Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article review/archive/June 2009

< Wikipedia:Featured article review | archive

Kept status

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

The article was kept by Joelr31 22:53, 7 June 2009 [1].

H II region

edit

FAR commentary

edit
Listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomy/Article alerts; main editor vanished

This article has very fiew citation and is not so complete; some sections need an improvement, expecially about the origin. Furthermore, a concise explanation of the late stages of the regions is needed. --Roberto Segnali all'Indiano 10:41, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I translated this article to spanish wikipedia and made it a good article there, the spanish one is a little bit larger and referenced, so it would be a good source to make this one better. Locos ~ epraix Beaste~praix 03:38, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

edit
Suggested FA criteria concern is citations. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 01:32, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Citations have improved somewhat since the start of FAR, and I'll try to help with it more during this week. Random astronomer (talk) 10:22, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added some new source and will add some more. Ruslik (talk) 11:55, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Cite for the Herschel quote?
  • Perhaps the details of Russell's and Bok's seminal papers could be given?
  • I wonder if there should be a cite for comments like "thought to contain"?
  • There is some repetition of points from the end of the "Observations" section at the end of the "Origin and lifetime" section, though neither one looks out-of-place particularly. DrKiernan (talk) 12:41, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Currently all statements (except some minor) in the article are cited. I also expanded the lead, which now satisfies FA criteria. I think the article may be kept as FA. Ruslik (talk) 16:52, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I finished. The article can be definitely kept now. Ruslik (talk) 08:13, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"thought to contain many times as much matter as would be needed to create a planetary system like that of the Milky Way." The Milky Way is a galaxy rather than a planetary system. DrKiernan (talk) 09:20, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clarified. Ruslik_Zero 09:55, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Just one problem now: File:Rosette Nebula dss2.jpg is nominated for deletion [2]. I recommend removing the image for now, until the deletion request is resolved. DrKiernan (talk) 10:00, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: problems raised are addressed. DrKiernan (talk) 12:43, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept by Joelr31 22:51, 7 June 2009 [3].

Opera (web browser)

edit

Review commentary

edit
Notified: WP Opera Browser, Remember the dot

WhatisFeelings? (talk) 05:16, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see..."1d" is "neutral", and "1b" is "comprehensive". So, are you saying that there are opposing viewpoints that you do not feel are adequately discussed? Could you provide links to reliable sources discussing these viewpoints? —Remember the dot (talk) 00:19, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"1d not met": Because it's a relatively short article perhaps? This is because it is well modularised, surely a merit rather than a fault. If you take the sum of the linked "sub-articles" it's more than comprehensive - some might say overly so. If you mean #Critical reception specifically, it alone has 3 other sub-articles.
"1b not met": Examples? ɹəəpıɔnı 04:18, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article lacks balance; the entire Critical reception section as whole is an example. Not meeting 1d is a consequence of not meeting 1b. This also responds to the above "are adequately discussed?" To reply more: "provide links to reliable sources" - I googled for a second, and http://operawatch.com/ is among the reliable sources (you may wish to use it as a secondary source), though I like to remind the viewers that, in general, notifiers do not necessarily have an interest in keeping articles FA status when they does not meet the standards noticed, specific to that article.WhatisFeelings? (talk) 19:07, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
as an addition remark, at least the Opera article attempts to improve, while the Firefox one does not, or at least it seems that way.WhatisFeelings? (talk) 19:16, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article already cites Opera Watch three times. —Remember the dot (talk) 19:14, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
that is one source, and the section lacks sufficient critical remarks; the FAR issues are already stated, and implied.WhatisFeelings? (talk) 19:17, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"the section lacks sufficient critical remarks" - Are you aware of any further criticisms? If so, please insert but editors can't invent criticisms. I'm not implying there aren't any, just that it seems to me all I'm aware of are in the article. ɹəəpıɔnı 04:10, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do you not know how to google??? "but editors can't invent criticisms" - haha, you are sooo funny. Oh gosh.
Future development is section #6 - keep the arrangement of sections in line with the Firefox article.
Furthermore, someone had added http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Opera_(web_browser)&curid=18996620&diff=276029200&oldid=275733216 - this does meet WP:LINKS
WhatisFeelings? (talk) 06:07, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
it's also missing System requirementsWhatisFeelings? (talk) 06:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
←←
"do you know how to google???" , yes, of course I do. What's your point? This is a ridiculous retort. Please reply with something meaningful.
"haha, you are sooo funny" - Sorry, maybe my sense of humour is lacking; I don't get the joke.
On the future developments section being unlike the Firefox article - you are just after commenting above on how poor the Firefox article is, why on earth should the Opera article try to emulate it. There's no MoS entry for browsers or software that I'm aware of: here.
On the Russian link(s), they are allowable as per the first exception for foreign language links in WP:LINKS as they are the ONLY official source to the relevant Russia-specific statistics related to the browser.
System Requirements are in the 3rd and 4th paragraphs of the lead-in. ɹəəpıɔnı 02:46, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


You may wish to change or amend the eight dead links (see [4]). DrKiernan (talk) 12:39, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed 6 of them. The 7th appears to be a toolserver problem, not a problem with the link. The 8th is in a language I don't speak so I don't know how to fix/find a suitable/relevant alternative. Should non-english links be used as references on en.wiki? Although it's possible the original link pointed to an english article. ɹəəpıɔnı 04:26, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dab checker tool reveals two dab links. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:56, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Update - i'm not exactly sure but i'm assuming that if the FAR noticer is inactive, then the FAR in question is removed/canceled. in any event, there was very low activity from those i notified.WhatisFeelings? (talk) 23:49, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

edit
Suggested FA criteria concerns are broken links/citations, NPOV and comprehensiveness. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 01:06, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Broken links have been fixed since mention (the yandex error is a toolserver bug), and dab checker shows no dab links. On other issues, the single user who raised them has refused to elaborate, instead replying with pejorative remarks. ɹəəpıɔnı 05:56, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Not a direct issue raised above, but in general sourcing seems pretty good throughout. Cirt (talk) 02:50, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm working my way through some cleanup (copyediting, MOS, ref formatting, etc.). I have concerns whether some sources meet RS. Also finding a fair amount of proseline to clean up. More later. Maralia (talk) 15:02, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I hope that improvements are on the way:
  1. Prose concerns: The word "Opera" is mentioned at least 13 times in the lead! Prose in "Features" is not compelling.
  2. "Opera responded to these accusations the next day." Saying what?
  3. "Critical reception of Opera has been largely positive,[84][85][86] although it has been criticized for website compatibility issues,[87][88] partly because many web sites do not adhere to web standards as diligently as Opera.[89][90][91] Because of this issue, Opera 8.01 and higher have included workarounds to help certain popular but problematic web sites display properly.[92][93]" Overloading with citations, which break the prose. Combine them or merge them or make a selection among them.--Yannismarou (talk) 09:46, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup still needed I see bare URLS in references, missing publishers in a few (foreign language) references, excessive external links (see WP:EL), questionable sources ([5]?), and undefined abbreviations (CSS). It's close, but not quite there yet. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:20, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's been a fair few edits recently with the release of the 10 beta so it's possible this is as a result of that, not older deficiencies. I'll take a look anyway. ɹəəpıɔnı 15:21, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

Removed status

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

The article was removed by YellowAssessmentMonkey 03:46, 26 June 2009 [6].

Kung Fu Hustle

edit

Review commentary

edit
Notifications: Alasdair, WP Films (Chinese task force), WP Hong Kong, WP Comedy.

The article has no information on critical reception outside of the US, which I have already pointed out at the talkpage and by placing a banner in the article. I have also previously tried to get the attention of primary contributor Alasdair. To me it seems like this falls somewhere between comprehensiveness and neutrality. I believe that a film FA should have at least a minimum of information about critical reception in Hong Kong, and possibly other markets where the film has been successful.

Peter Isotalo 11:59, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have never contributed significantly on film articles - do you know what are some reliable sources for critical reviews and reception of non-US or Asian/Chinese movies? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:39, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know this specific topic, but I would imagine that major newspapers is a good place to start.
Peter Isotalo 18:19, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You said "the article has no information on critical reception outside of the US", and that's false. That section mentioned the box office result and awards received in Hong Kong. So the tag of "not representing a worldwide view of the subject" shouldn't even be there in the first place. OhanaUnitedTalk page 02:49, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Critical reception is as far as I understand reviews, not commercial results and awards.
Peter Isotalo 06:31, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to do something about it, but I have real life issues to deal with at the moment. Ask someone else please.--Alasdair 13:20, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

edit
Suggested FA criteria concern is comprehensiveness/balance. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 02:46, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the FAR nominator indeed raises a valid concern that certainly should be addressed and dealt with in more depth at the article's talk page, but the article is of a high quality and well-sourced, and this isn't something worth losing its FA status over, IMHO. Cirt (talk) 10:19, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. I basically agree with Cirt, without denying that Peter has a point, and the section in question should be improved.--Yannismarou (talk) 14:47, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A tiny and trivial section shouldn't interfere with the big picture. OhanaUnitedTalk page 04:03, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I filed this FAR hoping that my comments about the bias would be amended quickly, not that it would linger here for several weeks. I guess we might as well close this now as long. I'm satisfied as long as no one removes the tag in the article until it's properly amended. Peter Isotalo 09:20, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the other hand, the purpose of FARC is to settle such issues, and keep the high level of the FAs. Thus if we close the FAR keeping the tag at the same time (which means that no improvement was made) are we doing our job properly?--Yannismarou (talk) 13:40, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think an RFC is needed to hurry things up YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 23:51, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reception section looks balanced to me, with some positive and some negative comments ascribed to named critics, one of whom is from Hong Kong and two of which are American. I've added two references to British reviews, which parrot the comments already in the section. DrKiernan (talk) 09:10, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist. This article has not been checked for MOS issues. I found WP:ACCESS, WP:MOS#Captions punctuation issues, WP:MOS#Images, left-aligned images under third-level headings, WP:MOSNUM issues, MULTIPLE missing publishers in the citations, empty parameters in cite templates that could be cleaned out, so I stopped there. Concerned about all of these keeps when there are still things to be addressed. There are also prose issues: from a non-gamer, what the heck is "A MMO 2D Side-scrolling Fighter Game ..." ? Do others really think this prose is FA level? "Two-thirds of the time were spent shooting the fighting sequences." When publishers aren't even provided, has reliability of sources been reviewed? Tools added: several dabs and multiple dead links also need attention. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:34, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist. This is a pretty good article, but not one that meets the current Featured article criteria, specifically 1a (prose), 1b (comprehensiveness) and a little 1c (quality of sources). The sourcing issues, as described by Ealdgyth above, are likely the easiest to fix; it shouldn't be too hard to find alternative sources that, for example, list the film as a cult favourite in Western markets. Similarly, should someone have the time to work on this, the prose and manual of style issues can perhaps be tackled well enough to give it a pass. However, I find myself agreeing with the nominator that there is a huge gap in the article's coverage; how a film was perceived, by reviewers and audiences alike, is a major—not "tiny and trivial"—part of a film article's makeup; how the film ("the highest grossing in the history of Hong Kong") was perceived in its primary territory is a chief among the information that should be included in such a section. If there was an indication that the issue was going to be worked on, it wouldn't be such a big deal, but as the original nominator is currently inactive, and with a lack of editors able to source reliable information from the primary market, the gap will remain for some time yet. I have several other concerns with the article, but to avoid clogging up this FAR page, I've listed them at Talk:Kung Fu Hustle#Review. Issues include original research and synthesis, prose complaints, MOS issues (as described by Sandy above) and out-of-date information. Perhaps few of these alone would be enough to warrant a delist, but cumulatively they point to an article that needs an overhaul before it can be considered an example of "Wikipedia's best work". All the best, Steve T • C 10:45, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning de-list I've only read parts of the article, but I too have concerns not only with 1b but with 1a. The comments above about the quality of sources seem troubling. Not having any information on the critical reception (other than awards) in its home country seems quite odd, even if such a section would probably only be a paragraph. Imagine an article on a Hollywood movie that focused solely on non-American reception. Also missing is any discussion of how the story/script evolved. "Chow's first priority was to design the main location of the film..." Really? Some odd prose throughout as well. "Many of the props and furniture in the apartments were antiques from all over China." OK, great, but why? The all too common problem of describing the production process without digging deeper into the motivation behind it (i.e. how does it serve what they were trying to achieve in the moving). "Yuen managed to take seemingly outdated wuxia fighting styles like the Deadly Melody and Buddhist Palm and recreate them on the screen with his own imagination." "Managed to"? Also, the first half (the focus on "outdated") does not contrast with the second half (recreation on the screen). And why "with his own imagination"? What does that mean? "In spite of the film's success, Yuen Wah worried that nowadays fewer people practice martial arts." Again, quite a disconnect between the two thoughts. "Having lost the Taiwanese film market in the late 1980s following a visit to China, he switched to doing business." Wuh? "Doing business"? "Having been asked whether she wanted to have any dialogue in the film, she decided not to speak so as to stand out only with her body gestures." Asked by whom? Context? What is this trying to say? TwilligToves (talk) 11:28, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Removed because of combination of OR, prose and citations. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 03:45, 26 June 2009 (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 02:19, 25 June 2009 [7].

Section summary of the USA PATRIOT Act, Title II

edit

FAR commentary

edit
Notified: User talk:Ta bu shi da yu, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Law.

Referenced almost entirely with primary references. I don't see any kind of deeper look at the subject matter - it's almost like a list in that respect. Essentially 1c problems. Ironholds (talk) 22:04, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

edit
Suggested FA criteria concern are citations, original research, use of appropriate reliable sources (primary sources). Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 04:57, 12 June 2009 (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 02:19, 25 June 2009 [8].

USA PATRIOT Act, Title III, Subtitle A

edit

FAR commentary

edit
Notified: User talk:Ta bu shi da yu, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Law.

FA from 2006, referencing/1c issues (virtually all are primary sources, indicating WP:NOR problems). Additional issues as already raised here [9]. Cirt (talk) 03:04, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

edit
Suggested FA criteria concern are citations, original research, use of appropriate reliable sources (primary sources). Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 04:56, 12 June 2009 (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 02:19, 25 June 2009 [10].

National Anthem of Russia

edit

Review commentary

edit
Notified: Zscout370, Wikipedia:WikiProject Russia and Wikipedia:WikiProject Songs

I think this article no longer meets criteria 1a, 1c and 2c. Prose is sometimes a bit choppy. It needs citations in some sentences, and use a apropriate citation format. I'm not sure if the length is the desirable. Could use copyedit/review for flow and check for comprehensiveness. Thanks, OboeCrack (talk) 17:45, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright status of some of the clips is uncertain. DrKiernan (talk) 12:41, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The primary editor seems to have left the project. 1a and 2c could be fixed but 1c would be difficult without specialized research. OboeCrack, can we have some ideas about the 1c objection? I mean, does something in particular stand out or are you aware of sources that haven't been consulted? I note that this was promoted over strong 1a and 1c objections. --Laser brain (talk) 22:14, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Examples of lack missing info would be good

FARC commentary

edit
Suggested FA criteria concern are citations, prose. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 04:54, 12 June 2009 (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 02:19, 25 June 2009 [11].

Samuel Beckett

edit

Review commentary

edit
Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject France, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland ‎, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Theatre, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Poetry, User talk:Saposcat, User talk:Yossarian.

FA from 2004, referencing/1c issues. Could use an image review for File:Brocquy Image of Beckett.jpg, File:Beckett-grave-paris.jpg and File:Sam beck 20euro gold Reverse.JPG. WP:LEAD is a bit short. Could use copyediting, pass for cites, overall. Cirt (talk) 06:21, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On images, File:Beckett-grave-paris.jpg lacks requisite source information such as author (which from the minimal text, appears to be different from the uploader? But it's not clear.) File:Brocquy Image of Beckett.jpg should be tagged and deleted as copyvio (I'll get around to it today if someone doesn't hop on it sooner), as the author of the image did not specifically permit CCbySA2.5 licensing. The coin image... meh, it could be fine, but it needs a better use rationale. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 13:45, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Lead is incomplete. The page is not comprehensive enough with research (lacks education and development, discussion of early works). Not enough citations. Writing seems more personal essayish than encyclopedic - too much subjectivity. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:29, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not a reason to defeature, but it could do with a cricket infobox, in line with all other first-class cricketers. --Dweller (talk) 11:08, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think we could use some more detailed description of what is actually missing. I'm not convinced there is a problem with this article. For example, what is lacking an inline citation that requires one? What information is missing? I see your list, OR, but... those sections are in the article. So, I'm unclear what you mean. --Laser brain (talk) 22:37, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've deleted the Brocquy image as copyright vio, and managed to find enough info to salvage Beckett's grave image. That just leaves the FUR for the coin image, which I added to but still think is rather weak. Unless someone objects I'll remove. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 23:14, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

edit
Suggested FA criteria concern are citations, copyrights, lead. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 02:00, 9 June 2009 (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 01:05, 22 June 2009 [12].

Gremlins

edit

Review commentary

edit

My main concern is 2c, as the sources seem very thin. Very large chunks of information are unsourced. The "legacy" section is also listy, poorly sourced, and reads like a trivia section, which also seems to be unfocused (section 4), straying too far from the topic. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 15:55, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Collectonian (talk · contribs)

I agree, this article no longer appears to be of FA quality. The plot is excessive, at nearly 900 words, failing criteria 2 (WP:MOSFILMS. Cast list seems unnecessary and should be smerged into plot as indicated by same MoS. The few bits of prose are completely unsourced, failing criteria 1c. If sourcable, move into production section. Some of the background content seems a bit off-track, unfocused. The initial stages section has more unsourced content, as does the Casting, Music, Reception, and Merchandizing sections. It also fails criteria 1c in that it is using unreliable sources, including IMDB, and many of the sources are badly formatted (and 23's a combo of 2 or 3 sources). Several "references" are also just notes without sources to confirm them. The legacy section does indeed appear to be a trivia section, with questionable sourcing for much. Some actual bits could be moved into reception after cleaning out the bad bits. There is also an excess of external links in the EL section.-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:06, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Erik (talk · contribs)

May be worth comparing the article's current revision with the revision at the time it was promoted: diff. The "Cast" section was added since the promotion, and the "Legacy" section has been expanded. (That particular section seems fairly trivial to me.) In addition, the "Charges of racism" section could be improved (avoiding the weasel wording of equating Film Quarterly critic Jonathan Rosenbaum's opinion as "Some observers"). The Turner citation seems to be a worthwhile addition that could possibly expanded. Overall, though, I can tell this is an article from the earlier days of Wikipedia and WikiProject Films, where we do not have as high standards for film articles. It's a Good Article at best, and I do not think it benefited from much copy-editing nor research. From what I can tell in a cursory search, there is coverage in Cinefantastique, American Cinematographer, Cinefex, and Journal of Popular Film and Television. Judging from the lack of results at WorldCat.org, though, there are no books or full chapters critiquing the film. I think some of the additions to the article since its promotion indicate that any retrospective detail about Gremlins will be fairly piecemeal. (I found a couple of paragraphs in a horror film book via Amazon.com about how Gremlins and Gremlins 2 attacks Reagan ideology.) —Erik (talk • contrib) 17:36, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The prose is really a fair distance from our 1a standard--and, frankly, I don't believe it should have been passed under the 1a definition at the time (June 4, 2006): "the prose is compelling, even brilliant." The prose is serviceable, at times labored. At any rate, it is not of a professional standard. This article would require a full-dress effort on several fronts to represent our best work. DocKino (talk) 05:43, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

edit
Suggested FA criteria concern are citations, prose, focus. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources.
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 01:05, 22 June 2009 [13].

Open cluster

edit

Review commentary

edit
Listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomy/Article alerts; main editor vanished

Today I have improved a lot the number of references of this article, but it looks still so incomplete: no information about observation, about age and how to calculate it, and some sections are short (just make a comparison between this article and globular cluster). If you don't agree, close this review, but I remain on my opinion. :-) --Roberto Segnali all'Indiano 04:19, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most paras have one cite. Do these account for the entire (or most) of the para? YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 00:52, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

edit
Suggested FA criteria concerns are comprehensiveness and citations. Joelito (talk) 23:03, 7 June 2009 (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 01:05, 22 June 2009 [14].

Able Archer 83

edit

Review commentary

edit
MilHist WikiProject and TomStar81 notified.

Article was promoted in 2006 with weak support. I have tried to fix a number of its deficiences, but feel it still falls way short of the required standard. My primary concern is around its coverage of the relevant material; my reasons are listed in more detail on the talk page. Socrates2008 (Talk) 09:23, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible to temporarily hold this good-faith FAR since TomStar81 is on a brief wikibreak for end-of-semester exams? (His notice on his user page says he will be out until 15 May.) Tom is very conscientious about whether older FAs meet newer, more strict requirements, having personally nominated several articles he was involved with for FAR. I know that Tom won't have a problem with an FAR in general, but I echo thoughts on the WikiProject Military history discussion page, that the timing of this FAR could be seen as unfair. Many thanks for the consideration. — Bellhalla (talk) 11:10, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the note - no objections from me Socrates2008 (Talk) 11:54, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I AM NOT BACK YET, but I am taking a little me time to unwind before finals start, and that leads me to this page. I am aware that this is an older FA, and that my name appears as the FAC man, but it should be noted here that I am not the one who worked on bringing the page up to FA standards, that would be Natebjones (talk · contribs), who at the time was thought to have left. Melchoir (talk · contribs) then asked if someone would be willing to help the article get to FA, and I volunteered. I am opent o the concept of the FAR/C to improve the article, but I want to make it clear before we start that I am unfamilar with just about everything in the article, so this one will be a greater challenge for me to improve since I am starting with one hand tied behind my back. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:48, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I'm back, so lets do this thing! :) I need to know what needs addressed specifically, I'm going to venture a guess that the citations and such need updating, but specifical examples of what needs done would be apreicated. This moves to the top of my wiki-priorty list, so expect me to be watching this until the FAR concludes or until the FARC concludes, which ever happens last. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:13, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cool - please take a look at the talk page of the article for initial details. Thanks Socrates2008 (Talk) 09:11, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After trying my best to locate the books and other sources cited in the references section I have unfortunately come up largely empty handed, so I think at this point the best option is going to be to simply start from scratch and see where that leads me. You should start seeing some improvement sometime in the next seven days, although it may be touch and go for a while becuase I am still trying to get a few RL issues in order. It goes without saying though that I am thankful for the patients everyone has shown during the FAR. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:58, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll do my best to help. Socrates2008 (Talk) 00:32, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

edit
Suggested FA criteria concerns are citations and comprehensiveness. Joelito (talk) 23:01, 7 June 2009 (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 03:45, 15 June 2009 [15].

Equal Protection Clause

edit

FAR commentary

edit
Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Law, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Human rights, User talk:Hydriotaphia.

FA from 2004, referencing/1c issues. Article seems to have an essay-style tone to it. Could get away a bit from the primary sources and focus on secondary - a bit of reworking and overall referencing improvement throughout the article could help with this. Cirt (talk) 08:52, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, especially with the 6th section title. Also to me the article seems a bit unfocused and disorganized. I'd suggest splitting by Supreme Court case interpretation and how the EPC stands on affirmative action, etc. --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 02:10, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote it, and I agree. It 'is' too essayistic, I now see. Unfortunately, I don't have time at the moment to go back and change it. Thanks and good luck! Hydriotaphia (talk) 03:57, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

edit
Suggested FA criteria concern are citations, structure and organisation. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources.
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 03:45, 15 June 2009 [16].

Yesterday (song)

edit

FAR commentary

edit
Notified: User talk:Johnleemk, User talk:Rodhullandemu, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject The Beatles, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rock music.

FA from 2004, referencing/1c issues. Article seems a bit short, considering the popularity of the song, surely there must be more discussion of it in WP:RS/WP:V secondary sources. Also, lots of short paragraphs and one-sentence paragraphs throughout, could use copyediting. There is not much info in the article about musical composition, certainly not much that is sourced. Cirt (talk) 21:28, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Rodhullandemu

  • First thoughts: Initial issues were (a) a {{cn}} tag on the original lyrics; these appear to have originated, as far as I can tell, from a factoid sourced to a poorly-written book, so for the time being, I've deleted that claim. (b) A deadlink to Guinness World Records.com, which I've resurrected from the wayback machine, but it doesn't substantiate the claim of 3000 cover versions, so I've corrected that; in particular, for a FA, the list of "eclectic" cover versions requires sourcing, and I've yet to find a reliable and definitive list. Rodhullandemu 22:37, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have added a section on "Musical structure". Probably needs reviewing for style & against sources. Rodhullandemu 02:05, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Realist2

FARC commentary

edit
Suggested FA criteria concern are citations, comprehensiveness. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 02:32, 26 May 2009 (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 02:05, 9 June 2009 [17].

Eldfell

edit

FAR commentary

edit
Notified: WikiProject Volcanoes, WikiProject Iceland

OK, I saw that there is some activity on WP:Volcanoes, so might be a good time to spruce up the referencing. It has a total of 7 inline refs and an ugly tag that I cannot remove at the top. Should be relatively straightforward. I will tag (i.e. criterion 1c) and notify parties. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:42, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done, although the infobox is actually from WP:MOUNTAINS. -- Avenue (talk) 18:20, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Image problems

I'd add some concerns about accuracy and comprehensiveness, although these are hopefully fairly minor. For instance, the "third of all the basaltic lava" statistic seems wrong, concerns about placename translations expressed on the talk page have not been addressed, and the volcanological content seems a bit light. -- Avenue (talk) 01:56, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

edit
Suggested FA criteria concern are citations. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 02:28, 26 May 2009 (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 02:05, 9 June 2009 [18].

Omnipotence paradox

edit

FAR commentary

edit
Notified: WikiProject Atheism, WikiProject Religion, WikiProject Philosophy, Anville, Lacatosias, Bmorton3, BrianH123, SandyGeorgia.

Criteria WP:FACR for the rewiew: 1a (sometimes weasel-like prose), 1c (missing citations), 2 (e.g. "infinity - infinity" has only short "-" ), specifically 2a (lead too long).--Ioannes Pragensis (talk) 17:44, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I concur that the lead is too long. The rest will take a little more time to look at. It appears that the editors who bird-dogged this article as an FA and through its first real FAR have gone inactive. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 14:43, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a reason that the newer FAR is listed as "archive1"? Athanasius • Quicumque vult 14:48, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It had to do with the new archiving system. I fixed it. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:53, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I took a quick look at the article and found some problems:

  • Several paragraphs have zero citations. Some of those paragraphs really need citations.
  • The article doesn't mention the crucial connection between the omnipotence paradox and the law of non-contradiction. See: Horn LR (2006). "Contradiction". In Edward N. Zalta (ed.). Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
  • The article doesn't make the important connection between the omnipotence paradox and monotheism. See: Baillie J, Hagen J. "There cannot be two omnipotent beings". Int J Philos Relig. 64 (1): 21–33. doi:10.1007/s11153-007-9152-7.
  • The article doesn't mention that the omnipotence paradox is a standard argument for atheism. See: Grim P (2007). "Impossibility arguments". In Martin M (ed.). The Cambridge Companion to Atheism. Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CCOL0521842700.013. ISBN 0521842700. This could be illustrated with File:Atheism1.svg, which is both a logo and a diagram of a variant the paradox.
  • Likewise for agnosticism. See: Woods PA (2007). "From the middle out: a case for agnosticism". Sophia. 46 (1): 35–48. doi:10.1007/s11841-007-0008-5.
  • I agree that the lead is too long. Also, it doesn't really summarize the body: it contains several notions (e.g., the quote from Titus) not in the body, and some important notions discussed at length in the body (e.g., types of omnipotence) are not mentioned in the lead.
  • More illustrations are needed.

This article is clear and has good prose, but I'm afraid it'll take some work to fix these problems. Eubulides (talk) 22:42, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

edit
Suggested FA criteria concern are citations, prose, lead. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 02:36, 26 May 2009 (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 02:05, 9 June 2009 [19].

New Radicals

edit

Review commentary

edit
WP Rock music, Artrush, and Fritz Saalfeld notified

Article was promoted in February 2006 when standards were far lower. Use of fair use images to depict a band automatically disqualifies it and it's far less comprehensive than other articles on similar subjects. Exxolon (talk) 15:44, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I dont see a problem re comprehensiveness; the band had a short life span. Ceoil (talk) 20:50, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please check out the image talk pages here and here, as those concerns came up, and were addressed there, earlier. --Fritz S. (Talk) 08:26, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The first one I still say must go, your rationale is not acceptable. A free image can be created that adequately presents the same information. I was not talking about the group shot, but the shot from the music video. All it shows is Gregg Alexander and a free picture can be obtained. He's alive and not in hiding. He doesn't need a scheduled event, people can run into him on the street. His representation can be contacted. File:New Radicals Gregg Alexander.jpg and File:New Radicals Someday Well Know video.jpg can be replaced by free images. Or they can be removed; with the group shot we don't need a second or third image of just Alexander. Jay32183 (talk) 22:55, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

edit
Suggested FA criteria concern are citations, copyrights. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 05:08, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The copyright issue can probably be considered resolved since all but one of the copyrighted files has been deleted. Jay32183 (talk) 06:51, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist, per FA criteria concerns. Cirt (talk) 07:52, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Uncited claims appear to include: "considered a relatively constant member" (reference given is not a neutral third-party); "well received by music critics...compared its funk and soul-influenced upbeat to the early work of Prince and Mick Jagger"; "received much media attention"; "mass media's excitement"; "fans immediately recognized". DrKiernan (talk) 15:21, 5 June 2009 (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 Joelr31 22:55, 7 June 2009 [20].

BC Rail

edit

Review commentary

edit
Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject British Columbia, Wikipedia talk:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Companies, User talk:Slambo, User talk:Skookum1, User talk:JYolkowski

The article fails criteria 1c, since most of the article lacks in-line citations. Arsenikk (talk) 12:16, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the citation is lacking for an article of its size. There is also an extremely large amount of broken wiki links for a featured article. The Locomotive section could be greatly enhanced by use of template box layouts, such as used for the locomotives on Virgin Trains. The citation and broken links problems are more critical however.81.111.115.63 (talk) 16:36, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article also fails criterion 3:

  • File:PGE timetable.JPG - This non-free image needs a stronger fair use rationale or needs to be removed. Why do we need to see this particular cover? What does it show visually that cannot be explained with words?
  • File:Optimized image 44efede4.png - This non-free logo needs a stronger fair use rationale or needs to be removed. Why do we need to see this former logo?
  • File:Bcrailway.png - This non-free logo needs a stronger fair use rationale or needs to be removed. Why do we need to see this former logo?

See this dispatch for help on non-free images. Awadewit (talk) 05:35, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

edit
Suggested FA criteria concern are citations, image copyright. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 01:16, 21 May 2009 (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 00:49, 2 June 2009 [21].

Siege

edit

Review commentary

edit
MilHist WikiProject notified

One of the early promotions before the vogue for inline citations. An unsourced quote and example farm can be easily dealt with by removal, but a more thorough tune-up should also be considered. DrKiernan (talk) 08:37, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Doing a little copyediting and MOS cleanup, but yes, citations sorely needed here. Maralia (talk) 04:57, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

edit
Suggested FA criteria concern are citations. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 05:14, 19 May 2009 (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 00:49, 2 June 2009 [22].

Mor lam

edit

Review commentary

edit
Notified: User_talk:Henry_Flower, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Thailand, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Southeast Asia, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rock music/Regional and national rock music taskforce.

FA from 2004, referencing/1c issues, could use a review of the images to see if the two free-use have appropriate documentation and if the fair-use image is appropriately used or is something that could be replaced by a free-use image, or simply described in the article's text. Cirt (talk) 07:52, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article should follow a well defined transcription method for the many Thai words it contains. Preferred standard for Thai in wikipedia is Royal Thai General System of Transcription or RTGS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Woodstone (talk • contribs) 09:17, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Advocacy of your preferred transcription system is of course entirely legitimate, but it´s misleading to suggest that it is the standard on Wikipedia. For much discussion, see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Thailand#Romanization and the related drafts. In any case, there´s a lot more Lao and Isan here than Thai.
As far as referencing goes, you can decide for yourselves whether it meets currrent FA requirements. ;) HenryFlower 13:41, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The two free images are fine. I'm not concerned by the fair-use one: it is a single frame comprising only one-twentyfifth of a second of running time, and it does illustrate the genre. DrKiernan (talk) 14:22, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

edit
Suggested FA criteria concern are citations, and diversity thereof (Miller is the author of Garland). Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 05:10, 19 May 2009 (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 00:49, 2 June 2009 [23].

Hrafnkels saga

edit

Review commentary

edit
Notification of all relevant parties complete: Nominator and main contributor User:Haukurth, WikiProject Books, WikiProject Iceland, WikiProject Norse history and culture

1(c) - currently no inline citations. It could be accurate but harder to verify and inline citations are now part of criteria. (Background:It was promoted 4 years ago and has not been reviewed since.) Tom B (talk) 13:42, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I wrote it, and you're right that it isn't in the current Wikipedia style. I honestly don't really care that it doesn't have footnotes - it cites its sources very carefully, even if it's not to page numbers. Having those numbers would probably not make a lick of difference to your ability to 'verify' the accuracy of the article since you presumably don't understand Icelandic to begin with.
Anyway, I'm fine with the article being demoted - I've learned a lot since I wrote it and I now think it's deficient in several ways (Wikipedia citation style being the least of these concerns). Haukur (talk) 15:31, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

edit
Suggested FA criteria concern are citations and unspecified deficiencies not elaborated on by the author. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 05:15, 19 May 2009 (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 00:49, 2 June 2009 [24].

Comet

edit

Review commentary

edit

FA from 2004, referencing/1c issues, lede needs work, copyediting needed throughout, lots of skimpy subsections with only a few sentences, lots of bullet points that don't look that great. Article was a promotion under the old FA "refreshing brilliant prose" system. Cirt (talk) 12:10, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notified: User talk:Bryan Derksen, User talk:TUF-KAT, User talk:Kingturtle, User talk:Gentgeen, User talk:Stewartadcock, User talk:Robogun, User talk:Cimon Avaro, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomical objects, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Solar System. Cirt (talk) 12:16, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Images
Alright, I went through the references and made them all nice and tidy. Some of them I removed and replaced with {{cn}} tags, as they were dead links or page no one could access. Some others did not support the sentences they were attached to, etc... Now we can work on reffing what needs to be reffed, style issues, etc... Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 04:10, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are still a number of citation issues, for example the claim that comets are balls of tar is certainly astonishing to me. DrKiernan (talk) 13:40, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As dark as tar, not tar.Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 04:55, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

edit
Suggested FA criteria concern are citations, lead, prose, structure. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 05:08, 19 May 2009 (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/June_2009&oldid=299976538"