for Shia and Sunni, not other sects such as Ibadi, Sufi or Ahmadiyya (which has led to edit warring)." I'm clearly in over my head here since I made the mistake of nominating an article on a very in depth subject I know nothing about, so I'll bow out now. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 17:40, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi all, I would like an oppurtunity to hopefully deal with some of the issues raised in this review, having participated in bringing this article up to FA status a few years ago. I think perhaps over time additions or changes have probably been made, some of which fall below the high standards the article should meet. But I will look through the comments made and try to make changes accordingly. ITAQALLAH 23:13, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Itaqallah, it's great to see an experienced editor starting to work on the comments from the FAR - hopefully this article's FA status can be saved, as it is a major topic here on WP. Please just drop a note here when you feel you have addressed the concerns above, and please feel free to ping the editors who have commented in both the FAR and FARC sections to revisit their comments once they have been addressed. Dana boomer (talk) 01:35, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: How is work going on this? If the main editors feel that the above comments have been addressed, please feel free to ping the editors who have commented and ask them for any further issues they may have with the article. I still see improperly formatted references, dead links, and an extensive see also section (truely comprehensive FAs have few or no see alsos, as any links that are connected enough to be put into a see also section should be integrated into the article's body). If this is to be kept at FARC, it should also have an image review, but before I start pinging these reviewers, I would like to know if there are editors still interested in working on the article. Dana boomer (talk) 18:51, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Best just removed; whatever it was intended to represent, Hattin was famously fought in the middle of nowhere, with (crucially) no water around - this battle is sited across a stream outside a city or castle. Johnbod (talk) 16:32, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. My feeling is that this should be kept, but I've mostly looked at the prose. A few fixes are needed.

  1. "Muslim, the word for an adherent of Islam, is the active participle of the same verb of which Islām is the infinitive (see Islam (term))." Putting grammar at the head of this article will turn off a lot of readers. Can it be just "is related to", with the refs?
  2. "revealed at many times and places before,"—remove the last word?
  3. "The majority of Muslims belong to one of two denominations, the Sunni and the Shi'a."—This could be anything down to 51%. Is that the meaning? (I'd have thought a much higher proportion ... "most", or "almost all", or "the overwhelming majority")
  4. "are found in" twice within 10 seconds.
  5. "Islam" x 2. "religion" x 2.

That's the lead. Then ...

  1. "others ... other" (who's watching out for close repetitions?)
  2. MoS on ellipsis-point spacing—always to the left. But why not just "God, the One and Only etc without the points? Much neater. There are other ellipsis dots that need a space, too.
  3. Shouldn't "p." and the page number that follows it be spaced apart?
  4. "People", then "humans". No big deal, but a little odd.
  5. "(literally:"—You could remove the colon.
  6. The Five Pillars list: they all start with nominal groups—fine—but why not remove "which is".
  7. Is alcohol a food?
  8. Image of the muslim male with supposedly "trimmed" beard (looks pretty big to me). Is this of photographic merit? Does it elucidate the text? Does it portray mulsims as being of a certain racial/physical type? It's a pity it also shifts the focus onto males, feeding an unfortunate perception of the religion. The image lower down of the woman could also be seen as pandering to the "beautiful young woman" stereotype, and is unnecessary to explain the concept in the caption.
  9. Panoramic image of the mosque: it is TINY. Can it be "center" in the syntax and much much bigger, like about 400px?
  10. Year range in title: en dash, please.
  11. Ref tag 80, 82: formatting needs to be fixed.
  12. Invasions: see MoS about lower case in titles.
  13. "century to"—remove first word.
  14. Muslim percentage map: I nurse this idea that low-bandwidth users shouldn't have to click on images to get what they're about. Can you add to the caption something like "(black = 90–100%; lightest blue = 0–1%)". Just the outer two would give some idea. Same issue for denominations map.
  15. Faisal mosque: TINY. Is there something we should be noticing about the architecture? The caption needs to point us to it. Or give us a pic of one of the magically beautiful traditional mosques. BTW, the top image is great, but can't it be bigger? Can you shift that rather low-value box about Arabic text down away from the high-impact top, so the pic can be highlighted?
  16. No section on the relationship between Islam and art?

Please consider working up a WP:Featured topic on Islam. Tony (talk) 13:43, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delist Nearly three months and there are still plenty of issues not yet addressed. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 01:02, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed by YellowAssessmentMonkey 02:09, 26 July 2010 [2].

Bhumibol Adulyadej edit

Review commentary edit

Notified: Rlevse, WikiProject Thailand

I am nominating this featured article for review because these comments have not been responded to on the talk page for over a week. Hopefully they will get a wider audience here. I have some issues with the neutrality of the article in certain places, as well as its completeness in regards to the last 3-5 years and in the spots referred to below.

First, the article makes several claims about the king’s alleged public popularity with Thais:

  • “Publicly acclaimed "the Great"”
  • “Bhumibol is highly revered by the public”
  • “Bhumibol retains enormous powers, partly because of his immense popularity”
  • “Although Bhumibol is held in great respect by many Thais, he is also protected by lèse majesté laws”

One wonder’s what the basis for these claims is. Independently-conducted, scentific public opinon polls? The say-so of newspaper staff writers? The article should focus on clearer, narrower, more verifiable claims, rather than trite and vague haigiography. In fact, buried in the text of the article is a source that disputes the idea that the king is universally adored. The body of the article should devote some space to a serious decision of the king’s approval rating, with some focus on the how it has been measured (if it has been at all). What it should not do is take sides early and often.

Second, lèse majesté.

  • “He has been accused of interfering in politics, although this would be unconstitutional of him and accusers are liable to be charged with lèse majesté.” My issue with this sentence is that it mixes the issues sufficiently to editorialize. First, “although” implies a counterpoint—but the fact that it would be unconstitutional in no way contradicts the accusation. It would be more accurate to say: “he has been accused of unconstituitonaly interferering with politics.” Second, lèse majesté is a national criminal law only. It may be true that those who state this accusation in Thailand may be charged, but to wedge this into this part of the intro only confuses the issue.
  • Standing to bring a lèse majesté claim. The article says “anyone”. Anyone in the world? Any Thai citizen? At the very least it should say “anyone else” because the king is the one person we no cannot bring a claim.
  • An offhand comment by the king at a birthday speech five years ago is featured in the intro rather than summarizing the overall position of the king towards the law. This birthday speech should go in the body of the article, or even a footnote. It is not intro material. Has he tried to get it repealed? Has he tried to grant clemency? Has to spoken out against high profile cases? Etc. Otherwise, the article as it is currently written constitutes overemphasis.

The following sections lack citations:

  • Thanom Kittikachorn era
  • The key paragraph in the “Crisis of 1992” section
  • Several paragraphs in the “Crisis of 2005–2006 and the September 2006 coup”
  • Much of the history of royal projects section, including a few of the examples.
  • Much of the 60th anniversary section
  • The private life section, in particular about the Enligh language books

Other issues:

  • “He is seen as so important by the Thai people that his ill-health has affected the financial markets.” There are several things wrong with stating this as an objective fact rather than subjective conjecture. First, financial markets are not a public opinion poll. Most Thais own no stock whatsoever. Second, it is very hard to know why stock markets move the way they do. Correlation is a fact; causation is a guess. Statements like these belong on quack finance shows like “Mad Money”, not the lead of featured articles.
  • “Bhumibol switched over his field of study to law and political science in order to prepare himself more effectively for his new position as ruler.” What I take issue with is the attribution of internal motivation. Examples of a objecitvely neutral statements would be that he stated this, someone else stated this, etc.
  • The intro states: “He has also used his influence to stop military coups, including attempts in 1981 and 1985.” The basis for these claims is that the king did not endorse these two particular military coups and they did not succeed. However, a claim of causation should be attributed and cited to a source. Preferably, unless all the commentators are in agreement that the situation is so simple, one would want to see some discussion of the circumstances of the coup and any other factors at play.
  • In both the intro and the body the article claims the king played a “key role” in the transition to democracy. However, it waffles on providing any specific details that would allow one to assess this claim. The relevant paragraph in the body of the article contains no citations. That he appeared on TV with the two parties is a fact. However, that this event “made a strong impression on the nation, and led to Suchinda's resignation soon afterwards” is an opinion. It should be attributed and cited, not passed off as objective fact without references. Without more details and sources, it would appear the intro has overclaimed the king’s role.

Finally, the aritcle is in need of updating on the King’s role in Thai politics since 2006, especially since 2008. Savidan 21:20, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delist I am the one who got this to FA and I gave up trying to maintain this long ago. It's another victim of POV warriors who care more about their POV than the quality of the article. Sad. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:44, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary edit

Featured article criterion of concern are sourcing, neutrality, comprehensiveness. YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 02:23, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed by YellowAssessmentMonkey 02:09, 26 July 2010 [3].

Krazy Kat edit

Review commentary edit

Notified: User:Andrew Levine, Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics, Wikipedia:WikiProject Animation, Wikipedia:WikiProject Cats

I am review this article due to un-referenced parts in the article. EX: the "Assorted reissue compilations" section. Also, there are some pictures that aren't nessessary, like File:Ignatzoffisapuppkrazy.jpg. GamerPro64 (talk) 03:02, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary edit

Featured article criterion of concern is sourcing YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 02:22, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist, concerns about referencing throughout the page, as well as lack of comprehensiveness, total lack of any subsection on Reception, Commentary, or Analysis from discussion in secondary sources. -- Cirt (talk) 16:16, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist - I saw some of my problems fixed but its not enough. GamerPro64 (talk) 18:15, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed by YellowAssessmentMonkey 02:09, 26 July 2010 [4].

Tooth enamel edit

Review commentary edit

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dentistry, User talk:Interwebs, User talk:Maralia, User talk:Jersyko, User talk:Dozenist.

FA from 2005, has some 1c issues throughout and a few unsourced paragraphs and swathes of unsourced bits within paragraphs. Subsections: There are short subsections, consisting of only one sentence or paragraph or so. Short paragraphs: There are short paragraphs, consisting of only one or two paragraphs in length. These should be expanded upon, to ensure comprehensiveness. There are (10) images used in the article - these could use an image review. The lede/intro of the article fails WP:LEAD, it should not be more than 4 paragraphs in length; this lede is 6 paragraphs, and a bunch of short choppy ones at that. Comprehensiveness: concerns about comprehensiveness, subsections including all the sub-subsections under Effects of dental procedures, Systemic conditions affecting enamel, and In other mammals could all do with some expansion and additional research. -- Cirt (talk) 01:42, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've reduced the lead to 4 paras, movedsome sentences around for flow and snipped a couple of unecassary bits. Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 11:37, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary edit

Featured article criterion of concern is sourcing YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 02:20, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist. I saw the changes to the lede, nice - but not significant enough to address above concerns. -- Cirt (talk) 02:49, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed by YellowAssessmentMonkey 02:09, 26 July 2010 [5].

Iranian peoples edit

Review commentary edit

Notified: Khoikhoi, Tajik, Dbachmann (all editors with more than 50 edits who have been active in 2010 and are not blocked), WP Turkey, WP Central Asia, WP Kurdistan, WP Iran, WP Ethnic groups (all projects which rated it top or high importance).

This is a 2006 FA that has not been reviewed since the month of its promotion. There are numerous issues that need to be addressed for this article to remain at FA status, mainly regarding prose and referencing:

  • The prose needs some serious work. First sentence that jumped out at me: "The name Iran, Iranian is itself equivalent to Arya/Aryan,". Why the comma between Iran and Iranian? Also, "itself" is redundant - just say "is equivalent to". This is one of the main problems.
  • Over-referencing in a few places. For example, why does the statement "The name Iran, Iranian is itself equivalent to Arya/Aryan, where Iran means “land of the Arya”" need seven references?
  • Under-referencing in other places - statistics and conjecture go un-cited in many places. A few are already marked with fact tags. This is also one of the main problems.
  • Pick one version of punctuation/reference placement and stick with it. Some places have the reference before the punctuation, some after, and some have punctuation on both sides of the reference. Either of the first two are correct, as long as it is done consistently; the latter is never correct.
  • Further information templates should go at the beginnings of sections, not in the middle as is done in the Later developments sections.
  • Numerous dab links and dead links; some of the latter are already marked but others are not.
  • References are formatted extremely inconsistently and some web references are missing access dates.

I have noted the two above (prose and under-referencing) that are the biggest problems. Dana boomer (talk) 01:28, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of things are wrong with this article. If I didn't know the FA process is completely broken I would be wondering how it ever became FA.

First of all, the map is an abomination. I made an effort to replace it with an overview map working as a thumbnail, but this failed due to ethnic bickering so I gave up on it. As long as we don't replace this with something acceptable I don't think anything else needs to be discussed. But there is lots to discuss then. So there is a "Genetics" h2 section, with a "Genetic roots" subsection. Huh? There is a "diversity" h2(!) section that more or less consists of a random comment. There is a "Etymology and usage" with the main article Arya#Etymology, and then there is another(!) h2 section called "Self designator as Arya". I could go on. What this article badly needs is attention from an experienced editor. I have tried to give it such attention in the past, but the usual Iranian ethnic chauvinism going on on talkpage quickly convinced me I was wasting my time. Actually, I do wonder how this was ever smuggled through FAC. --dab (𒁳) 10:19, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with dab. The article needs a lot of improvements, and an effective control system is needed to keep ethnic POV out of it. As for the map: I do not think that it's factually incorrect, but some polishing may be needed. Tajik (talk) 13:29, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary edit

Featured article criterion of concern are neutrality, prose, sourcing and MOS. YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 02:22, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist, agree with above concerns, in addition, there are referencing issues throughout, and a bunch of uber-short paragraphs. -- Cirt (talk) 16:17, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist: criterion three issues are numerous:
  • Delist - almost nothing has happened to this article since I brought it to FAR, and nothing substantive has been done to address the issues I (and others) raised. Dana boomer (talk) 02:55, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's interesting that the much shorter German version of the article has more precise and more academic information on the subject than this one. This article has become just as bad and wrong as the article Turkic peoples. Tajik (talk) 22:20, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed by YellowMonkey 01:37, 14 July 2010 [6].

Hurricane Dennis edit

Review commentary edit

Notified: Titoxd, Tropical cyclone WikiProject

I am nominating this featured article for review because I don't believe it still meets the FA criteria. There is a glaring section missing (aftermath) that is in most tropical cyclone articles. There are many unsourced sections, and there are as many poorly sourced sections, using outdated references. If I read the article, I would wonder what the hurricane did that resulted in so much damage. In the United States section, it mentions a lot of meteorological statistics and some damage figures, but it doesn't indicate any physical damage.

The article could be rewritten entirely to ensure it meets FA standards, but it shouldn't have to be. It doesn't meet the FA criteria right now, and it wouldn't unless someone were to put a lot of work into it (and since it was featured almost four years ago, there hasn't been much of an effort to keep it in good shape). Hurricanehink (talk) 17:33, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike earlier in the year, now I should actually have time to work on this one. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 21:46, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary edit

Featured article criterion of concern are quality of sourcing, citations and comprehensiveness YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 04:38, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Main contributor told this article is now at FARC. Hopefully, FAR concerns will start to be addressed. --mav (reviews needed) 14:04, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist - It has been more than a month since this article was brought to FAR, and over two weeks since it was moved to FARC, and nothing but very minor formatting has been done. Significant work needed... Dana boomer (talk) 12:32, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist, due to unexpected RL stuff I will be unable to work on it at all for a few weeks, so I think a new FAC would be better than stalling the FARC. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 19:14, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed by YellowAssessmentMonkey 02:09, 12 July 2010 [7].

Mount Rushmore edit

Review commentary edit

Notified: MONGO, WP Protected areas, WP South Dakota, WP National Register of Historic Places

I am nominating this featured article for review because it was promoted to FA in 2006 and judging from the content of the talk page, it seems that there has been quite a lot of discussion on the content of this article which may have had an impact on the article that was judged to be FA-worthy in 2006. Some of my specific concerns with this article as far as FA criteria are concerned include:

  • 1a: I would not consider the prose of the "History" and "Controversy" sections to be "engaging...and of a professional standard."
  • 1b: The "Tourism" section is far too short and may contain OR (the mention of an increase in visitors due to the Sturgis Motorcycle Rally). For example, how much revenue does the memorial generate for the state? Where/how far do these visitors come from?
  • 2a: While the lead (which I just rewrote from its previous hodgepodge state) summarizes the topic well, it does not "prepare the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections." For example, it mentions nothing that is contained in the "Controversy", "Ecology", or "Geology" sections.
  • 2: The "In popular culture" section seems to have been forked into a separate article with no text left behind in the main article other than a hatnote pointing to the fork.

I would love to make these improvements myself, but due to my reduced availability to commit time to WP I'm asking for help. I only want to see this article delisted as a last resort. —KuyaBriBriTalk 21:58, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Mount Rushmore could use some expansion and clean up...I would voice the following concerns..

  • Why is the page semi-protected? Has it been a page that has been attracting a lot of vandalism?...if not, it needs to be unprotected except from moves.
  • The intro needs expansion as User:Kuyabribri has stated.
  • The tourism section could be expanded to included other sites nearby such as Badlands National Park, Wind Cave National Park, Jewel Cave National Monument...and other historical attractions like Deadwood, South Dakota...all within less than an hour or two drive of Mount Rushmore.
  • The "Controversy" section is not a primary section and should be at the end...the main focus of the monument is the sculpture and the mountain itself (Rushmore)...so the sculpture, as in how this mountain was selected and why, the design phase and the actual work done how and for how long, should be the emphasis...then a discussion on the geology and ecology of the monument and lastly tourism and controversy, which in my opinion deserves less coverage than it is given.
  • I too am lacking time to enhance this article...it probably needs about 20 hours of dedication to save it from being delisted as featured...--MONGO 05:12, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I unprotected it. It had been protected indefinitely while the text in the article claimed that the protection was set to expire a year ago. Likely overlooked or the wrong button pushed when the protection was added. Rmhermen (talk) 14:52, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary edit

Featured article criterion of concern are prose, sourcing, weight and comprehensiveness YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 04:40, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed by YellowAssessmentMonkey 02:09, 12 July 2010 [8].

Krill edit

Review commentary edit

Notified: User talk:Lupo‎, User talk:Kils , User talk:Stemonitis, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fisheries and Fishing, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Food and drink, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Arthropods.

FA from 2005, has some 1c issues throughout and wholly unsourced subsections, and some copyediting needs and some short paragraphs/sections. 9 total images used in the article, could use a pass through of an image review for those. Subsections: There are short subsections, consisting of only one sentence or paragraph or so. Short paragraphs: There are short paragraphs, consisting of only one or two paragraphs in length. Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 03:07, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Images reviewed. The only image which might be questionable as far as sourcing goes is File:Pleopods euphausia superba.jpg. This is only because it says the image is from User:Kils, but doesn't say whether he took the image himself or received it from another source. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 06:44, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The image was made by Uwe Kils, as stated on the image page. I noticed a couple of days ago that the source for this image had vanished. It appears that there was a purge of Kils' work at wikisource, and I cannot find it anymore in the logs. It was used here (deleted, too; but still partially visible in the Google cache (Google for "Kilsbiomass3.jpg")). Lupo 10:32, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    No need to get upset as I was only stating what I perceived as a possible problem. Perhaps you can reword the text on that image page to make it more clear. I wasn't trying to cast aspersions on anyone. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 21:44, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not upset at all, just confused as to what happened with that image I had uploaded. Will add an {{information}} to that image. Lupo 21:52, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, that's good. I didn't want you to get upset when I wasn't trying to do that. Your solution sounds good. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 08:14, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • There were three unsourced paragraphs, to which I've now added some sources. Lupo 10:32, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lupo, please feel free to ping the editor who nominated the article for FAR to return and add further comments. If several uninvolved editors agree that the article now meets FA standards, it can be kept without going through the FARC process. Another way to gain attention would be to ask for editors from related projects to come review the article, as well as asking editors who regularly write FAs in biology-related areas to come and comment. Dana boomer (talk) 01:46, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No objections to a "Keep" at this point in time. :) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 01:56, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fail – Comments: The article appears to need some work, particularly in regard to the lead. Below are my suggestions:

  • The lead sentence seems mildly redundant and simple. "Krill is a shrimp-like marine invertebrate animal." The word "invertebrate" implies "animal". Furthermore, I personally like to pack in the most important identifying features into the lead sentence. The item "shrimp-like marine invertebrate" is an excellent start, but could its order (Euphausiacea) be included to give placement among the invertebrates? Since it's included in the 3rd sentence, maybe just merge the two sentences. After all, Euphausiacea is a redirect to this article.
  • "important organisms" – "important" sounds like a peacock term. (It's also used in the 2nd paragraph of the lead.) Anyway, if the first sentence is merged with the second, I would advise the re-wording of the second sentence. I would recommend focusing on the role the organism plays (without the puffery) and condense of the list of organisms that rely on it. (The full list should be in the body anyway.)
  • The second sentence of the second lead paragraph sounds overly convoluted.
  • "roughly twice that of humans" – suggested: "roughly twice that of the entire human population."
  • The second lead paragraph repeats a list of predators.
  • The footnote does not have a formal citation, but uses an external link.
  • Taxonomy: Has a phylogeny been established in the literature? If so, could one be provided? For an example, see Lemur#Taxonomic classification and phylogeny
  • Is there really that little published about krill phylogeny? Any genetic work or controversy over classification?
  • Is the linking of "55° S" and "74° S" examples of over-linking?
  • The second paragraph of the "Behaviour" section seems redundant given the last sentence of the previous paragraph. Is is also very short and should probably be merged.
  • Briefly explain "exuvia".
  • "Krill are an important element of the food chain." → Suggested: "Krill play a key role in oceanic food chains."
  • In the "Ecology and life history" section, the list of predators is short and does not cover what is listed in the lead. The full list should be moved here, along with an appropriate citation.
  • In "Life history", the nauplius larval stage is not described, only listed.
  • None of the information from the lead (uncited) about Euphausia superba, including its total biomass, is included the body.
  • The okiami Japanese spelling and footnote should be in the body, not the lead.
  • The commercial fishing information from the lead does not appear to be a summary and may include uncited information not covered in the body.

In short, there are a lot of problems with this article. The biggest problem is the lead, which in my opinion, needs to be completely rewritten. Also, information presently in the lead needs to be distributed and cited in the body. Aside from that, everything else seems minor. – VisionHolder « talk » 02:14, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Visionholder has brought up some valid concerns. I have struck out my prior comment saying this could be closed early. Instead, these issues should be addressed. In any event, this FAR page should not skip the FARC process. -- Cirt (talk) 02:19, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Work needed - comprehensiveness: Agree with Visionholder that it needs work, and htat the lead needs a rejig at the very minimum. More as I go. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:39, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It took me a minute or two to figure out what rank krill are - are we talking species/genus/family...of wait, order. This needs to be stated in the first sentence. I might have a tweak.
  • The article doesn't tell me how many species there are - I wanted to add to the lead that there are X species divided into two families.
  • Any fossil evidence?
  • closest relatives among other crustaceans?

Overall need to sort out comprehensiveness issues before we start on copyediting, though I couldn't help but try to rejig the lead. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:56, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comprehensiveness issues I'm not familiar with the subject matter, but judging from the 3000+ hits for "krill" in the Web of Knowledge, there's a substantial body of research, and I doubt the article currently is a representative survey. Sasata (talk) 05:08, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think this is generally OK, but the prose does need some tidying up in places. In addition to the points already raised, I'd like to see the format of the sourcing made consistent. For instance, ref #27 has "Howard, D.", whereas ref #28 has "D. Howard". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Malleus Fatuorum (talk • contribs)
  • Comment. Visionholder, Casliber, Sasata, and Malleus Fatuorum make some good points, and I don't think this article is currently FA quality. Some further points:
  • The "Distribution" section seems to mention some random (?) species and genera. For example, there is an entire paragraph on Antarctic krill, but, as far as I can see, nothing on the Indian Ocean. "Endemic or neritic restricted distributions" doesn't make sense to me.
  • Is there nothing to be said on internal morphology?
  • Some references seem unreliable or not of the quality expected in a biological article (i.e., peer-reviewed literature), like the Online Etymology Dictionary, conservation sites, or news sites.
  • The ITIS reference is used to cite the paragraph that includes depth ranges for the two families, but does not contain that information.

Ucucha 06:17, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary edit

Featured article criterion of concern are quality of sourcing, citations and comprehensiveness YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 04:37, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist per the problems mentioned above. Ucucha 06:07, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist - Significant problem issues of note have been raised by multiple editors, above. -- Cirt (talk) 20:28, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist per issues above. I sincerely hope someone works to bring it back. – VisionHolder « talk » 21:14, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist as it stands. The significant issues in comprehensiveness are too big to ignore. Hopefully someone will get stuck into it. Not my forte, but if someone familar with content gets stuck into it I can help out. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:03, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed by Dana boomer 23:13, 6 July 2010 [9].

Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel edit

Review commentary edit

Notified: WikiProjects
Please provide links to the talk pages of notifications. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:33, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There may be other notices; these were ones I found on a quick check. Looks like no-one has shown much interest. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:22, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article has some unsourced sections, in particular the Legacy section, and the integration section where some subjective statements and attributions are not cited. Rediff is not a reliable source. This article is not "a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature on the topic"; about 85% of the article is sourced to Gandhi's grandson; Gandhi was Sardar Patel's main ally and people would be raising eyebrows if Cheney's son was the main source of an article on GWB. Apart from this, there are many dozens of books on Patel (see google books, for instance) YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 01:41, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary edit

Featured article criterion of concern are sourcing YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 00:40, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was removed by YellowAssessmentMonkey 04:25, 5 July 2010 [10].

John Vanbrugh edit

Review commentary edit

Toolbox
Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cheshire, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Visual arts, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Theatre, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject England, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Architecture, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography/Arts and entertainment, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography [ie all of the projects listed on Talk:John Vanbrugh]. Original nominator has retired.
Per the FAR instructions, have the top contributors been notified? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:50, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not really, no. Not formally, nor on a level with important stuff like WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology. Other users have kindly informed us, though. Giano and I are the main contributors, as I would have hoped was easy to see via for instance the edit counter Sandy links to, or by clicking on one of the three links straight to the article's FAC at the top of the talkpage.[11]. At that time, by the way, the nominators of featured articles were usually not contributors to the article, and the nominator User:ALoan had, in fact, little to do with it. Though not quite as little as those WikiProjects... In my opinion, it's time to stop referring to all those more or less far-fetched projects on FAR; the mechanical reference to the mass of them surely tends to obscure the actual contributors (if, indeed, such contributors are mentioned at all). I don't write this to complain of Ed17, but to suggest that the FAR customs w r t such matters are bad, and have slipped away, as per Sandy, from the actual FAR instructions. Can we have more handiwork and less mechanics in the notifications, please? Bishonen | talk 17:56, 26 April 2010 (UTC).[reply]
My sincere apologies to you and Giano; I didn't think to look for the top contributors, just the FAC nominator. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 18:13, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I found this article through WP:URFA. Article easily fails 1c. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 06:12, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Only 5 notes, but otherwise seems a fine article. Johnbod (talk) 13:23, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with the_ed17 (talk · contribs), blatant referencing deficiencies include lack of citations for direct quotations of material. -- Cirt (talk) 13:30, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Where in fact? The Boswell is cited to a diary entry date, which is fine. I hope you're not one of those people who want OED page numbers? Johnbod (talk) 13:41, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It might be easier to illustrate where there could be improvements and more specific citations in certain key places such as after direct quotations of material by adding helpful templates like {{fact}} tags. Unfortunately, however, I will refrain from doing that, in this particular case. -- Cirt (talk) 14:06, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It doesn't easily fail 1c - it is thorough and representative of the critical literature, and is verifiable against appropriate sources. The only question is whether or not the low number of inline citations meets or fails to meet the "where appropriate" criteria. I don't see anything in the article that is "likely to be challenged." DionysosProteus (talk) 17:10, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Current FA standards mean that virtually everything in the article needs to be cited. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 18:27, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I am not aware of that requirement; will reviewers please focus here on exactly which text they believe needs citation? Thank you, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:45, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I assessed the article using Wikipedia:Featured article criteria. Are you working from a different set of criteria? Where are they? DionysosProteus (talk) 18:37, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • You think the article would successfully gain support at WP:FAC and be promoted to WP:FA with the current standards at FAC, in the article's present state? -- Cirt (talk) 19:21, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • I have no idea. The issue that you raised, however, is whether or not it fulfils the criteria. If those that I linked to are the ones in question, then the article fulfils them, as far as I can see. I assume from your response that those are the correct criteria? If the present practice is to pursue a different set of criteria, then the policy document needs to be adjusted to reflect that practice. As I understand it, the purpose of this assessment is to examine whether or not the article fulfils the FA criteria detailed in that policy. DionysosProteus (talk) 20:30, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • Not sure whether or not those are rhetorical questions - as the account DionysosProteus (talk · contribs) has been active on English Wikipedia for quite some time now... Nevertheless, it is quite clear that this article would not pass WP:FAC muster at current standards. -- Cirt (talk) 20:49, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • No, there is nothing rhetorical about them, they are genuine questions. Either the criteria given are the ones against which this article ought to be assessed, or else we should have access to a different set of approved criteria. The criteria are there to provide an easily accessible description of the standards to which all articles are to be held, as determined by consensus. I understand that you are arguing that that consensus has changed. If that is the case, then the criteria need to be ammended. Having done that, we may then have an opportunity to assess this particular article in light of those new criteria. Whether the policy and practice are not longer in synch or not, this article's assessment is not the appropriate place to debate that. The only relevant criteria for this assessment are those given in the policy statement. I tend to confine my comments to articles that fall under my areas of expertise. I'm not sure what you are implying with your description of the length of time with which I have been involved with Wikipedia--perhaps you could state it more explicitly? DionysosProteus (talk) 21:32, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                • The FA criteria are not the be all and end all of FA standards, rather, the standards of what is of FA quality are determined by the community at WP:FAC as informed by the FA criteria, and I highly doubt this article would pass muster at this point in time. According to its contributions, the account DionysosProteus (talk · contribs) has been editing since 2007. -- Cirt (talk) 21:35, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Correct. And your point in making that observation is what, precisely? If, as you argue, the standards to be applied in this assessment are not those of the featured article criteria, then the Featured article review needs to state that and to give explicit guidance about what further considerations ought to be made. As far as I can see, it does not. A fair assessment may only be made according to criteria that have been agreed upon and are explicitly stated in a policy document. The subjective preferences of particular editors is not an appropriate consideration, whether they participate in WP:FAC or not. DionysosProteus (talk) 21:58, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Determination of FA quality status is based on the criteria, and the standards as informed both by the criteria and by WP:CONSENSUS at WP:FAC. Hope that clarifies it a bit. -- Cirt (talk) 22:43, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                  • If you wish to alter the critera according to which the assessment is made, then you need to seek consensus for that alteration and make the change to the policy documents mentioned above. Your assertion that other considerations are relevant remains an assertion in lieu of those changes. And the reason you mentioned how long I have been involved with Wikipedia was what, exactly? DionysosProteus (talk) 02:59, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Merely pointing out that this article would not be likely to pass WP:FAC at current standards for present WP:FA expectations. And DionysosProteus (talk · contribs) posed questions above that seemed confusing for an account active since 2007, but perhaps it has simply not yet been active at FAR and thus this may have been the cause of its protested confusion about FA standards. -- Cirt (talk) 03:08, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is certainly short of "consistently formatted inline citations" (2c is it?) by current standards. Johnbod (talk) 03:02, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed it is 2C, and boy, does this fail miserably. Inline citations are indeed needed. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 00:05, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, it doesn't fail 2c at all. Close inspection of the criterion reveals that it demands consistency "where required by 1c". The citations are not in any way inconsistent. The only question concerns 1c. And the discussion above concerned the appropriate criteria for making this assessment, which are given in Wikipedia:Featured article criteria. Those are the only FA standards relevant in this case, as detailed in Wikipedia:Featured article review. DionysosProteus (talk) 03:10, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to continue arguing your interpretation of the FA criteria all you want, but if significant work isn't done, consensus will be vastly in favor of a stricter 1c/2c application and the delisting of this article. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 15:16, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's no argument--the criteria are explicit and unambiguious. If you wish to alter the criteria, by all means seek a consensus for that and have it implemented. Until doing so, the appropriate criteria for this assessment remains those given in the policy, not what other editors imagine it to be. DionysosProteus (talk) 15:24, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Again: consensus here will determine that this article does not meet the current criteria. If you wish to loosen them, feel free to start a conversation on WT:FA?—but the burden is on you and the minority viewpoint. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 15:27, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The burden is on reviewers to demonstrate precisely what text they believe is uncited and requires citation. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:32, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I do not propose to "loosen" the current criteria. The terms in which objections have been made above are clearly applying criteria not given in the published policy. Whether other criteria are applied when assessing new featured article candidates is irrelevant to this assessment. Those that govern this assessment are unambigious and hardly subject to a "strict" or "loose" interpretation: Inline citations are necessary "where required by 1c" (a direct quotation from the criteria); claims in the article are verifiable via citations "where appropriate" (again a direct quotation), linking to Wikipedia:When to cite, which gives anything that is likely to be challenged. Those are the exact criteria that I have applied. DionysosProteus (talk) 15:43, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Now that this is established, can reviewers please focus on the task at hand, to minimize the length of this FAR? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:48, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It looks to me like the article still meets the requirements established at WP:FACR. Although I think a case could be made for more stringent requirements for citation formatting, I find it inappropriate to coatrack such a discussion onto a single article review. I'd strongly suggest having the debate at WT:FACR, or a similar high-visibility venue, where more editors are likely to contribute to a consensus. --RexxS (talk) 17:36, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment There are uncited quotations scattered throughout the article. Please add citations to them. We can move on to other items that might need citations after that. Awadewit (talk) 05:43, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not altogether well, so perhaps people could wait for the citations, or else defeature the article. Bishonen | talk 22:18, 2 May 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Comment unless there are significantly more citations added, 5 is probably a reasonable number if this was a C (or at best a B) grade article, not an FA. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:15, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've added some citation needed tags to the top of the article, where I feel they are appropriate. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:23, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid that the count of the number of citations is not a Featured Article criterion. 17 references are given, in addition to the 5 specific citations – the FACR is "Claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate". For example much of the Early life and background section is supported by Downes (although the article does leave it to the reader to verify that if they chose). I have some sympathy with the argument that it would be easier for the verifier if specific page numbers were given in places, but that does not alter the quality of the article, merely the ease of verification.
Secondly, you appear to misunderstand the purpose of the lead section. It is a summary of the rest of the article and relies upon that for its verification in almost all cases. Have a look at other featured articles and you'll find a absence of citations in the lead, since the text there is actually supported by the references in the main body of the text. A simple example is your {{citation needed}} tag following "Sir John Vanbrugh ... was an English architect and dramatist". It is abundantly clear from the rest of the article that he was indeed both an architect and a dramatist (as well as English), so there really is no need for a citation there – similarly for the other valueless tags you placed. I would suggest you revert those additions as they do nothing to help improve this article. --RexxS (talk) 23:05, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WellI accept that the "citation needed" of 'was an English architect and dramatist' may have been a little silly. But I think your description of the rest of them as valueless is slightly odd. I've been to Blenheim Palace fairly often as I live reasonably close by and I hadn't heard of any of those things. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:10, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And to take Sex Pistols which is on the front page right now, and it has a few sources in the lead, though it has another 231 inline references in the rest of the article. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:12, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The lede may remain uncited IFF that exact same information is cited in the body text of the article. In this instance, that was not the case. -- Cirt (talk) 23:13, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, that's not what WP:LEADCITE says. I find this useful: "editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material". In an FA lead, almost all citations are likely to redundant – in fact, I usually consider citations in the lead to be an indicator that new material has been introduced that is not present (and sourced) in the article (with the exception of the definition of the subject, the only part of the lead not a summary of the rest of the article). I would recommend when adding {{cn}} tags either that use is made of the |reason parameter, or that they are made one at a time with a precise edit summary to help editors find exactly what is being challenged. In this case, a Featured Article of considerable age, it is true that much of the work of verification is left to the reader (although the 17 references given are a good starting place). It would be much more helpful to editors wishing to improve the article if the focus were on refining the sources for text in the main body of the article – I'm sure the lead would then become uncontentious. --RexxS (talk) 00:27, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed my citation needed tags from the lead so we can avoid controversy over it. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:22, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary edit

Featured article criterion of concern are sourcing YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 01:25, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Per Bishonen's request for extra time to add references, this article will be held for an extra period of time in the FARC section. Reviewers should refrain from making delist declarations until Bishonen has had a chance to work on the references. A request for a time frame on this work is awaiting reply. Dana boomer (talk) 15:22, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know. As I've mentioned, I don't care to discuss personal matters here. Several people are currently working on the article, and Rexxs is waiting for a library book.[12] Bishonen | talk 13:08, 10 May 2010 (UTC).[reply]
  • Of course, and I wouldn't ask you to discuss them. I was thinking more along the lines of two weeks, a month, two months - nothing specific, but it's not a big deal if you can't estimate even that much. As long as progress is moving along on the article, it won't be delisted. Dana boomer (talk) 17:57, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Slowly but surely the number of sources is improving in this article :), there are now 10 inline references, up from 5. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:34, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Now 38, but the article is still disfigured with loads of "citation needed" tags, some rather silly, but many valid. Johnbod (talk) 16:30, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are also several sections where no citation needed tags have been added at all, and some points in those probably still need citing.
PS feel free to remove any you feel are particularly silly - I'm sure I went too far in places with adding them. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 11:59, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well I won't for now, in case the referencing fairy passes by. Johnbod (talk) 19:19, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist. Still significant referencing issues throughout, as well as ongoing conflicts, including talk page conflict over poorly sourced and poorly written info removed from the end of the article. Best to submit this for WP:GA at some point, and get a GA review, particularly with regard to whether the page fails WP:WIAGA criteria points (2) and (5). Not up to GA quality at this point in time. -- Cirt (talk) 20:12, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist as above, there has been progress, but sadly not enough. I am intending to go down to the library over the next few days - and they have multiple books on the topic in stock. So if I manage to make a significant progress with the sourcing I'll retract my 'vote' here. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:23, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, in the expectation that any remaining citation needs will be met soon. It's a beautiful article. Tony (talk) 15:05, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: In addition to failing WP:WIAGA criteria (2) and (5), the article also fails WP:WIAFA, criteria (1e). -- Cirt (talk) 15:07, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm not convinced the article passes (1a) really, the last three paragraphs aren't the only bit that wasn't particularly well written. Of note if the article is delisted I'll request it for good article nomination as quickly as possible. I believe though that if the article continues to improve then it won't be delisted. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:07, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't. Before it had all those little superscripted numbers in it, and was largely gutted of anything readable, it was an informative, well-written article. Perhaps it didn't meet the current criteria for FA, but that says more about the criteria for FA than it does about the article. You've done enough damage to something that was once something that almost anyone could read and learn from, and has now had the very life beaten out of it. Risker (talk) 02:01, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The vast majority of the article was and is well written and therefore the prose hasn't been changed, but just not everything, and the FA criteria are generally applied very tightly these days. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:52, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've sourced around another 20 points since 8 June but there is still lots left to source - sadly there still looks like plenty - even without 'citation needed' tags. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 13:34, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist. Please. What has happened here is a classic example of what happens when people who don't know anything about the subject try to write about it, and the article is far, far worse from a reader's perspective now than it was when it was first brought to this page. Better that an article be interesting and readable than an article that fulfills arcane criteria but is boring, unreadable due to excessive footnotes, and largely missing the point. Risker (talk) 22:16, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Risker. I would prefer the article to be delisted. Firstly, it frazzles me to see Eraserhead and Cirt ignoring the request of delegate Dana boomer that "reviewers should refrain from making delist declarations until Bishonen has had a chance to work on the references".[13] And secondly, I've spent most of May and June in hospital, which makes the whole thing look kind of small (from my point of view) and, yes, prevents me from working on the references. It doesn't really matter any longer, but I've also had enough of being told by Eraserhead (who I'm sure has no personal animus in the case) and Cirt (who certainly does) how badly written John Vanbrugh is. ("Not up to GA quality at this point in time".) As Risker says, yeah, now it's badly written. Bishonen | talk 01:51, 20 June 2010 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment as the person whose made a significant percentage of these edits the only content changes I have made have either been minor in response to what a reliable source says - or have been discussed on the talk page first with no constructive responses from anyone until the change was actually made - and in the latter case if I "don't know anything about the subject and try and write about it" then it should be trivial to come up with a sensible argument as to why I'm wrong - and that hasn't happened. The major change I've made is to add footnotes pointing to reliable sources, but every other GA and FA that I've ever seen has at least as many - if not considerably more so I don't really see what the problem with them can possibly be - they are a fundamental part of the project as they are required to show that the page satisfies WP:V.
And Bishonen I'm very sorry you've had an extended stay in hospital. However there are apparently plenty of other people apparently watching the talk page who could have started to add further references and respond to my comments about sections that need improvement in a constructive manner and sadly, with a couple of exceptions, neither have occurred. And those are the reasons Cirt and me have bought up as to why it doesn't satisfy the GA criteria. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:52, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disgraceful FAR, excuse me, but where was the consensus to change the citation style here? There is no requirement at WP:WIAFA that the footnoted citation method be used, and WP:CITE requires consensus before changing established citation style. Rather than waiting for Bish to have the time to address the issues, the article has deteriorated while she was sick. My suggestion is to close this FAR as a default keep because of the abuse that occurred here, allow Bish three months to restore the article, ask everyone to grow up, and revisit the FAR in three months if there are still citation issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:08, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:When to cite which is linked from WP:WIAFA inline citations are required for quotations as well as Opinions, data and statistics, and statements based on someone's scientific work, both of which were sorely lacking in multiple places from this article before.
And citation style is about whether you use Harvard referencing for your inline citations or the standard templates or some custom form, and whether you us US , Europe or ISO date styling. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 14:19, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yeah and from the "page in a nutshell" from WP:CITE "This guideline discusses how to format and present citations. The policy on sourcing is Wikipedia:Verifiability, which requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations.". -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 14:23, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you should read the policy you're quoting:

An inline citation is a citation next to the material it supports, rather than at the end of the article. Inline citations are used to directly associate a given claim with a specific source. On Wikipedia, there are several different styles of inline citations. The two most popular are clickable footnotes (<ref> tags) and parenthetical references.

You do know what a parenthetical reference is, I presume? You haven't improved the article, so this FAR should be closed until Bish can repair. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:27, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Parenthetical references are still inline, they are just in brackets rather than with a <ref> tag. Regardless they were still woefully deficient. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 14:33, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless, you (or someone) changed the citation style on this article without consensus. End of story. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:34, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The primary issue was the woeful lack of citations rather than their style, if someone wishes to change the style from <ref> tags to parenthetical references I'm really not bothered in the slightest. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 14:36, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PS if I accidentally changed the referencing style from parenthetical references to <ref> tags I apologise. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 14:40, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close as Default Keep, allow three months for repair, then initiate a new review if warranted. FAR should not deteriorate into a forum where articles are damaged and policy is flaunted, when the main contributor has asked for time. Wiki won't break if three months is allowed, and this FAR has already been open too long. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:43, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sandy, I don't believe you have the authority to make FAR closures or are sufficiently neutral on the issue to make a proper determination. IMO, after reviewing the discussion here, the article has a myriad of issues ranging from lack of sourcing to low quality writing. I suggest taking a step back and allowing a fellow reviewer to close this discussion. Sincerely, Blurpeace 22:15, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clue in and read the page instructions; I don't close FARs, and I am well within my bounds as an editor to enter a declaration here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:17, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You may wish to inform these two editors: [14], [15]. Thanks for clarifying your intention was to vote – not close. :) Sincerely, Blurpeace 22:23, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for letting me know (and by virtue of this exchange, they're already informed). A FAC or FAR is closed when a delegate moves it from the page to archive. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:27, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'm changing my vote to "let's shoot the nice editor who came in and tried to improve the article while Bishonen was sick." Sarcasm aside, let's try to be a little less angry with the only one who stepped up and attempted to save the article while it was sitting here and Bishonen was in the hospital? Also, with four delist !votes, this should be closed as delist, and if it is worked on further it can be nominated at FAC. There is no substantial need to keep a substandard FA, no matter what the reason. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 01:20, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm confused by this outcome. I assumed the decision would be to delist, with regret. There are still uncited quotations in the article, which is totally unacceptable. Moreover, no matter what one feels about the high demands for citation at FA, this article does not meet the current consensus for citation. We should not be creating two different standards for FAs - one at FAC and one at FAR. We should also be grateful that someone was willing to add citations - that the styles were altered is insignificant. That can easily be fixed. Adding citations is a time-consuming business - if we want to encourage people to help out with that, we shouldn't complain so much about how they do it. Awadewit (talk) 03:19, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've just been looking through FAR and FAN in order to better fulfill my role as milhist coordinator. Generally, when there are this many delist votes it goes to delist. Hence this table.

Keep Delist
Keep based on expectation of improved referencing Based on referencing
Keep by person who said close as default keep (I'm not fully aware of the official role of that comment) Based on referencing, went to help
readability
readability, said above attempts at referencing improvement hurt

I'm not sure what to make of this, but it seemed to be the best way to look at it. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 03:43, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As an addendum I've had some rather serious medical problems of my own, and so I hope I understand, to a certain degree, where Bishonen is coming from. I wouldn't want to have it delisted. On the other hand, I wouldn't want to see rules bent to make room for my debilities to an extent where it could hurt some others. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 03:46, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As one of the delist 'voters' can we give it another 2 weeks and see if the references (and prose in places) improve further? Since everyone got so angry about it I think its worth a little more time now everyone seems to have calmed down. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:47, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that the default action is to keep in situations like this, but I don't think that rule need be applied strictly in all cases. This article clearly has some issues that need to be fixed, and it would be strange to close this FAR in the face of those problems, especially since at least one of the delist !voters has made good-faith attempts to improve the article quality. That said, extending this FAR to allow people to settle down sounds like the most sensible idea. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:39, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The fundamental problem here is that, because of the very drastic change in FA standards, articles which absolutely met the standards at the time they received their FA status don't meet the current standards. Instead of simply saying "nope, doesn't meet the criteria anymore, time to retire the bronze star", recognising that some articles require a complete reworking to meet current standards, we tear these articles down and, frankly, make them less useful to a reader than they were before. In other words, we take a perfectly lovely square peg, and turn it into an ugly round one, just to fit a new hole. We need to find a way to recognise the difference between "just needs a couple more refs" and "would need a fundamental restructuring to meet current standards." This article would need a fundamental restructuring, as would several others I've seen on FAR/FARC over the past year or so. When this is the situation, it is better to simply delist right up front.

    Featured article status does not equate to being an informative, useful, interesting, encyclopedic article; it just means it meets certain arcane rules. Many editors who formerly participated in the FA process have stepped away as they have watched the emphasis change to footnotes and en-dashes instead of brilliant, well-informed and concise writing. While there are indeed exceptions, and some featured articles from the last few years have indeed been outstanding (or at least interesting), more and more of them in recent years have tended to be formulaic and distinctly uninteresting; all the references in the world aren't going to turn them into much more than a term paper, and it wouldn't surprise me if some of them aren't just that.

    I think we need to seriously consider a "fast delist" process here for articles that everyone acknowledges don't meet the 2010 standards, and allow these articles the dignity of being relatively intact. More and more editors (and readers, too) are realising that it's better to have a well-written article than it is to have a bronze star on it. Risker (talk) 15:07, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I agree with everything noted in the above comment, by Awadewit (talk · contribs). Indeed, it is an unfortunate problem that there are uncited quotations in the article. The concerns raised by Awadewit regarding double standards are also valid and quite aptly put. Also, it appears that Awadewit is correct regarding the unfortunate tendency to discourage others from working on improving the citation standards in the article, rather than providing encouragement for such positive quality improvement. -- Cirt (talk) 19:11, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Risker, not being an expert on the FA process but I'm sure you can comment on the reviews/candidates and suggest that articles make their prose more readable as well as meeting the criteria on referencing and en dashes. Additionally I'm sure you can bring articles up for FAR if they don't meet high standards on prose as well per WP:FACR 1a. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:52, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I have not seen this article prior to before now. I don't think it is too far off, and a much easier task than some other articles needing saving (every time I look at Australia I groan...). My hope is that all the best articles still remain together under the nice pale blue tent rather than being pushed out into the cold after some frayed tempers and pushing and shoving. Will see what I can do. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:52, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another comment. Yes, I've been checking in at this one occasionally. I do not understand why it is being held to different standards from those applied to other articles here. In particular, the urge to push it off the cliff contrasts with other nominations that languish for months without interest by the article editors. I don't understand it. Tony (talk) 04:54, 22 June 2010 (UTC) Agree with Slim below: that's the practical way to deal with this. Tony (talk) 16:45, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove from FAR, relist in three months or so if needed. My understanding has always been that if the main writers of a FAR-ed article reasonably request more time, they're given it. Having this situation continue while the main writer is unwell seems unfair, and no one is harmed by relisting it in a few months. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 05:38, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to go with this if we can be more clear as to what the issues - beyond referencing - are. If we have more of an idea of what needs fixing then there is a higher chance of avoiding a FAR completely, or certainly more than a quick and easy FAR as we can have already cleaned up most of the issues. Additionally that will also reduce the possibility of further WP:DRAMA which sadly this review seems to have generated from the start. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:33, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Arbitrary break edit

OK, it would be good to have some idea of what needs improving in the article. Apart from referencing (which we all know leaves something to be desired) what else needs improving in the article to bring it up to FA standards? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:51, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This has been an abuse of the FAR process, and it shows one of the main reasons FAR participation has deteriorated so badly. It's not a matter of a double standard or different standards at FAC and FAR; we have a respected editor who has contributed a lot to the Project who was in hospital, editors who were grossly unaware of FA standards, policy and guidelines working on the article, multiple misstatements of policy and guideline on this very page, editors who honestly seem to believe that FAs are determined by counting the number of subscripts in an article (something we railed against in the past, but no one corrected here), a change in the citation method without consensus, a content dispute, a lack of qualified editors and reviewers affecting all content review processes, and a general waste of everyone's time here. FAR is backlogged with such FARs as this one, taking months to resolve, when the sensible thing to do (and what was ALWAYS done in the past) is to remind over-heated editors that FAR is NOT dispute resolution, do a default close, and tell everyone to come back in a few months if issues aren't resolved. If we can't wait a few months when a valued editor is sick, no wonder we lose valuable editors. I understand the urgent need to delist BLPs or medical articles that may be harming the subjects or our readers, but that is not the case here; in spite of some vociferous protestations, nothing in this article is going to break the Wiki if we allow knowledgeable editors time for repair. The FAR backlog needs to be dealt with sensibly, and there has been a real shortage of that here. Close it as a default, which doesn't mean the current version meets standards-- just says, for gosh sakes, will everyone cool off and come back later if warranted? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:12, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

^^ Can we hat this and move on to discuss the article itself? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:16, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, whether or not this FAR proceeds, there are a few "cite needed" tags around and "page numbers required" - these should be fixed. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:52, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed by YellowAssessmentMonkey 04:25, 5 July 2010 [16].

Macintosh edit

Review commentary edit

Notified: Listed WikiProjects, top contributor User:HereToHelp

My main problems are 1a and 1c. It was kept at a FAR in 2008 but since then, it has only gotten worse. The last diff after the 2008 FAR shows most of the same problems, mostly in the use of proseline and poor-quality sources, so I think that it deserves a FAR.

1a concerns
  • "However, Jobs’ leadership at the Macintosh project didn't last; after an internal power struggle with new CEO John Sculley, Jobs angrily resigned from Apple in 1985, went on to found NeXT, another computer company, and did not return until 1997." -- Not sourced, "angrily" indicates bias.
  • Lots of one- and two-sentence paragraphs scattered about, most notably in the "1990 to 1998: Growth and decline" section.
    • Eliminated all occurrences in the aforementioned section. Will do for the rest of the article in the coming days. Airplaneman ✈ 00:09, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "1990 to 1998: Growth and decline" is also poorly written proseline, with nearly every sentence beginning with "In [year]..."
  • Some flowery prose such as "now-famous 1984 commercial" under Advertising.
    • Dealt with. Will shoot down (have done a few times already) other occurrences in the article as well. Airplaneman ✈ 00:10, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1c concerns pertaining to references

Reference numbers are as of this revision:

Looks like #17 ( currently #24 ) is referenced. We can probably go back to the ultimate sources if necessary. And the source that it uses for the MultiPlan assertion is ultimately from BYTE, June 1984, Volume 9, Number 6. The bit about Word is sourced to The Making of Microsoft, by Daniel Ichbiah and Susan Knepper, 1991 and Creative Computing, July 1985, Volume 11, Number 7. Looks like the other sources using this also can similarly be traced back. PaleAqua (talk) 03:12, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Or this, footnote #18?
  • Or this, used at #22 and #23?
  • Or this, an obvious sales site at #26 and #30?
    • Replaced #26. Looking for a suitable #30 replacement. Airplaneman ✈ 23:57, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • The numbering changed, but I think I replaced] that one with a link to Apple's own knowledge base. The problem is that it doesn't explicitly say it was the first to use a color screen. So The Reliable Source does not provide enough info, and the less reliable sources do. Two weeks ago, I asked which would be preferable and got no response. The lack of input from the nominator has been most unhelpful, and so I think it is unfair that we progress to FARC without having time to fix these problems, because we do not know what solution is preferred. HereToHelp (talk to me) 00:39, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Or this, used at #48 and #49?
  • This IS A FREAKING FORUM. Removed.
  • Two more URLs were commented out in the text of the article. I removed them outright, since both appeared unreliable and/or were dead.
1c concerns pertaining to unsourced information
  • Paragraphs 1 and 3 under "1985 to 1989: Desktop publishing era" are entirely unsourced, and the second paragraph of the same has only one source.
  • First paragraph of "Hardware" and "software" sections are unsourced.
  • Lots of [citation needed]s in the Software header and a few elsewhere.

Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 22:24, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Part of the problem is maintaining order when there aren't many involved editors to watch anonymous additions, who probably inserted most of the malformatted references. Another issue is (for a computer topic) there aren't a lot of sources for the history, because paper sources are out of print and the Internet did not exist yet. The islandnet site (17, 42 47) lists thousands of references to periodicals. I think it's pretty reliable. I can try to switch other references over to Apple's knowledge base, or to Mactracker, which was endorsed (subjectively) by MacWorld, a print publication that is cited (apparently without issue) in the article. I'll make some preliminary improvements today and see where we wind up as I go along. HereToHelp (talk to me) 15:38, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if you were implying this or not, but the sources do not have to be online. Print sources are acceptable (and in many cases better). Dabomb87 (talk) 03:22, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I know that. However, I do not have access to print sources. I have found that summary sites that reference print sources (example) are very useful. HereToHelp (talk to me) 23:32, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've got access to print archives and ILL, so I'll be able to get access to materials, but that means finding stuff first :P Apple Confidential looks like a good book on early Apple/Mac history, as does Fire in the Valley: The Making of The Personal Computer, and Insanely Great: The Life and Times of Macintosh, the Computer That Changed Everything. Problem is even if I get these books, I'll be unable to do much with them (semester is soon to be over), so they're not really accessible for the purposes of FAR/C.
Another issue I have with the article is its overarching structure; it's designed to be incredibly difficult to keep up-to-date. Writing from a more historical perspective would help with some issues. The article really needs to be stripped and gutted in places and entirely rewritten, which just isn't going to happen in the context of an FAR. On a more addressable note, there's a hell of a lot of non-free images of operating systems, which is really secondary to the hardware subject, and could be removed (as it stands they don't have very good rationales.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 03:15, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary edit

Featured article criterion of concern is sourcing and prose YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 00:58, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if you're implying we move from FAR to FARC or not, but I don't think this has had a fair FAR. Even though it has run for two weeks, I have gotten no feedback from the nominator, which will help me improve the article (and real life has now given me more time to dedicate to that task.) I think with a little collaborative editing, we can remove (or at least postpone) the need for a confrontational FARC. HereToHelp (talk to me) 02:10, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
With the move from the FAR section to the FARC section, the article has moved into the official voting phase. However, in a lot of cases additional work is done during this phase and the article can end up being kept - there is not really a set end date for this section if work is ongoing. Despite this, the comments by David indicate that major work needs to be done on the article - is this something that you feel you can address in a reasonable time frame? Also, I'm not sure why you think that FARC is "confrontational" - it is no more so than the FAR section, and as delegates YM and I do our best to make sure that there is as little confrontation and animosity as possible. Dana boomer (talk) 03:12, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
FARC is "confrontational" in that it has formal voting, but yes, we're all really on the same team, working towards a better encyclopedia. I'm not sure what you mean by big problems. Granted, the (lack of) sources is an issue, but one that can be resolved with a few hours of fairly repetitive editing, as soon as someone tells me (or us, thank you Airplaneman) what is the desired way to source tech specs of legacy Macintoshes. HereToHelp (talk to me) 13:33, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Probably the only legit way for tech specs is to source news items from the day that discuss them, honestly, as I can't think of any definitively reliable compendiums out there. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 19:02, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist the problems are simply too large for FAR to accommodate. If I had lots of free time, I'd try to help out... but I don't at the moment, and won't be able to address most of the issues until a later date. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 03:15, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

HereToHelp has asked me to elaborate on which problems I think the article still has:

Intro
  • There shouldn't be any references in the intro, except for the pronunciation. Intros are supposed to summarize facts which will be sourced later on in the article.
    • I disagree. WP:LEADCITE says there should be fewer sources, but it is not required to be devoid of them. Other than the pronunciation, there's only sources for the original Mac and original iMac (which are pretty important). I'd almost like to see a citation in the third paragraph. HereToHelp (talk to me) 21:01, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1979 to 1984
  • Last half of first paragraph is unsourced (starting at "In September 1979, Raskin...").
    • Since all you're doing is establishing that these people were in fact on the Mac team, i don't think there's a huge need for citations, but I added them for every possible contentious thing I could find. HereToHelp (talk to me) 21:01, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • All but the last sentence of the second paragraph is unsourced.
    • That source covers every single fact and number in that paragraph. I checked that on the last FAR. HereToHelp (talk to me) 21:01, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1984
  • "Because the machine was entirely designed around the GUI, existing text-mode and command-driven applications had to be redesigned and the programming code rewritten; this was a time consuming task that many software developers chose not to undertake, and resulted in an initial lack of software for the new system." — unsourced
As a software developer that doesn't seem particularly controversial. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:55, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Eraserhead for the most part (I am a Mac developer from 1985 to present) but the phrase "machine was entirely designed around the GUI" is technically incorrect; the word "entirely" at least should be dropped, or changed to "significantly" perhaps, and the word "machine" changed to "operating system". Finally, the phrase "and resulted in an initial lack..." should probably read "and could be regarded as a reason for an initial lack...". Geoffreyalexander (talk)
1985 to 1989
  • Among the first three paragraphs, only the last sentence of the second paragraph is sourced. The rest still needs sourcing.
  • "Later Macintosh computers had quieter power supplies and hard drives." — unsourced
  • "In September 1986 Apple introduced the Macintosh Programmer's Workshop, or MPW that allowed software developers to create software for Macintosh on Macintosh, rather than cross-developing from a Lisa. In August 1987 Apple unveiled HyperCard, and introduced MultiFinder, which added cooperative multitasking to the Macintosh. In the Fall Apple bundled both with every Macintosh." — Could this be expanded? It's a two sentence paragraph that disrupts the flow of the section. The paragraph below it is also very short.
  • Below that, the paragraph beginning "In 1987, Apple spun off its software business..." is entirely unsourced until the last sentence.
  • "With the new Motorola 68030 processor came the Macintosh IIx in 1988, which had benefited from internal improvements, including an on-board MMU. It was followed in 1989 by a more compact version with fewer slots (the Macintosh IIcx) and a version of the Mac SE powered by the 16 MHz 68030 (the Macintosh SE/30, breaking the existing naming convention to avoid the name "SEx")." — all unsourced; the last parenthetical in particular reads like OR.
1990 to 1998
  • "Despite these technical and commercial successes, Microsoft and Intel began to rapidly lower Apple's market share with the Windows 95 operating system and Pentium processors respectively. These significantly enhanced the multimedia capability and performance of IBM PC compatible computers, and brought Windows still closer to the Mac GUI." — unsourced. Rest of this section looks fine.
1998 to 2005
  • "the least expensive Mac to date." — unsourced
  • Could this section not be expanded? These are more modern Macs, so I would think that there's more to be said on each.
2006 onward
  • Entire first paragrah is almost entirely unsourced.
Hardware
  • First paragraph is unsourced, as is second paragraph up to "USB was introduced in the 1998..."
  • Couple of [citation needed]s.
Software
  • First and last paragraphs are entirely unsourced.
  • Couple more [citation needed]s present.
Advertising
  • Very thin on sourcing as well. Both paragraphs are entirely unsourced until last sentence.
Market share and user demographics
References

Still having some problems here too:

  • Reference #14 "Linzmayer, Owen W. (2004). [www.owenink.com Apple Confidential 2.0]. No Starch Press. pp. 113. ISBN 1-59327-010-0." is malformatted.
  • References 25 and 26 (oldcomputers.com) aren't loading for me right now. Using Google archives, though, the site doesn't look like a RS.
  • What makes EveryMac.com a RS?

I agree that there are still a lot of problems, but for now I'll ask to hold since HereToHelp was so quick to fix the first batch of problems I uncovered. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 19:05, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for asking for a hold (seconded). The biggest issue is how to cite tech specs (although I've responded to some of the low hanging fruit above). Der Wohltemperierte (David) Fuchs could not name a "definitively reliable compendium" to cite. Apple's database is reliable, but sparse. Other sites (oldcomputers.com, everymac.com) give more information (a prose description rather than filling out a table), but are apparently not reliable and have commercial interests. Mactracker is a tertiary database, which might have some oversight by its creator and feedback of users, but it is compiled in part from Wikipedia and requires fact checkers to download it. And news articles from the era are not online, and impossible for me to access and other to verify. So, in summary, if we cannot establish a precedent for the preferred way to cite the technical specifications of legacy Macintoshes, there is no way to properly source the article. HereToHelp (talk to me) 19:59, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was reading through a previous FAR of Macintosh and found that this article has once again grown in size. I used everymac.com to source tech specs in the (now GA) MacBook Pro article because the reviewer discouraged primary sources (Apple.com) and pointed me towards the site. I know FA standards are more strict, but I agree with HereToHelp that if we can't use sites such as everymac, we can't source the tech specs. Back to the size of the article: we could consider trimming the tech specs if need be to shorten it - is length still an issue? Thanks for putting it on hold, TPH. Airplaneman ✈ 21:40, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-Apple sites provide critical context and information. Let's pick one and switch to it. HereToHelp (talk to me) 21:55, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm used to everymac.com, as I have used it before. Oldcomputers.com could be used for older computers/OSes, as everymac (which I searched yesterday in an attempt to find a System 7 "24 to 32 bit switch" source) covers mostly modern Macs. Airplaneman ✈ 22:03, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: although only taking a cursory glance, the main problems are the uncited statements, some small MoS issues (see my MacBook Pro good article review as the issues are similar), and bias towards current models in the "Product line" (in other words kill it). I would also kill the "See also" section and the portal links. I'll see if I can give a more comprehensive review at a later date. OSX (talk • contributions) 14:12, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist, from experience David Fuchs (talk · contribs) is quite knowledgeable about this and it would be best to address these issues more substantively to get the article up to FA standards. -- Cirt (talk) 16:52, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The only reason why we can't address these issues is because no one can tell us how we should reliably cite tech specs of legacy Macs. If we could do that to everyone's satisfaction, everything else will fall in to place. HereToHelp (talk to me) 00:00, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • To would-be closing admin: WP:MAC is undergoing active revival and reorganization, which will hopefully coalesce into active article improvement. I also note that no solution for citing the technical specifications on legacy Macs has been agreed upon, making it difficult to reference the article. Activity on both "sides" has been low, and I ask you to retain this nomination on hold until we can get a strong force of editors working on problems with agreed-upon solutions. It will happen. Soon. HereToHelp (talk to me) 00:14, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist. This article lacks a clear focus. The Macintosh is presented as a "series of several lines" of products. But more than half the lead is summary of Apple's current product line. This may be fine for trade magazine article, but not for an encyclopedia article. Strictly from a hardware perspective, it makes no sense to treat the x86 based macs and the older ones in the same article, etc. Is this article about the brand? Is it about all the computers that could/can ran something call Mac OS (with or without X). The heavy emphasis on software throughout the article could lead one to think that. Can't tell for sure... The timeline even has the iPod and iPhone in it. I suggest it be split in more manageable sub-articles. Pcap ping 14:15, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I admire your holistic approach, rather than nitpicking over citations. The nature of the wiki is for articles to evolve, perhaps not with an original design plan, and be molded by their editors and critics. But I feel like the feedback is increasingly saying that this article is unfeatureable: you want it split, he wants it cited in ways no one can agree on, she wants it more recent, you want it categorical. We can't please everyone at once - trying to do so leads to the contortionist structures you criticize. HereToHelp (talk to me) 14:29, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Due to the lack of feedback on what constitutes a reliable source, I have opened a request on the reliable sources noticeboard. HereToHelp (talk to me) 04:27, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have started a project to create {{cite mac}}, which will make it easy to reference models to both Apple and everymac.com (which looks like the best third-party site out there). Hopefully it will be ready to be used in the next few days. HereToHelp (talk to me) 03:54, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article has been here for ages. Hardly anything has been done this month. Looks like a delist to me. Tony (talk) 14:59, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think the problem is that we're not sure what to do with hardware sourcing. Airplaneman ✈ 13:25, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
New developments (June)
  • Delist unfortunately, because if no one can figure out the sourcing, then it should not remain an FA until it has been sorted out. Sometimes, and article just does not fall under the strict FA standards any longer, and in this case, the sources must be dealt with independently. —fetch·comms 21:33, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have gone through and converted every hardware reference I could find to {{cite mac}}. This seems to be the best solution anyone has come up with. I will be working in the next few days to remedy all concerns. Airplaneman will too (nudge nudge). HereToHelp (talk to me) 03:52, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorsing my delist for now. Fetchcomms' reasoning is spot-on. If we can't figure out a proper citation method, it probably doesn't deserve FA. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 04:56, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • We just did! Since no one else had a better idea, we created {{cite mac}} to give links to Apple's knowledge base and a third party site. HereToHelp (talk to me) 05:12, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The following is copied from User_talk:Fetchcomms#Mac_FAR:

I thought the original concerns with were the sources themselves (relying on Apple's website and questions about EveryMac's reliability). The one thing I don't like is having to do here is remove content because it is unsourced and possibly cause a decrease in the comprehensiveness of the article. Also, I'm not sure what advantages this cite mac template has--it is not in a "standard" format (like MLA, APA, Chicago, etc.) nor does it contain information like the source page's title, publisher, date published, etc. Other issues:

Originally, the hardware architecture was so closely tied to the Mac OS operating system that it was impossible to boot an alternative operating system. The most common workaround, used even by Apple for A/UX, was to boot into Mac OS and then to hand over control to a program that took over the system and acted as a boot loader. This technique was no longer necessary with the introduction of Open Firmware-based PCI Macs, though it was formerly used for convenience on many Old World ROM systems due to bugs in the firmware implementation.[citation needed] Now, Mac hardware boots directly from Open Firmware or EFI, and Macs are no longer limited to running just the Mac OS X.

under "Hardware and software" subheading "Software", and

Apple directly sub-contracts hardware production to Asian original equipment manufacturers such as Asus, maintaining a high degree of control over the end product. By contrast, most other companies (including Microsoft) create software that can be run on hardware produced by a variety of third-parties, like Dell, HP/Compaq, and Lenovo. Consequently, the Macintosh buyer has comparably fewer options.

under "Hardware". "It is available only in Bluetooth, and the Mighty Mouse (re-branded as "Apple Mouse") is available with a cord." under the same heading is unsourced, and "Because Mac OS X is a UNIX like system, borrowing heavily from FreeBSD, many applications written for Linux or BSD run on Mac OS X, often using X11. Apple's less-common operating system means that a much smaller range of third-party software is available, but many popular applications such as Microsoft Office and Firefox are cross-platform and run natively." under software is as well. Quite a few ends-of-paragraphs under "1985 to 1989: Desktop publishing era" are unsourced (and if the ref is in the next paragraph, it should be doubled). Lastly, "Mac OS X’s share of the OS market increased from 7.31% in December 2007 to 9.63% in December 2008, which is a 32% increase in market share during 2008, compared to a 22% increase during 2007." under "Market share and user demographics" is unsourced--and these numbers definitely need to be attributed to somewhere. A major other pet peeve--please, please, go through all the existing citations and italicize titles and stuff. And add publishers/works! Also--citations need to be consistent--I see some "Apple" as publisher, and some "Apple Inc.."--go with the latter, and remove the period (template auto-adds one). Ref consistency needs a ton of work. —fetch·comms 13:44, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In 2007, Apple Computer Inc. became Apple Inc. so we can either use the name appropriate for when the reference was published, or (my preference) just say Apple. {{cite mac}} is a work in progress as far as formatting. Apple has last updated info for each article; everymac does not. I'm not ready to give up on the nomination yet but I certainly now understand your viewpoint of delist, then fix. Thank you. HereToHelp (talk to me) 13:53, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
  • You may wish to consider adding an appropriate infobox for this article, if one exists relating to the topic of the article. [?] (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
  • Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: favorite (A) (British: favourite), aluminum (A) (British: aluminium), criticize (A) (British: criticise), ization (A) (British: isation), any more (B) (American: anymore), program (A) (British: programme), programme (B) (American: program ).
  • The script has spotted the following contractions: isn't, if these are outside of quotations, they should be expanded.
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, —mono 21:48, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Due to the number of outstanding delist votes and the amount of time this nomination has been up, it is close to being delisted. Heretohelp, if you feel that you have addressed the comments of the editors above, please ping them on their talk pages and ask them to revisit this review. Dana boomer (talk) 00:58, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand; thank you for your generosity and time taken to provide such valuable feedback. You have persuaded me that there is a lot more to do both systematically (references) and thematically (scope, organization), and these issues require more time and energy than the FARC environment permits. I need to check with Airplaneman and WP:MAC, but I'm about ready to be done. HereToHelp (talk to me) 01:20, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ahhh I wish I would have saw this some time ago. It's still a great article, would hate to see it go, but there are several good points here. I reworked the intro, hopefully for the better, to get rid of some of the jumping context problems. That said, besides my edit there hasn't been any action for a week really, and several of the points raised above still stand unfortunately. RN 08:27, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/archive/July_2010&oldid=376507858"