Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article review/archive/November 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 Marskell 11:41, 30 November 2009 [1].

Hungarian Revolution of 1956

edit

Review commentary

edit
Notified: User talk:Istvan, User talk:Paul.h, User_talk:Ryanjo, User_talk:K._Lastochka, User_talk:KissL, User_talk:Gk1956, User talk:Bardwell, User talk:Biruitorul, User talk:Biruitorul, User talk:Biruitorul, User talk:Biruitorul, User talk:Biruitorul, Wikipedia:WikiProject_Cold_War, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Eastern_Europe, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Hungary, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Politics

I am nominating this featured article for review because it is full of PRIMARY, SYNTHESIS (leading to OR), unsubstantiated causal claims relying on sources for the who-what-when and then claiming why, and a consistent anti-HCP NPOV (much as I despise Stalin's Best Hungarian Disciple, the omissions of fact, for instance, regarding the coalition government are simply appalling). See the Talk: page for a list of sources with severe problems. Fifelfoo (talk) 14:26, 22 September 2009 (UTC) To state the case clearly and at length:[reply]

  1. Over 100 sources used in the article are Primary sources. The chief example used is the "UN General Assembly Special Committee on the Problem of Hungary (1957)" used 54 times, an excellent and admirable report, which is unacceptable as a source for two reasons:
    1. It is a primary source, produced by participants in the event (attendent RS issues to do with self-sourcing flow from this)
    2. The source is used to evidence points of fact, which are associated with value judgements. Using a primary source to support a value judgement in this way is grossly unacceptable encyclopedic practice. Many excellent secondary sources exist, and reliance, or extensive use, of primary sources is Synthesis behaviour.
Similar problems arise in relation to attempts to source from archives such as "(available in Lib.ru, Maksim Moshkow's Library)" or Video (in Hungarian): The First Hours of the Revolution {{[5] director: György Ordódy, producer: Duna Televízió - Fonds 306, Audiovisual Materials Relating to the 1956 Hungarian Revolution, OSA Archivum, Budapest, Hungary ID number: HU OSA 306-0-1:40}} both of which require access to archives, which are fundamentally and necessarily primary, leading to Synthesis and its attendants, NPOV, OR
A third class of major primary source reliance arises in sources such as ^ Hungarian Revolt, 23 October–4 November 1956 (Richard Lettis and William I. Morris, editors): Appendices Proclamation of the Hungarian Writers' Union (23 October 1956) Retrieved 8 September 2006 and The Avalon Project at Yale Law School: Armistice Agreement with Hungary; 20 January 1945 Retrieved 27 August 2006 broadly documents from compiled source collections, again primaries.
This problem is not limited to UN, Hungarian video archives, US legal or CWHP archives, or unfully sourced Russian archives. It also includes leftist sources, such as Fryer, Peter (1957). Hungarian Tragedy. London: D. Dobson. Chapter 9 an excellent condemnation of the HWP's role in crushing 56, but a participant account and, again, primary
  1. These sources crowd out the secondary sources that are the basis of encyclopedic writing. Many of the mischaracterisations of the Salami tactics era arise because we have not used peer reviewed historian's narratives as the basis of this article. As a simple example, Bill Lomax is uncited.
  2. A very post '89 Hungarian urban intelligentsia right wing perspective is colouring value judgements. Compare the article prior to today's edits on the pre-salami period to Mikós Molnár's A Concise History of Hungary Cambridge Concise Histories, CUP 2001 at 297, "These were free elections, the first and last in forty-five years of Soviet domination. Thanks to Moscow's exceptional decision, the results were a serious disappointment to the communists. While they took 17 per cent of the votes - as did the Social Democrats - the overall winner was the Smallholders' Party with 57 percent of mandates. Its leader, Zoltán Tildy, then formed a coalition government out of the four National Independent Front parties, which consequently included the communists." The fact that we are driving the prose from Primary Sources, leads to synthesis biased by our own local ideologies and contexts, and these biases are not subject to rigorous peer review by historians. This is the core of the NPOV issue. But the core reason to review this article is the 100+ Primary sources in use. Fifelfoo (talk) 15:40, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You will need to provide some specific examples of "NPOV" issues before this review is to be taken seriously. We've successfully defended the article's merits from Communist revisionists in the past, if you expect to be seen as any more than another politically-motivated noise machine, I suggest you elaborate and provide specific details to back up your vague and broad complaints. Thanks, K. Lásztocskatalk 14:34, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)You need to elaborate a lot more on points such as "anti-HCP NPOV" and "omissions regarding coalition government". After reading the talk page and your absurd edits to the article I'm not convinced that this is a reasonable listing. For example the use of mass banners in this edit, [2] out of line comments on the talk page. Hobartimus (talk) 15:07, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The sourcing issue is sufficiently serious. As far as NPOV consider
After World War II...granted the Soviet Union rights to a continued military presence, assuring ultimate political control.[11] Hungary began the postwar period as a free multiparty democracy... freely elected ...The brief period of multiparty democracy came to an end when the Communist Party merged with the Social Democratic Party to become the Hungarian Working People's Party, which stood its candidate list unopposed in 1949.
After WWII, IIRC, the Soviet forces dismantled HSDP shop soviets in Budapest while creating the free democratic elections. The Soviet military presence's assurance of ultimate political control is NPOV, particularly in relation to the findings regarding NKVD penetration of the "Moscow" leadership. "Free" multiparty democracy under Soviet guns is somewhat of an NPOV anyway, but the repetition after the introduction of the concept is harping. The explanation of the collapse of independent multiparty coalition governments is a fit-job, and the explanation of the dominance of the HWPP over the list is trite. Problem references are now pretty printed. Please draw your attention to the over use of the UN rapporteur (a PRIMARY, and a non RS in relation to the historical event) Fifelfoo (talk) 14:54, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, that's how it was. History cannot be changed to kindly agree with your own political preferences. K. Lásztocskatalk 15:11, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you have reading comprehension problems I am sorry, I will simplify. Lieing about why the HCP were rotten bastards is unacceptable on wikipedia. Mischaracterising the bastardry of the HCP is unacceptable on wikipedia. Using PRIMARY sources, or sources which do not substantiate the bastardry of the HCP, to claim the HCP were bastards is not acceptable on wikipedia. That they were bastards is correct, and should be readily citable from a Seconary source by a historian, such as Bibo. I would appreciate if you would address the 100+ primary source issue, and how this causes the article to be Synthesis. Fifelfoo (talk) 15:14, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please quote the parts of the article where it claims that HCP were "rotten bastards" we all see that you have a very strong opinions on the subject what we see less is any substance in what you say. Hobartimus (talk) 15:28, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
At diff: "In the early 1950s, the government tripled prices but held wages static, producing economic stagnation, lower standards of living and a deep malaise." cited out of "Library of Congress: Country Studies: Hungary, Chapter 3 Economic Policy and Performance, 1945–85 Retrieved 27 August 2006" which is not a peer reviewed economic source, and stands counter to the literature on the distribution of land and collectivisation, over-investment in heavy industry, and the destruction of urban small consumer goods production. Fifelfoo (talk) 15:46, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is a recent change (yesterday) by User:Lapsed_Pacifist who changed "Radical nationalization of the economy based on the Soviet model produced economic stagnation..." to "In the early 1950s, the government tripled prices but held wages static, producing economic stagnation..." The original phrasing is certainly true, and is backed up by the reference. I am changing it back.--Paul (talk) 21:37, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see, but how does "economic stagnation, lower standards of living and a deep malaise" is exactly "standing counter" to "over investment in heavy industry" or destruction of urban small consumer goods production etc etc. The things that you discuss are far from being contrary are supporting "lower standards of living" and "economic stagnation". Obviously heavy industry and production of war materials will not result in an increasing standard of living nor the destruction of consumer goods production. Forced collectivization also mentioned by you is not known for increasing productivity. Hobartimus (talk) 16:44, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how much political economy or economic history of post-war Hungary you've done; but claiming "the government held wages static" as a cause of economic change in a soviet style economy is radically disconnected to actual economic function. One of the features of planning in high Stalinism was the plan driving economic activity, not the magnitude of wages and prices. The NPOV issues I have are with arguments to causation not rooted in academic sources, the Synthesis point. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:19, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
""Claiming "the government held wages static"" actually the sentence is not claiming anything about prices alone but the relationship of prices and wages. The sentence plainly states that purchasing power of wages dropped to one third, which resulted in 1)a low standard of living 2) much lower consumption. But what do you think of this sentence. "In the early 1950s, the government tripled prices but held wages static, producing lower standards of living and a deep malaise at a time of economic stagnation." Hobartimus (talk) 16:07, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your proposed sentence still contains two problems. 1) Undue emphasis on wages and prices per se in a planned economy (see Kornai for the failure of availability of consumer goods), 2) Claim that this caused the lower standards of living; the availability of consumer goods in raw numbers is the problem, not the regulation of wages and prices. The sentence needs to turn itself on its head. "Hungary entered a deep economic stagnation due to forced collectivisation, failed heavy industrial investments, and the destruction of a small production consumer goods sector. In response the government tripled prices and held wages static, furthering the anger over unavailable consumer goods." Also the source is bloody appalling: LOC Country studies is not an economist publishing in a peer reviewed journal (their main publishing context), plus the date context on the country study is 45-89. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:43, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
nice catch. Alt text has been added István (talk) 18:26, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for doing that. I spotted a few problems that still need fixing, though:
  • There are some instances of alt text repeating the caption; this duplication should be removed as per WP:ALT#Repetition. Phrases are: "Mátyás Rákosi", "Soviet Presidium", "Hungarian Parliament building"
  • Some phrases contain details that cannot be verified by a non-expert who is looking only at the image, and need to be removed or rephrased as per WP:ALT#Verifiability. Phrases are: "Red Square"
  • The five flags in the infobox are purely decorative and should be marked with "|link=|alt=" as per WP:ALT #Purely decorative images. I suggest using {{flag}}, as it does this automatically.
Eubulides (talk) 03:33, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I dispute the characterization of the UN report as only a primary source. While there are descriptive sections derived from the testimony of eyewitnesses, there are many other parts of the report that analyze and draw conclusions. Although not a scholarly work, this seems to meet Wikipedia criteria for a secondary source (rely for their facts and opinions on primary sources, often to make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims). In any case, if there are valuable and reliable references, or alternate accounts that can be added to the article while maintaining its readability, by all means proceed. However, I don't think removing references has any support here. Also, everybody here needs to draw a deep breath before they type. This discussion is becoming heated. Ryanjo (talk) 16:40, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The reasons why the Special Committee's report on Hungary are a primary source are due to immediacy, and lack of capacity to analyse the incident as history. The analysis conducted by the UN Special Committee is not disconnected from the circumstances of its time, or the events in Hungary; this is similar to Peter Fryer's journalistic reports from Budapest, they display analysis and reflection, but are primary sources due to the immediacy of the connection. Similarly, for a historical article such as this, biographies written in the 1970s are primary sources, despite self-reflection; as is the analysis resulting from the US Government funded series of interviews with refugees who participated in workers councils. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:35, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
From a reference in the Wikipedia article Secondary source: "[T]he distinction is not a sharp one. Since a source is only a source in a specific historical context, the same source object can be both a primary or secondary source according to what it is used for." Ryanjo (talk) 00:13, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And its usefulness as a secondary source (generated by practicing politicians) waned in the early 1970s as actual historians started producing analytical results within a tradition not dictated by the make up of the Security Council, but disciplinary peer review (they also, incidentally, had access to better sources than the Special Committee did). We aren't, for example, using Aczel and Meray's pseudo-biography, or much more tightly coaligned, the Imre Nagy Institute (Brussels) which was disciplinary, scholarly, political rather than historical, and contemporaneous. These three sources lack an adequate break in their timing. Why do you believe the UN Special Committee's analysis can superceed its intimacy? Fifelfoo (talk) 00:27, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mod note NB that The criteria ask for "high-quality" sources, not just RS. The discussion is on the talk page, it came after people complained about John Wilkes Booth using a "simple" source instead of heavy duty scholarly textbooks. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 03:22, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Source quality concerns The following standard secondary sources are uncited:
    Bill Lomax, Hungary 1956 Allison & Busby 1976
    Ed. Bill Lomax, Hungarian workers' councils in 1956 East European Monographs 1990
    Litvan etal The Hungarian Revolution of 1956 Reform, Revolt and Repression 1953–1956 Longman 1996
    Kiraly etal The First War between Socialist States: The Hungarian Revolution of 1956 and its Impact East European Monographs 1984
    C Békés The 1956 Hungarian Revolution and world politics Cold War International History Project 1996
  • Coverage quality concerns
    Generally: the article fails to cover "the revolution" of the revolution, and go to meaning. I see this arising from the inadequate use of the scholarly secondary literature in English. I see the heads-of-point of these coverage concerns to be sufficient to make the article not meet FA criteria in terms of coverage.
    Coverage quality concerns that cause the communist reform / ultra-left communist positions to be obscured. This is especially important in the debate over MEFESZ's ideological position, student organisation of armed self-defence in Budapest, and the union between the Workers Councils and the intellectuals after November 4
    Nagy's first government is unmentioned.
    Nagy's informal talking circle, and his political opus are unmentioned
    The militant communist stance of the Petofi circles is unmentioned
    Working class riots after failed soccer matches are unmentioned
    Rajk's campaign to force the rehabilitation of her husband is unmentioned
    Poland isn't mentioned adequately
    Nor is MEFESZ or the Writer's Union's inspiration by Poland
    Coverage quality concerns regarding the demands of the revolution, the article reads as though revolution was natural, instinctual, and finally meaningless
    The reformed independent Smallholders, and SDP's positions aren't covered
    The MEFESZ and Writer's Unions demands for reformed socialism aren't covered
    Nor are the extremist fringe views.
    Nor are the popular demands (falling largely under the MEFESZ and WU demands, though some workers councils went further)
    Revolution... for what? Admittedly the longer debate between the regional councils, workers councils, and reformed multiparty central government weren't moving anywhere fast, but the immediate demands were rather well voiced.
    The coverage of the Revolution in regional areas. Its in Lomax (1976) for goodness sake. (One sentence on Workers Councils outside Budapest isn't acceptable)
    Coverage of armed and unarmed resistance
    4-10 November are one paragraph, they should be around 3 - 4
    Especially including the CWCGB's calling off of resistance
    Post 10 November is empty.
    Miklós Gimes illegal underground communist party should be mentioned.
    As should "spontaneous" armed guerilla resistance.
    The section on refugee flight is missing.
    The organisation of paramilitaries supporting the refounded Communist Party should be mentioned.
    And most importantly of all, the general strikes, and arrests of the seesaw battle between the Soviet occupation and the Central Workers Council of Greater Budapest is missing.

again, thanks Fifelfoo (talk) 01:13, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could the nominator please indicate when he/she has completed specifying the criteria at issue? Thanks in advance! István (talk) 21:03, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To cover a fraction of these coverage issues introduced, would require an article much larger than the present survey article, and thus much larger than recommended for Wikipedia. These issues could be more reasonably dealt with in separate articles. Ryanjo (talk) 23:57, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've been stepping through criteria in a reasonable order in achievable time after noticing the Primary issue, which leads into the SYN / OR issue due to lack of following current high quality academic secondary sources, which then leads into the Undue / Coverage issues. I don't know that there is anything more that could be specified. To Ryanjo, pick any of the major heads of title and compare their importance to the topic to the potential overcoverage of the section "Soviet version of events", the size of the paragraphs of the Western communist response, or the detailed discussion of interview and selection in the composition of the UN report. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:11, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do I understand, then, that you feel that paring down sections such as those mentioned above to a phrase or two, and including a phrase or two on the topics you mention, would result in a better article? As opposed to my suggestion to reference an existing article, for instance, Poznań 1956 protests on Poland, MEFESZ in Bucharest student movement of 1956, Nagy's 1st government in Imre Nagy, for example. I also dispute several of your statements, such as that the refugees are not mentioned. Events after the revolution was crushed are presented in summary form, since they were, well...after the revolution. I am concerned that presenting all these objections, but not contributing any revisions or additions, does nothing for article improvement. You need to take the risk, as other editors have done, and start to make improvements, subject to the usual group editing process of Wikipedia. Ryanjo (talk) 02:15, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The reason for this request - your concerns are expressed in three large sections: 1. on the article's talk page [3] 2. at the head of this page [4] and 3. below a moderator's note [5]. Reviewing these are a bit more challenging, especially when they appear in different places and spread out over time. You replied: "I don't know that there is anything more that could be specified" - but specifically *will* there be? Are we to expect a fourth section? István (talk) 06:39, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There won't be. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:16, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image problems The two pictures of Stalin's fallen head are copyrighted. As it is only necessary to show one of them at most, fair use doesn't apply to the second one, as it shows the same information as the first. The portrait of Rákosi has uncertain copyright status. The image of the 1957 May Day parade has two mutually-exclusive licenses. DrKiernan (talk) 15:07, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Done 1. 2nd Stalin image replaced w/ GFDL image (boots) 2. Rákosi image moved to talk (pending status clarification) 3. May Day Parade image moved to Talk pending status clarification. The new photo (Kádár) is public domain w/ alt txt. Therefore, the photos are likely in shape now. (Please review, thanks) István (talk) 21:27, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

edit
Suggested FA criteria concern are citations, formatting of citations. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 00:51, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
comment I'm sorry, I don't see where the FAR listing pointed out problems with formatting of citations. I'm sure I must be missing it, could someone please point it out?--Paul (talk) 04:15, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I must have missed it too. If any specific formatting concerns had been raised during FAR I certainly would have set to fix them.István (talk) 04:51, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have to apologise for the wall of text, and dispersal of my criticisms, but at Talk: I noted three sources with citation / referencing issues, sources lacking a full citation / bibliography line, two still appear to be outstanding: Paweł Machcewicz, 1956 - a european date (Currently not fully cited 05:05, 6 October 2009 (UTC)); "3. Lesson: The Days of Freedom", The Institute for the History of the 1956 Hungarian Revolution. (Currently not fully cited at 05:05, 6 October 2009 (UTC)). I suspect these two are trivially fixed. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:05, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I will attend to it. István (talk) 05:21, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The two problems listed above have been fixed.--Paul (talk) 07:35, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
retain: no value in proceeding due to my ignorant use of process and malformed FAR. User:Istvan is convincing in his commentary that the way I developed this FAR is so administratively malformed (6/10 below, point 3) that there's no value to this process for the article. (I'm not abandoning any of my coverage, sourcing, or article quality concerns; but, the poor quality of my presentation of these is counter productive to article quality.) Fifelfoo (talk) 00:44, 7 October 2009 (UTC) delist: Sourcing quality per WP:WIAFA (1c) and WP:MILMOS#SOURCES (which sets a minimal B-standard on sourcing quality); Sourcing reliability: over-use of primary sources. (I will be asking for listing extensions at least a couple of times if the FARC commentary looks like delist after the 3 weeks, obviously if the results aren't delist, I won't be asking for extensions. I was hoping Istvan was going to respond before this lapsed into FARC, I read his earlier comments as a "hold-off, I'm thinking".) Fifelfoo (talk) 01:11, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Its not clear what specific concerns the nom raises. The nom, presented in three large sections: 1. [6] 2. [7] and 3. [8], contains no specific reference to any WP:FARC criteria by index (e.g. "1(c)") as per convention. The "clearest" statement so far is here [9] "the Primary issue, which leads into the SYN / OR issue due to lack of following current high quality academic secondary sources, which then leads into the Undue / Coverage issues." This daisy-chain roots to "secondary" "primary" (obviously "secondary" would obviate the concern altogether) (per WP:PSTS) and the prime example given is the UN report. This is the scope as best as I can read it - it's already (due to the large size of the nom and lack of specific reference) already quite nebulous. It may do everyone some good to confirm this scope now so we aren't faced with a moving target going forward. István (talk) 05:21, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Given that I've had a couple of bashes at attempting to scope my concerns, and failed to express myself coherently, I worry about offering such a scope myself. My intention certainly isn't some kind of moving target, in order to delist, and I'm surprised at my lack of coherence. Istvan's one line summary of my concerns is excellent, though I would point to WP:WIAFA (1c) and WP:MILMOS#SOURCES as clear policy statements on the use of the highest quality secondary sources being the basis for the production of articles in general, and historical articles. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:34, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(well, its actually your one-line summary, quoted directly - so you should find it accurate). A "moving target" may not be your intent, but, given that the nom is a mountain of text with no specific reference to the criteria by index, then it follows that anyone could infer almost anything, and we would be well into this FARC process still discovering truly new concerns (as should not happen). István (talk) 07:02, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Its a bind, but the criticisms are high order structural ones. If I list them in summary, they're open to interpretation, if I list them at length, they're open to interpretation. What would you suggest I do? Fifelfoo (talk) 07:17, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since you ask, I suggest you had:
1) Used the talk page before taking a minor edit dispute directly to FAR, and
2) Made direct reference to WP:FARC criteria by index (ref. other noms in the archive)
Both set a terrible precedent for this process, and an undue burden on those willing to work to improve the article. FAR should require explicit due diligence, as does AfD. Otherwise you get dysfunctional mountains of cross-commentary. István (talk) 14:02, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retain - a main concern seems to be with the UN report, but nothing indicates that document is anything but reliable. True, sources "very close to an event" cannot be used, but that doesn't refer to time specifically. Otherwise, articles like Tropical Storm Faxai (2007) or Effects of Hurricane Georges in Louisiana wouldn't have been promoted to FA in the last couple of months. Ideally, I might like to see a modern work quoting or otherwise drawing on the UN report, but mere use of that report does not render this article less than Wikipedia's best work. - Biruitorul Talk 06:02, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retain - This article should be continued as FA, for the following reasons:
  1. User:Fifelfoo's statements on this articles' verifiable references/citations are not Wikipedia policy, not supported by WP:RS, and have been disputed elsewhere (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive567#Edits_of_User:Fifelfoo). The application of his personal criteria for cites is a concern, ie WP:POINT.
  2. I also dispute User:Fifelfoo's characterization of a several references for this article, including the UN General Assembly Special Committee on the Problem of Hungary (1957), as primary sources. His statements about political influences on the UN Report, ""intimacy", and his personal opinions of primary and secondary sources in general are speculative and unsupported by any specific references.
  3. Much of the content User:Fifelfoo recommended for inclusion in the article is available in other articles on Wikipedia, and it would be unnecessary to add; links could be created if this content is pertinent. His suggestion for removal of content already in the article to make room for his material is disrespectful to the editors that have made these contributions, which have already been vetted by the original FA process.
  4. Most importantly, User:Fifelfoo has created vast lists of "non-RS" references, "primary sources" and "coverage quality concerns", but has not brought forth or added any supporting references (which he claims are missing) to the article to improve it. He did not seek to engage any of the other contributors to this article on the Talk page. I am concerned that presenting all these objections, but not contributing any revisions or additions, does nothing for article improvement. User:Fifelfoo needs to take the risk, as other editors have done, and start to make improvements, subject to the usual group editing process of Wikipedia. Ryanjo (talk) 11:38, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For policy, please look at Wikipedia:WikiProject_History/Quality#B-Class which links directly to WP:MILMOS#SOURCES which covers this article, and to be boring and quote, "Policy requires that articles reference only reliable sources; however, this is a minimal condition, rather than a final goal. With the exception of certain recent topics that have not yet become the subject of extensive secondary analysis, and for which a lower standard may be temporarily permitted, articles on military history should aim to be based primarily on published secondary works by reputable historians. The use of high-quality primary sources is also appropriate, but care should be taken to use them correctly, without straying into original research." And Wikipedia:Featured_article_criteria 1c which reads, "well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature on the topic. Claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported with citations". The extent to which we are using primary sources is really shameful, we shouldn't be producing an essay of original knowledge, but an assay of existing knowledge.
For the sourcing, a United Nations report produced by politicians from a 120 person sample is not comparable to high quality secondary sources. Primary sources in history are determined by the proximity to witnesses and the event. The United Nations is not, strangely, a historian, and is not capable of generating high quality secondary sources in relation to history. Even if the United Nations contracted a historian to conduct the 1957 report (which it did not, for obvious reasons), the capacity to produce a historical account in 1957 is limited by access to closed sources. This kind of distinction between primary and secondary is the commonly shared disciplinary concept of sourcing in history, and certainly isn't POINT. It is about article quality.
Thank you for the invitation to heavily edit the article, but I feel intimidated by expressions of Ownership such as, "suggestion for removal of content already in the article to make room for his material is disrespectful to the editors that have made these contributions, which have already been vetted by the original FA process" particularly if my criticism goes to source bias and coverage which result in the article having its current area of coverage. The edit history since 2006 has been one characterised by reversion. Given that you and I seem to share differing views of the quality of a 1957 report, and the suitability of it being the key reference in the article, when it is considered by the disciplinary standards of historians as a primary source, do you think it would be appropriate for me to BE BOLD, and delist the 1957 report where its not being cited as illustrative of a point demonstrated in secondary sources, and {{citation needed}} those claims? That, I think, would be acting to prove a POINT.
Regarding coverage, could you show me the article which currently has coverage, by random selection, of the politics of the reformed SPD or Smallholders in late october and early november 1956?
Regarding uncited major secondary sources, please see: Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Hungarian_Revolution_of_1956/archive1#uncitedsources. Fifelfoo (talk) 12:06, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The UN Report issue is a "straw man" argument. There are multiple references in this article to works by historians. The article could use more, feel free to add them. Likewise add a reference to SPD or whatever you feel relevant, with references of course. Sparring over whether the present content is adequate, but waiting for others to guess what is needed is pointless (unless sparring is your point). Ryanjo (talk) 20:18, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retain Most things were already said, but after careful consideration of the arguments advanced by Fifelfoo, I found them insufficient to delist. As discussed in a lengthy ANI discussion recently this user has a unique personal view on sources that's quite different to that of Wikipedia's. Particularly that official UN reports would be somehow unusable on Wikipedia or citing them would result in a lower quality article. After checking WP:PRIMARY it seems clear to me that the report can only be a secondary source, not even close to the example there provided " For example, an account of a traffic accident written by a witness is a primary source of information about the accident." as it is explained : "Secondary sources are at least one step removed from an event. They rely for their facts and opinions on primary sources". Some earlier objections raised were that the UN report relies on many primary sources, the very definition of a secondary source! Hobartimus (talk) 20:48, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retain - The article conforms to WP:FARC. Valid concerns have been addressed. The oft-cited UN report is a “secondary”, not “primary” source, and of the highest quality. There is no basis for removing it, nor other WP:RS. Thus, the nom’s main concern, rooted in WP:Primary, is invalid. This is a WP:POINT nomination, and coverage concerns are at best WP:SOFIXIT. Specifically:
  1. The UN report[10] is "secondary", not "primary". A careful reading of WP:PSTS reveals clear definitions:
    1. “primary...are sources very close to an event. For example an account of a traffic accident written by a witness… “ et al. Neither the definition, nor the many given examples remotely describe the UN report. A quick inspection shows the UN report to be not a collection of primary evidence but rather a thorough, systematic organization and interpretation thereof.
    2. “secondary...are at least one step removed from an event. They rely for their facts and opinions on primary sources, often to make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims”. This describes the UN Report. The authors of the UN report were not participants in the Revolution. They are “at least one step removed”. An impressive list of primary sources (ref Ch.I, sec. B, C, D, Annex) forms the basis of the report, but NOT the report itself. As a secondary source, the interpretive and evaluative claims, summarized in Ch. XVII, are quite valid for inclusion, as per WP:PSTS.
  2. The UN report is of the highest quality. The UN report was mandated by UN Resolution 1132 (XI)[11]; by the UN General Assembly (not the SC!) thus as NPOV as possible. The report was subjected to review, vote, and accepted unanimously. Methods are explicitly disclosed (Ch I, sec. A - G) in detail exceeding that commonly found among conventional historians writing in the academic literature. You will struggle to find a single work better suited as a source for this subject.
  3. WP:POINT discourages disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. The present “Point” includes a personal interpretation of WP:RS described at this WP:AN/I[12]. The present “disruptions” are several: a) The nom results from an edit dispute with no prior attempt at resolution on the talk page. b) The nominator’s objective[13] is stated as “I am acting to delist the FA status.” (last line) rather than article improvement. c) Moreover, the nom, appearing on two pages and in three sections [14] [15] and [16] is among the most long-winded and poorly referenced against indexed WP:FARC criteria to be found in the archive. These disruptions set horrible precedent, and invite future “FA muggings”, or at least will significantly degrade the quality of future FARs.
  4. Coverage concerns are largely per the nom’s personal judgment, not WP criteria. This article’s coverage is more than sufficient, and is traditional (compare to the BBC chronology [17]). The nom’s insistence that the (123KB+, > 170 sources) article lacks coverage AND requires removal of existing WP:RS sources, is puzzling and somewhat contradictory; NB that no specific coverage issues were raised during the FAR by any other editor, indicating that this is a subjective, not objective, concern. Instances where coverage can indeed be strengthened fall squarely within WP:SOFIXIT.

This article contained the same general coverage profile and body of references as it did when it achieved its FA status and appeared on the main page[18]. As it has now been improved via implementing good faith recommendations, and at the end of the day, conforms to WP:FARC, I urge to retain its FA status. István (talk) 21:07, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Fifelfoo has objected to a mountain of sources, more or less all of which appear to have been in the article from when it received FA status. His reasons for objecting to these sources are at times bizarre, and not related to Wikipedia policies - a source is rejected as 'too old', rather than 'out of date', another is rejected because it is a textbook. Two, which are timelines, are rejected because they are timelines - it appears that in Fifelfoo's world, university History departments apply different (and significantly lower) standards when putting their names to timelines and textbooks to those applied to other items. A clearly secondary source (the UN report) is rejected as a primary sources. Other sources are rejected because they are from the wrong kind of historian (ie one that Fifelfoo does not care for), and so have produced a synthesis - surely something that historians are supposed to do. He also appears to want it to be an article about something else - I'm not exactly clear what. If the FA criteria have changed since this article received FA, then Fifelfoo should state clearly and concisesly where the article does not meet those standards, however it actually appears that the only standards not met are this editor's own. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:58, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, in my world academic Historians do apply different (and significantly lower) standards when putting their names to timelines and textbooks, the lowered standard of editorial supervisions is part of the academic publishing process, and clearly recognised in career advancement and research reporting by the Australian government at a relatively high order level for example, (22-29) in the PDF. I think I've voiced one objection on Hungary 1956 due to the historian being the "wrong kind" (When someone cited David Irving's "Uprising" as a credible narrative). That the sources are from a FA application in 2006, demonstrates that 3 years of change in sourcing behaviour have occurred, editors in 2006 got it wrong, and the article was hastily promoted (for good reasons) with an inadequate coverage of the scholarly secondary literature in English available at the time. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:44, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You can't fob me off just by pointing to a 54 page document and thinking I won't read it - I work in local government and have to read these kind of things with breakfast!! For the record, what Fifelfoo has referenced is a document (of the sort called a direction by the equivalent UK authorities) issued by the Aussie government to Higher Ed establishments, instructing them on how to make a return relating to the research activities (getting income for research, carrying out research, publishing research) which will qualify for a government subsidy. The document is from 2005, and relates only to the collection of data for 2004. Certain kinds of publications qualify as research activity for the purposes of receiving government subsidy. The publication of textbooks does not qualify to receive a government subsidy. Nothing whatsoever is said in the document as to the quality of the content of textbooks. Next! Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:05, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The 2004 criteria are an example of the standard publication reporting criteria that's been present since the early 1990s, and continues today. I'm not "fobbing you off" by referencing a large source: I provided a reference to the relevant pages. "Qualifying for government subsidy" is an understatement due to the Australian tertiary sector's revenue stream being 90%+ government funding, and the dependency of institutions on research reporting funding. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:26, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fifelfoo, unlike you (it would seem), I have read the entire document. This document in no wise supports your assertion that qualifying for government subsidy and being of sufficient standard to be considered a high quality source for Wikipedia are in any way related to each other. It is a complete non-sequitur. The government funding is predicated on the university carrying out a particular TYPE of activity (one that introduces new knowledge into the field), which is unlikely by itself to make money for the facility. The document does not assert that textbooks do not qualify for government subsidy because of the quality of the content. The likelihood is that it is because (unlike research publications) textbooks are normally a source of income for a university which can make its money back on them by flogging them to its students. Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:47, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Given his lack of familiarity with the process that developed the UN Report, and his mischaracterization of the 2004 Australian government report that he uses to support his objections to this article's FA status, should any of the statements made by Fifelfoo in his lengthy discourse be taken without substantial verification? Ryanjo (talk) 02:44, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's a fairly tendentiously uncivil characterisation. That I feel that politicians separated from an event by an interview table and a year, producing a political report, are in terms of history producing a primary source; and that secondary sources in history have an expectation of time difference, highest reliability sources a greater expectation (commercial or academic publisher). I last read the report of the special committee in full in 2001; and I'll admit I'm largely unfamiliar with the Bang-Jensen Affair's impact on the report quality, but that seems to have been largely due to political pressure being deployed on a personally unstable administrator, rather than affecting the quality of the report. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:03, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
When two major points that you have brought out in this FAR are faulty when closely examined, or at the least colored by your personal opinions, it is fair to raise doubts about your other arguments. Ryanjo (talk) 10:42, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My experience is that accusations of "tendentious" and "uncivil" are used by editors pushing their POV in lieu of answering the question. The question(s) here:
  • is Fifelfoo demonstrably aware of the the process for generation of the UN report, and
  • does he have reputable sources which agree with his interpretation of the 2004 Australian government report which show that his characterization merits consideration?
That Fifelfoo's response is charges of slanted editing and uncivil behavior would appear to speak for itself until shown otherwise.
   On another note, I just (yesterday) obtained an English language source detailing the "official" response to/version of the 1956 events. That it would essentially be another primary source, if you will, is immaterial as long as what it contains is presented in appropriate context. VЄСRUМВА  ♪  12:53, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Despite the nom's vote changing to "retain"[19] and remark that "there's no value to this process for the article" I would urge all involved to complete this process per normal procedure. There is indeed value to this process. FAR/FARC exists firstly to improve Feature Articles. I believe the editors who have worked hard on this article certainly welcome the community's help in improving it. I would urge the mods and community to continue this FARC normally to completion. After all, here we are, having already invested so much time and effort in this, let's finish the job. István (talk) 04:47, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It won't being closed early. Obviously there is an incongruency in saying that the article is not up to standard and then advocation retention anyway. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 05:00, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do what? I can't see YellowMonkey pointing to any specific concerns, just drawing attention to some recent changes in FAC that may affect this article. He never responded to the request for diffs. If I'm missing something (and with the volume of text I might be), then point these chaps to it. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:42, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The specific problems with formatting of citations pointed out by YellowMonkey at the start of this FARC have been fixed. YellowMonkey's reminder about "high quality sources" has been addressed by several of the responding editors; there are many such sources referenced. Are there specific sources that need examination? Ryanjo (talk) 17:41, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retain - no evidence anywhere that the nominator has put any effort into improving the article. So the points made above, in case valid, if you can update or improve the article that has been identified as one of the best produced by the Wikipedia community, please do so. Simply attempting to delist a featured article would improve it exactly how?--Termer (talk) 19:26, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is the "Famous Quotations" necessary? It's uncited and just seems like trivia. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:53, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, this very recent edit has now been undone István (talk) 16:18, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Statue Image has been removed from mainspace to talk pending copyright clarification.István (talk) 16:24, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
TIME magazine cover image was nominated for deletion on 15 Sep 08 and retained for this article (though not for others) please see discussion and decision here. István (talk) 16:27, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As was said the second image was already kept in a discussion. Hobartimus (talk) 01:34, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The image discussion page has a header that states that the consensus was to retain the image, after it was nominated for deletion. Ryanjo (talk) 01:41, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've begun to repair the dead and broken links and will tend to the date and name issues as well. The interpretation of 1(c) "...high quality..." is not in question however the moderator's objection to the UN document as of a "political body and can be politically influenced" is essentially hypothetical, given that the document has been in the public domain for over 50 years. By now, the primary consideration should be: *Was* it politically influenced? - neither the past 5 decades, nor this report's critics, have revealed any evidence of real controversy, or undue influence, much less the nature of such influence. Politically biased? 50 years attest that it was not. István (talk) 16:51, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But is still not scholarly. And also, I will not be closing this, I've taken my moderator hat off and decided to comment as a normal person YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 01:06, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are you defining "scholarly" as per A) method used, or B) identity of the author(s)/publisher? Also, thanks for the clarification. István (talk) 04:33, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What is needed are secondary sources, taking an approach similar to Nikita Khrushchev—using three to four books that focus on the entire topic and write up a summary-style article. That would, however, require a fundamental rewrite and the obtaining of sources from a library and/or inter-library loan and/or Amazon. —Ed (talk • contribs) 04:40, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The enquiry relates solely to the UN report (a secondary source, as defined here); specifically, to User:YellowMonkey's use of "scholarly" and its relation to 1(c) "...high quality reliable sources..." its a rather important point, and different from the primary v. secondary point.István (talk) 05:15, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
...still waiting.... Its an important point. István (talk) 04:31, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retain - I'm afraid the "Wall of Text" approach of this nomination has done some damage (it may have had some good "wake up" effects as well). But that approach is rather unfair. I don't think that any article could survive a similar FA review unscathed. Every article needs a tune-up from time to time, and a stricter rule on reliable sources has been instituted since it was written. I suggest a bit of time - say a month - to come up to speed on the new rule, do the tune up, and get out of the shadow of the "Wall of Text" in a less pressurized atmosphere. A very little work here will go a long way, and reviewers can regain some perspective with a short break. Smallbones (talk) 03:51, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright © 1961 Charles Scribner's Sons

  • In addition, I agree with YellowMonkey above; to meet the FA criteria, the article needs to utilize 'high-quality' sources i.e. secondary sources that have analyzed all possible sources of information—including the UN documents and hopefully old Soviet archives—in their books. —Ed (talk • contribs) 04:53, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • first of all any UN documents and/or Soviet archives would not be secondary but primary sources that no wikipedia article should be based on. At the same time it's a known fact that any related "old Soviet archives" have remained closed to researchers. And finally, instead of taking an easy path here and coming up with not that serious reasons why the article should be delisted, anybody who's not happy with the articles current state should feel free to improve Wikipedia by fixing the problems that bother you. We should build Wikipedia, not WP:DEMOLISH it.--Termer (talk) 05:12, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, the UN documents are technically secondary sources. I don't know if that is "a known fact", hence why I phrased it with the word "hopefully".
  • The article is not fully referenced, there are hidden comments on content issues that have not been addressed, some websites are possible not reliable, and the article seems like it uses overview books on this topic only sparingly. How can you say that these are not serious and major reasons that the article should not be delisted? I'm totally at a loss as to how to respond to you on this point.
  • As to your WP:SOFIXIT comment, it's not really applicable to this FAR. Yes, I could possibly fix it by walking up to my university's library, checking out seven books and spending the next two weeks rewriting the article from scratch, but I don't have the time nor will to do that. Unlike OMT, this isn't a subject I am terribly interested in. Instead, I chose to take less time out my life and inform you—the editors who have greater knowledge and are intrigued more by this topic—of the problems I see in this article so that it will not lose its star. So, the ball is in your court; will you bring the article up to the current standards? —Ed (talk • contribs) 05:44, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:SOFIXIT is always applicable, especially about articles "that have been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community". If you think you can do better, please feel free. For the rest, there is no serious concerns put forward because the article doesn't suffer from inaccuracies. And I haven't seen any hidden comments in the article that would need to be addressed. That's my opinion, your's is different, that's fine. The bottom line that I'm not getting: what's more important here, delisting the article or improving it? In case improving the article is the priority, this discussion should be closed here and taken to the talk page.--Termer (talk) 06:11, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This isn't one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community anymore though. Why? Because I can't verify that all of the text in this article was checked with high-quality sources.
  • Hidden comments: "does this reference cover all three facts in this paragraph?" "Stick with the source. Do not re-interpret. Source makes no reference to Suez and mentions Egypt only once, as per edit" "Non academic, PRIMARY?"
  • The aim and goal of any FAR is to improve an article, yes. But if the article is not improved to a sufficient standard, it can and will be delisted. It's that simple.
  • For anyone who wishes to improve the article's citations to the 'high-quality' criterion, Worldcat has a nice list here. Click the links to see if it is in a library near you. Cheers, —Ed (talk • contribs) 07:05, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
re: user:the_ed17's concern regarding hidden comments, i.e. the <!--notes hidden in the text -->: Please understand that the majority of these date from this article's AID, Peer Reviews and FAC, and were dealt with at the time; in too many cases, these comments were not removed as they should have been. Nevertheless, I will go through them and try to untangle them one by one. As to the two specific examples given above, i.e. 1) Suez/Egypt, and 2) PRIMARY: 1) The Suez/Egypt comment dates from FAC, the editor Gk1956 having embedded his previous edit summary into the text (for whatever reason) AFTER having corrected the issue himself. We know this because the resulting text (which survives to the present) is taken directly, i.e. verbatim, from the source. You can see it for yourself. In any case, the comment was addressed.
Secondly, 2) PRIMARY results from this edit, was part of an EDIT WAR between the nominator of this FAR and another editor who initiated an WP:AN/I over it. Sparing the details, the edit stands, there are two references supporting the text, and the issue was most certainly addressed and resolved, by the a.m. AN/I. I will now remove both of these hidden comments (as should have already happened) from the body and look for others. István (talk) 22:19, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And another thing, the disambiguation links have been corrected. István (talk) 22:23, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've struck the two issues, but the major part of my argument—{{cn}}s, reliable source questions, and a consistent citation style—have not been addressed. —Ed (talk • contribs) 17:40, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
...yet. This is a WIP, in fact all should note that most "Review" phase work is now being done during FARC.István (talk) 20:34, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The recommendation by ed17 to review and add recent literature is at least a clear direction, so it is my intention to proceed with this. However, I don't think that a complete rewrite is either necessary or desirable, or even in the spirit of Wikipedia, given that this article has been heavily edited by multiple contributors over years. Is it the standards of Wikipedia FA articles to be the "Cliffs notes" of other books? Ryanjo (talk) 18:13, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hold and refocus

  • Hold, this article has not yet received a thorough review, this FAR is a mess; can someone please summarize the remaining issues briefly, and will reviewers please use Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/Hungarian Revolution of 1956/archive1 for lengthy commentary, to keep the FAR readable? I'm seeing at least citation needed tags, that a MOS review has not been completed, and that external links desperately need pruning. I didn't go any further. I will point out that, although citation formatting should be fixed before the article is Kept, it is not a good reason in and of itself to delist. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:46, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Spot-on correct. This FAR was already off the rails at its start and never got back on track. István (talk) 05:33, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The biggest issue is that the article does not meet FA criteria 1c; the United Nations documents were written soon after the event, and so while they are technically reliable and secondary sources, much better and more modern secondary references could be and should be found. —Ed (talk • contribs) 06:07, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Can you please, briefly, list some sample text that is sourced to the United Nations, and provide specific examples of better secondary sources that have not been used? With the amount of excess and off-topic verbiage on this page, I'd like to see, for example, a list of three or four pieces of text that you consider not well cited, and specific examples of sources that you have identified that should have been consulted in those cases. "Much better and more modern secondary references could be and should be found" is unhelpful unless specific sources that have been overlooked for specific topics or text or that differ with the UN are identified. Vague assertions about the quality of the sources, in the absence of specific examples, do not help the delegates evaluate the concerns. As far as I can determine, after wading through the mess, the only Delist declarations are from YellowMonkey and Ed17 (Cirt often enters a "Delist per" with no additional input or review). Can both of you please summarize, briefly, the remaining issues (besides those I mentioned above, which I hope are also being addressed). Also, it would be helpful if you place your responses in the following context: Fifelfoo is well known (at least to me, via FAC) for being an ardent supporter of the strongest possible sourcing in History articles: considering his stances on other FACs and FARs, I would be inclined to take his striking of his Delist very seriously. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:26, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See talk page for off-review summary of events around Fifelfoo.Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:42, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • For my strike, see the talk page. Regarding holding and focus (as suggested by SandyGeorgia): Seconding the_ed17 on 1c, the inappropriate state of research. Seminal works in English are missing (Lomax, Bill, Hungary 1956. London: Allen and Busby, 1976.). The scholarly output of major research units in English are missing (East European monographs [Series], [ie, Hungarian workers' councils in 1956. ed. Bill Lomax EEM Series 294., 1990] ; and, the Woodrow Wilson International Centre for Scholar's Cold War International History Project's scholarly output). The research output of the Institute of Revolutionary History is used poorly, and non-scholarly electronic output at the level of secondary textbooks has been preferred. Generally, items are sourced to inappropriate scholarship (Country Studies; CIA World Factbook being used for "After World War II, Hungary fell under the Soviet sphere of influence and was occupied by the Red Army.", where a scholarly history monograph (book) should be used). Fifelfoo (talk) 01:12, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you suggesting that "After World War II, Hungary [DIDN'T FALL] ... under the Soviet sphere of influence and was occupied by the Red Army."??? If not, what's the difference what reference is used for this obvious fact?--Paul (talk) 02:20, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe he is suggesting that the reference used is not of a "high quality". High quality != reliable source. Fifelfoo, thank you for finding those unused sources; I have been not online and/or away for nearly all of today, and so could not go looking for them myself. —Ed (talk • contribs) 06:55, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The underlying concern in this sort of Oppose (or Delist) is not whether the UN accurately or does not accurately source the statement; it's whether the article even consulted other, higher quality sources to present a *comprehensive* accounting. Please focus examples on specific text or items or viewpoints missing or poorly sourced in the article. Closing delegates need to know precisely why the failure to consult other sources may impact the article. No one has yet provided a specific example of poorly cited or missing text or viewpoints. Amended: See "Specific examples" section below. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:34, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ryanjo said "The specific problems with formatting of citations pointed out by YellowMonkey at the start of this FARC have been fixed" after I put notes in the FARC header, then I explicitly pointed it out, and it's still inconsistent as of now. Also, above, someone implicitly accused Fifelfoo of pushing communist/Stalinist POV. The facts are clear. I don't need to say anything more to the insiders and people involved in writing this article, there's no point as its pretty obvious that work is being avoided. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (help the Invincibles Featured topic drive) 05:55, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Let's try to avoid re-stating facts from above, and stay on the issues needed to determine the remaining opposes. Fixing citation formatting is secondary to other concerns, and can be resolved if other issues are worked out. If sourcing concerns are resolved, others can work on citation formatting and MOS issues; I see that External links are still quite lengthy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:41, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My response, quoted by YellowMonkey above, "specific problems with formatting of citations pointed out by YellowMonkey at the start of this FARC have been fixed" refers to the paragraphs below the start of the FARC, in which Fifelfoo details several citations which were promptly fixed. When there has been clear direction, there has been direct action. The regular editors on this article have raised questions with terms like "but its not scholarly", and I think deserve a concise answer before a complete rewrite. I am glad that "The facts are clear" to YellowMonkey that "work is being avoided". I personally don't have any sense on the focus of this FAR. Ryanjo (talk) 03:16, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Specific examples

  • These may be WEIGHTING issues, but even if written in summary style (with sections that should be created) they are concerning indications of a bias due to limited survey of available scholarship (note: not POV bias). §Postwar occupation misrepresents the unitary list by failing to mention the two controlled stooge parties (Smallholders and Peasants). §Political repression and economic decline fails to discuss the party's own purges which completed the salami process, and laid the grounds for Julia Rajk's campaign, or Imre Nagy (and the circle around him)'s oppositional line, essential processes in the creation of the revolution. The discussion of economic collapse does not discuss the disposal of the small production economy and the dislocation effects and comparative non-productivity of socialist consumer goods production. It makes no use of the studies of overplanning in relation to the 1951- socialist type "recession." §International events bizarrely doesn't discuss Yugoslavia and the immediate economic and political impacts of the Yugo-Soviet split on Hungary's economy and politics, with attendent impacts on impending revolution (like, for example, the judicial execution of Rajk). There is then in the article a gap between 1953 and 1956 which doesn't discuss the relatively controversial appointment of Nagy (in Hungarian and international Stalinist terms), the economic and cultural easing under Nagy that created a realisation that change was possible; the disappointment of the dismissal of Nagy, leading to a discussion of forming an illegalist faction versus his actual policy of sending a memo to the central committee; the formation of the Hungarian Writers' Union as a party section riven by internal discontent; the formation of Petofi circles by (predominantly) native communists (ie: those who served WWII in the Hungarian Socialist Party, or underground rather than in the Soviet Union) or the crisis in internal party politics that the Petofi circle; the displacement of Rakosi by Gero due to the purge list, and Moscow's intervention against this list. The change in popular reception of the Writers Union in late summer & autumn isn't discussed. The Rajk reburial is given a rather cursorial treatment. Additionally, its worth mentioning that Julius Hay had been soapboxing for workers councils under Writers Association authority in regional areas which lead to former HSP party members forming the first workers council prior to the 23rd. I wouldn't like to run on at the mouth, so I'll finish summarising at the 23rd of October. In specific relation to the United Nations report, its reporting on the workers councils is outdated due to more recent scholarship. On reading the article, it feels like everything about the revolution is discussed, except for the seizure of power by Hungarians organised through spontaneous democratic institutions: the revolution itself is missing. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:04, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, then, the new wording of 1c is confusing some of the concerns here, which are partly a 1b (Comprehensive) concern? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:25, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen this through the lens of "a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature on the topic." I noticed the issue due to checking the bibliography. 1b seems intertwined with this, though my issues list above is necessarily my own, and arguably some should not exist in the main survey article (Julius Hay's stump jumping for example, or the specific content of Petofi society meetings.) Though the economic collapse is comprehensively represented, but mischaracterised in relation to (in my opinion) the scholarly literature. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:49, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That was one of my concerns when that wording was added, and I see other problems in the wording, but I'll raise that after some other FACs and FARs close at WT:WIAFA. For this case, I'm seeing that your concerns are 1b and 1c. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:51, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The points raised above by Fifelfoo are either irrelevant, trivia or too distant from the events of the revolution to include in this article. Postwar occupation is briefly mentioned as a precipitant. It deserves a section in a Hungarian postwar article, not here. The parties' purges are mentioned in a trends sentence. The politics of the personalities and details mentioned as so essential by Fifelfoo are so convoluted that each could compose its own stub. Finally "the revolution itself is missing", how theatrical! There are no examples here, just opinion. Whether to cover in detail minor political events 10 years prior to the events of 1956 is an editorial decision, not evidence of inadequate references. Ryanjo (talk) 02:36, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see talk page. We are clearly suffering scope creep here, and it will be impossible to establish whether a thorough review of the literature has been carried out until we are much clearer on the actual scope of the article. Let's hash it out in talk, rather than clutter this page. Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:49, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Closing: This review ceased being productive some time ago. While not entirely happy with the article I am going to default keep. I hope reviewers do indeed initiate more article talk discussion. Marskell (talk) 11:31, 30 November 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 YellowAssessmentMonkey 03:58, 25 November 2009 [20].

Final Fantasy VI

edit

Review commentary

edit
Notified: Sjones23, Ryu Kaze, Kariteh, Hibana, Crazyswordsman, Deckiller, WikiProject Square Enix, WikiProject Video games

I am nominating this featured article for review because it has several issues that need to be taken care of. This article was nominated for FA back in 2006 when standards were significantly lower. Here are my concerns:

  • The lead does not adequately summarise the entire article and needs to be expanded. There are also refs in the lead, which is unnecessary as per WP:LEADCITE.
  • Done. 16:58, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
  • The third paragraph of the Gameplay section is unsourced. The paragraph is also very short and should be merged into another one.
  • Done. 18:21, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
  • The second paragraph of the Combat section is unsourced.
  • Done. 14:33, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
  • The whole Plot section is too long, and needs to be condensed as per WP:PLOT. The Setting section specifically needs to be trimmed.
  • Setting is now trimmed. 18:32, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
  • The second and third paragraphs in the Graphics section are too short to stand on their own and need to be merged into another paragraph. The last sentence in the first paragraph of the Graphics section is unsourced.
  • Done. 18:32, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
  • The last sentence of the Localization section is unsourced, and the second and fourth paragraphs of that section are also unsourced.
  • Done. 18:49, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
  • The last sentence of the first and third paragraphs of the Re-releases section is unsourced.
  • Done. 18:57, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
  • The whole Reception is confusing to read; it needs to be restructured and possibly rewritten. There are also two one-sentence paragraphs that need to be merged into another paragraph.
  • As for references, this should be replaced with the June 5th issue of Famitsu Weekly, as that's where the content originally stems from and the website is an unreliable source.
  • Done.
  • The link to ref no. 3 is dead.
  • Done.
  • The following refs seem to be unreliable sources: LostLevels (no. 19, 90), E. Boredom (no. 35), FINAL FANTASY 2000 (no. 36), Absolute-Playstation (no. 39), Caves of Narshe (no. 40, 60), Shadow Madness Classic (no. 41), Chrono Compendium (no. 42), filibustercartoons.com (no. 43), playeronepodcast.com (no. 44), Square Haven (no. 53), Everything2 (no. 59), and FantasyAnime (91).
  • 8/12 refs replaced; remaining ones are E. Boredom, Shadow Madness Classic, Chrono Compendium, and playeronepodcast.com. 19:59, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
  • There are also a few incorrectly formatted refs, e.g. 82, 83, and 84.
  • Done.
  • I don't think the link to the Final Fantasy Wiki in the External links section is necessary.
  • Done.
  • Also, the images need alt text as per WP:ALT.
  • Done.

As it stands now, the article fails the FA requirements and needs a lot of work to fix the issues I've listed. The Prince (talk) 21:17, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While I appreciate that it has many faults, is this really the proper venue to do this? Honestly, it would have been much easier and much more in the spirit of Wikipedia to cooperate and discuss this with the "main editors" of the article. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 06:52, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with the hippie: this is a LOT to hit people with at once.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 08:17, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think a FAR is a bad idea, nor do I think Prince acted in bad faith. FARs are meant to fix problems rather than delist FAs. So long as improvements are being made, I'm sure the review will remain open. Heck, Final Fantasy's review was open for two months, but progress was made throughout the whole time, including time to research and organize sources offline. And I think Final Fantasy is now extremely better because of it. (Guyinblack25 talk 15:21, 13 October 2009 (UTC))[reply]
  • Comment. Alt text done; thanks. Alt text is now present (thanks), but it contains some phrases that cannot be verified by a non-expert who is looking only at the images, and which therefore need to be removed and/or reworded as per WP:ALT#Verifiability. Also, some phrases duplicate what's in the caption; these also need to be removed or reworded as per WP:ALT#Repetition. The troublesome phrases are "Terra", and "enemy from the Japanese SFC and GBA, North American SNES, and Western GBA releases". Als, the "battle scene" alt text doesn't describe that scene very well: it doesn't say that the monsters are larger, are four-footed, and have spiky colars, nor does it mention the green battle field (the dominant color in the image) or the mountain background. Eubulides (talk) 03:42, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: In the Plot section, there are wikilinks that link back to said article. Not sure about redirect linking but there sure are a lot of them in the article too. — Blue。 13:45, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • As far as I can tell, there aren't any self-links or links to articles that redirect back to this article after GamerPro64 removed that one. If there are any links that point to redirect pages... eh. That's why they redirect. --PresN 00:06, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

edit
Suggested FA criteria concerns are citations, lead. Also note the recent change to the criteria requiring "high-quality" sources. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 02:11, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oy, clearly being worked on, what's the rush? --PresN 15:45, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, there may have been a reason to raise concerns, but not to push it forward when it's clearly on its way to being complete. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 17:48, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current status- the majority of the above issues are fixed; remaining issues are: The lead needs to be rewritten to accurately summarize the article, sources need to be found for the second paragraph of the Combat section, 2 lower-quality references need to be replaced, and the reception section needs to be re-flowed. Hopefully I can finish this off in the next week. --PresN 20:24, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I only took a very cursory look here, but did not see major problems:

  • WP:OVERLINKing review needed, example green and censor.
  • Per WP:MOSCAPS, why uppercase? ... , "SON OF A BITCH!", which ...
  • Is the "a" necessary here? Unsure. ... It received a 54 out of 60 points ...
  • This should not be an WP:ENDASH, I suspect an WP:EMDASH is intended, pls review throughout ... saying it "had everything you could want–heroes, world-shattering events, ...
  • Please review for logical punctuation, per WP:PUNC: sample ... Overall, RPGamer regarded the game as an "epic masterpiece" and "truly one of the greatest games ever created."[71][72]
  • Incomplete citation: The Video Game Hall of Fame - Final Fantasy III (US)". http://games.ign.com/halloffame/final-fantasy-iii.html. Citations need publisher and accessdate at minimum, author and publication date when available. Pls review all citations.

There are not major problems, so I probably won't revisit this review, leaving it to others to sort these. Pls ping me if needed. I'm troubled by Keep declarations where there are still fixes needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:23, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed all of this and more. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:13, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! --PresN 15:51, 8 November 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 YellowAssessmentMonkey 03:58, 25 November 2009 [21].

Planetary nebula

edit

Review commentary

edit
Notified: User talk:Worldtraveller most edits and nominator and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomical objects, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics

I am nominating this featured article for review because it currently lacks inline citations - criterion 1c. Tom B (talk) 20:12, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will try to add inline citations. Ruslik_Zero 09:25, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Alt text done; thanks. Images need alt text as per WP:ALT. Eubulides (talk) 04:43, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've added alt text, although I suggest my text be reviewed and improved by others. WilliamKF (talk) 00:51, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that looks good. For next time it doesn't have to be quite that fancy; please see WP:ALT#Brevity. I tweaked the lead image alt text as per WP:ALT#Verifiability. Eubulides (talk) 00:56, 4 October 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 (bananabucket) 00:21, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixes needed and questions:

  • Per WP:MSH, why is Clusters uppercase in "Membership in Clusters"?
  • The article needs a MOS review; I've left brief sample edits, enough to realize that no one has yet reviewed for MOS.
  • Does the citation at the end of this paragraph cover all of the vagueries in the para?
  • There are two different ways of determining metal abundances in nebulae, which rely on different types of spectral lines, and large discrepancies are sometimes seen between the results derived from the two methods. Some astronomers put this down to the presence of small temperature fluctuations within planetary nebulae; others claim that the discrepancies are too large to be explained by temperature effects, and hypothesize the existence of cold knots containing very little hydrogen to explain the observations. However, no such knots have yet been observed.[39]
Yes, it covers everything. Ruslik_Zero 18:31, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not thrilled with the "See also" section; has it been reviewed for compliance with WP:LAYOUT?

Other than those, and only based on a quick flyover, I don't see big issues here, so probably won't return to this review, leaving it to others to check these items. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:56, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I started making a few edits, including removing an unnecessary 'credits' line from the lead image caption—but am flummoxed to see that all image captions in the article include credits. Not sure what is going on here. Maralia (talk) 06:29, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Did some copy editing to make some prose more clear and readable. I'm not a fan of one paragraph sections but that is a nitpick. This article's FA star still shines (pun intended). --mav (talk) 03:31, 19 November 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 Marskell 11:41, 30 November 2009 [22].

Sly & the Family Stone

edit

Review commentary

edit
Notified: WikiProject Music, WikiProject Musicians

I am nominating this featured article for review because there are large portions that are unsourced. The first paragraph of "Sly's solo career" is totally unsourced, as are the sentences "Sly continued sporadically releasing new singles and collaborations until a 1987 arrest and conviction for cocaine possession and use. After being released from prison, Sly stopped releasing music altogether." The first two paragraphs of the "Reunion" section are also totally unsourced. There are also some sloppy edits, including bare-URL refs (37, 41) and doubled periods in a sestence in the "Reunion" section. The grammy tribute also contains the borderline weaselly "Several people, however, were more positive about the performance…". My main concern is the lack of references in parts; it is clearly no longer GA class, having been promoted in 2007. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 03:09, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • As an aside, I just want to say that I think it's ridiculous how little articles change after promotion to FA, even if the concept of what is a featured article has changed. This article has had very few non-IP edits since its promotion two years ago, and while the concept of featured article has changed some since then, the article hasn't kept up with the times. I've noticed this with way too many featured articles. Even worse, none of the major editors (more than 10 edits) have edited the project at all since February at the latest, and most of them retired in 2007 or so.Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 03:13, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Citation quality issues

Dates non standard D Month YYYY versus YYYY-MM-DD... even "Nov. 1, 2002"
Date presentation non standard, sometimes plain sometimes (bracketed)
Most cites end with a fullstop, some don't. Consistency.
This isn't a citation, this isn't a citation at all! ^ http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=11:0cfpxqy0ldde~T1
Volume, issue, pages: Aronowitz, Al (Nov. 1, 2002). "The Preacher". The Blacklisted Journal.
Self / Vanity? : Edwin & Arno Konings www.slystonebook.com Fifelfoo (talk) 03:40, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Only Marskell, Joelr31 and Yellowmonkey can close a FAR: even if you revert, the article would need to be reviewed, since standards have changed. Also, if there are no other active editors, I don't think you need to wait a week: a few days should do it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:48, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another issue. The previous FAR closed on Feb 15, but the article appeared on the main page on Feb 18. There were probably improvements as a result of mainpage day, so the version that passed FAR might not be the best version to revert to: you would need to look at how the article came out of main page day. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:50, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If no one objects by tomorrow, I will look through the article history and do the revert, but leave it to you to do post-revert cleanup. Once reverted, you will need to ask Dabomb87 or Ohconfucious to delink dates and run the dash script, at minimum. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:04, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

edit
Featured criteria concerns are citations. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (help the Invincibles Featured topic drive) 20:04, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if reverted to the revision in my sandbox. I see no citation problems whatsoever in this version, nor any other problems with content. My only concern is the one source of questionable reliability. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 21:37, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - What makes the following reliable?

Note I'm not watchlisting, so if I'm needed again, ping me. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:27, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Update: several editors are at work here, and there are now only two unreliably sourced pieces of text, as far as I can determine. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:18, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ealdgyth, the archive.org is an archived version of a there1.com page; there are several there1.com pages used as sources. Are they reliable?
I checked the about.com page, and the author appears reputable (the problem with about.com is when they have housewives writing :) He's a journalist and has written for reputable music mags: http://oldies.about.com/bio/Robert-Fontenot-1533.htm
Classic bands surely isn't reliable; that info needs to be resourced.
Slys little sister's website is not a reliable source to make claims about herself, like:
  • Little Sister's "Somebody's Watching You" is the first popular recording to feature the use of a drum machine for its rhythm track.
That needs to be sourced elsewhere. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:24, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
to clarify, I'm questioning the whole there1.com domain, not just that one page. Sorry, my link got screwy somehow. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:28, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The There1.com page was written before 2004, by Jeff Kaliss. Jeff Kaliss published a bio on Sly and The Family Stone in 2008. [24][25] Although we may consider Kaliss a published expert on Sly, it is apparent that the article doesn't consult the latest published sources, and his 2008 bio should be consulted to source these statements and more, since it's a recent bio. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:56, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just added a RS to replace Little Sister's website. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 23:04, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kaliss's book is available at Google Books. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 23:06, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think someone will need to read the entire book, to assure this article meets 1b and 1c of WP:WIAFA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:50, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) As a general rule, I'm against the use of google books snippets/previews to source articles. There are a very few exceptions (such as using a small encyclopedia entry, or something similar where it is possible to get the entire context within the snippet/preview) but generally the snippet or preview does not allow you to gather the entire context of what the author is getting at, so it can lead to issues of misinterpreting sources. For something like this, where you'd be using a biography, and thus would need the whole thing, this concern really applies. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:02, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have to disagree (slightly). Google books "limited" preview general gives the reader enough information to understand the proper context of what is being written. With limited preview you can usually read up to four or more pages in a row which is then followed by a section of the book that is omitted. "Snippet" previews on the other hand are definitely unreliable as they only make a sentence or two available to read (hence the term). I've used google books limited preview on almost every article I've written on wikipedia and I've had no trouble getting a comprehensive understanding of the information that is made available. In situations where relevant information happens to be what is omitted from the preview, simply look for another source. Google books has plenty of music encyclopedias, so it shouldn't be difficult at all to replace any current unreliable sources. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 11:46, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Example: Here you can view at least four pages that talk about the group during the "Dance to the Music" (1968) phase and after. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 11:56, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments There are several paragraphs that don't have any inline citations. The band history section begins far too early than is necessary. The lead needs to be rearranged and culled of "peacock" wording. All those citations in the lead should be moved to the article body. Only studio albums are necessary for the discography section. Chart placings in the article body need to be cited. Why not make a "musical style" section? Why not spin off "Impact and influence of later material" into a "Legacy" section? Why is so much space given to Sly Stone's solo career? Awards should be worked into the article body. The amount of space given to the 2006 Grammy Awards tribute is full of recentism. Remove links to the personal websites of band members; the band is the article subject, not the members. For more recent musician FAs, look to R.E.M. and Janet Jackson for inspiration. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:09, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm of the opinion that not only does it need more sourcing, but that the article needs to be drastically rewritten in places. More research certainly needs to be done; citing what it currently in the article only solves part of the problem. WesleyDodds (talk) 00:41, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's a common music abbreviation for "backed with", meaning the b-side of the single was "Walking in Jesus' Name". Still, it doesn't belong in the article. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 22:36, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist Article needs massive overhaul, accompanied by greater research to fulfill the comprehensiveness criteria. Many problems still exist, primarily unsourced paragraphs and elements of recentism. not much work has been done on the article lately. WesleyDodds (talk) 13:21, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change to Delist per Wesley's concerns; there are still major issues with the prose even after my bold reversion. At another glance, it indeed doesn't seem to be comprehensive enough. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 04:04, 27 November 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 Marskell 11:41, 30 November 2009 [26].

Jarmann M1884

edit

Review commentary

edit
Notified: listed WikiProjects

There are effectively no reliable sources cited in this article. The first book chapter, cited a lot of times, are by a gunshop owner named Hanevik who runs his own printing house, so it's self-published. The only other two sources are also home made websites, and the lead is short. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 05:13, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Images

The article fails 1c on the FA criteria as large chunks of the article are missing inline citations leaving it unverifiable. Additionally, although a minor quibble, the external links really needed to be edited so they are using the correct template.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:12, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1c Single sourced, and per YellowMonkey. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:16, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

edit
Suggested FA criteria concern are citations, lead, images. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 04:33, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They're aware, but there is no concerted task allocation etc YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (help the Invincibles Featured topic drive) 03:23, 18 November 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 03:58, 25 November 2009 [27].

Hong Kong action cinema

edit

Review commentary

edit
Notified: Zzzzz, Michael Wells, WP:Film, WP:China, WP:HK, Wikipedia:WikiProject Martial arts

I am nominating this featured article for review because it seems to fail criteria 1.(c) in several areas. Several parts of the article are tagged with the [citation needed] tag. Some entire paragraphs contain no citations, such as the second paragraph in ""New School" wuxia", the fourth paragraph in "The 1970s kung fu wave", the second in "Bruce Lee", and the third in "Jackie Chan and the kung fu comedy". The "Influence in the West" section has no citations and has been tagged with a banner at the top for months at the top banner seeking help with no major additions being made. Andrzejbanas (talk) 03:02, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image check OK but alt text required. DrKiernan (talk) 07:52, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why some of these images are used in the article. Showing a poster for that Bruce Lee film for example does not suggest it was the first Hong Kong film shot in the US nor does the Twins Effect one at the bottom showcase that there is a lot of CGI in the film. I'd say these images should be removed or replaced with images that relate to the text better. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:39, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

edit
Suggested FA criteria concerns are citations, alt text. Also note the recent change to the criteria requiring "high-quality" sources. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (help the Invincibles Featured topic drive) 19:58, 12 November 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 19:53, 12 November 2009 [28].

TARDIS

edit

Review commentary

edit
Notified: Khaosworks, Wikipedia:WikiProject Doctor Who, Wikipedia:WikiProject BBC

I am nominating this featured article for review because:

Un-referenced material.
Dead links in refs 6, 36, 38, and others.
The "Popular culture" section has clean-up tags on it.
And, though not sure, some of the pictures maybe unnessessary.
So, all and all, this article has a lot of problems to it and needs a major overhaul. GamerPro64 (talk) 01:36, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments

An issue I see right off the bat is that it assumes too much foreknowledge of Doctor Who—things like Time Lords are not explained, nor the Doctor or much of the show's premise. The third paragraph of the first section is entirely unreferenced and seems to involve some original research (I'm not a Londoner, but a specific figure like 700 boxes in London in the 1960s should be sourced as not common knowledge.) There are several other unreferenced lines scattered throughout the article that I think similarly require citations.

Aside from referencing issues, there's excessive weight given to in-universe explanations and trivial details. I simply don't think 30+KB about every facet of the ship qualifies as summarized and succint coverage as recommended by fiction writing guidelines. Add to the fact that most of it's unreferenced and smacks of original research (for example, the bit on the changing exterior colors) and I'd say much of the article could be plainly gutted. Lots of these issues existed in the original FA version (oldid), but it's simply gotten bloated over the years with cruft. The final sections, rather than providing real-world critical commentary and sources that prove its notability, dissolves into a list of trivia.

Finally, the defensibility of File:Rani TARDIS.jpg, File:JadePagoda.jpg, File:Tinterior1.jpg, File:Tardis Console Circa 1996.jpg, File:Tardisconsole.jpg, File:TARDIS wardrobe.jpg, File:TARDIS Key.jpg, File:Hartnellconsole.jpg and File:Doctor Who - Secondary TARDIS console room.jpg are all amazingly poor. Considering there are free shots that can adequately replace the images of the exterior, one could even argue that there's no reason for a non-free image in this article at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by David Fuchs (talk • contribs) 02:05, 16 October 2009

  • Comment on the image issue - yes, some could be removed. However, the interior shots, especially Hartnellconsole and Tardisconsole, are vital to understanding how the depiction of the TARDIS interior has changed over the years, and are extremely unlikely to be replaceable with a free alternative (especially the first, as the set was likely destroyed when the show stopped using it, like most unused sets were. I don't know of any free current interior shots available, either. The WordsmithCommunicate 03:12, 16 October 2009 (UTC) Update: I removed the three images with the weakest justification, cutting the number of fair use images by a third. The WordsmithCommunicate 03:46, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The major issue I see in scanning the article are general concerns on Writing About Fiction. Some sections, particularly regarding production details, are perfectly well expressed, and are certainly above average for an article on a fictional topic. Other sections, including the lead section, blend a little too seamlessly between real-world aspects and fictional aspects. Most of these issues can be solved without too much trouble by prefixing the paragraph or section to explain the perspective of the content. Other places, the "character development" of the tardis should be expressed in terms of episodes/development schedule, not in-universe or unspecified (weasel) time. If more detail is needed for improvement, I can scrutinize the article more closely, and point to specific places in the article that concern me, but I suspect plenty of editors out there would have no difficulty resolving all the major concerns (which again, aren't too severe) without such help. -Verdatum (talk) 21:19, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

edit
Cited FA criteria concerns are citations and focus YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 05:29, 30 October 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 19:53, 12 November 2009 [29].

The Protocols of the Elders of Zion

edit

Review commentary

edit
Notified: Jossifresco, Jkelly, Ludvikus, Humus sapiens, Goodoldpolonius2, Wikiproject Jewish history
  • I am nominating this featured article for review because
  1. the lead section was overlong, uninformative, and confusing.
  2. Inspecting the talkpage revealed that others have acknowledged issues with the article.
  3. Inspection of the listed feature article revision reflects an article that is more readable and better follows WP guidelines.
-Verdatum (talk) 04:59, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly oppose:
1) The confusion is due to the complexity of the subject matter, not the writing of the lead.
2) The article has already been edited to satisfy those "others" who raised the issue.
3) "Inspection of the listed feature article revision reflects an article that is more readable and better follows WP guidelines." Don't know what the boldface item is.
--Ludvikus (talk) 17:23, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Au contraire. The lede is too long, and—as is your style—overlinked. If other Featured Articles can get by with three- or four-paragraph ledes, there's no reason why this one can't. Please read WP:LEDE.
  2. Your "improvements" have generally made the article harder to read, not easier to understand. Try to differentiate between important information, which needs to be discussed, and unimportant trivia, which should be excised. This is an encyclopedia article for a general reader, not a specialist.
  3. What it means is that this version of the article, which is the version that was promoted to Featured Article status, is better than the current version.
  4. A few other problems I noticed:
  • Several portions of the article lack footnotes, including some entire paragraphs.
  • There are quotations without citation. See, for example, "Structure and themes" (all of which may be WP:OR).
  • Avoid editorial interjections ("the notorious Protocols").
  • Decide whether the title is "the Protocols" or The Protocols. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 21:13, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • [Book covers]:
  1. File:The Protocols and World Revolution.pdf and File:Praemonitus Praemunitus - The Protocols of the Wise Men of Zion - The Beckwith Company (1920).jpg don't have a licence.
  2. Anyway, it is unnecessary to show essentially the same book cover three times, and as they should be free I don't see why a non-free use rationale is necessary.
  3. File:Pavel Krushevan.jpg doesn't have a source or author.
  4. File:Protocols of the Elders of Zion 2005 Syria al-Awael.jpg is at an unnecessarily high resolution for a book cover; it should be reduced in size.
  5. The non-free use rationale for File:Mexico low.jpg doesn't make sense. What has the cover of the book got to do with its contents? How does the cover illustrate the book is untrue?
  6. File:Japan low.jpg is missing a fair-use rationale.
  7. Does File:Protocols KL08.jpg need a fair-use rationale for the clearly seen book cover?
DrKiernan (talk) 14:29, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly oppose:
  1. This item item was published in the USA in 1920, is in the public domain, and is the second edition of the infamous plagiarism.
  2. There's no such thing as the "same" book. There are only divers editions, produced at different times. These three Title pages are taken from the seminal, original, publications, and as such are extreme notable, unlike contemporary imprints.
  3. The source for Pavel Krushevan will be supplied.
  • Strongly support:
4., 5., 6., 7. None of these items are notable and should be deleted.
--Ludvikus (talk) 17:38, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree that the lede is much worse than the lede that gained FA status. The current version is far too detailed. A lede is supposed to be an introduction, a capsule, a summary of the more detailed article to follow. Instead, we find things like a typescript copy from 1919 and where it is archived. A reader has to wade through five and a half paragraphs of not very interesting dates and names before the reader even finds out what the content of the book in question is. --jpgordon::==( o ) 23:45, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree too. But that can be fixed I think. Unfortunately, I find not many editors around like there used to be. I find quite a bit od duplication. Also, there's too much contemporary stuff at the end which makes the article too long. However, there's been new research around in the lat few years which emphasis the circulation of the typescript in 1919. I personally may need two weeks to help restructure the article. Also, it would be nice if we could have a Wiki project page for this article. I have no experience in that. I don't know who the editors are who with to assist in restructuring the article. --Ludvikus (talk) 06:39, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the article currently is nowhere near FA status; for one thing, doesn't the lead usually come before the contents? Also, this paragraph appears to end in midsentence: "It also appeared in 1919 in the Public Ledger (Philadelphia) as a pair of serialized newspaper articles. But all references to "Jews" were replaced with references to Bolsheviki as an expose by the journalist and subsequently highly respected Columbia University School of Journalism dean, [15]". I applaud the Herculean efforts of Ludvikus; perhaps the article can be cleaned up before it gets demoted (though that is where I think it is headed). Mario777Zelda (talk) 23:22, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Future participants in this review, you don't need to support or oppose anything. This is just to evaluate what aspects of the article could be improved, and what aspects fail the Featured article criteria. If appropriate, a discussion to delist this article is started after this step. This process of featured article review is detailed at WP:FAR. -Verdatum (talk) 05:26, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this discussion should proceed to the next stage, Featured article removal candidate. After a week of intensive editing, some major issues still exist, in my opinion.

  • I still think that there are too many images at the top of the page (though this point has been addressed previously).
  • Large portions of the lead consist of very awkward, if not unreadable, prose. The lead is also overly long (and even with its length, may not summarize the article fully).
  • The first paragraph of the first section after the lead still ends in midsentence.
  • The shortened version of the title is inconsistent: it's seen as the Protocols, the Protocols, and The Protocols (at least).
  • The article is poorly organized. The section "The Times exposes a forgery, 1921", for example, is sandwiched between discussions of the book's imprints in various languages.
  • The lead sentence of the "Fiction" section reads: "As it turned the text a plurality of literary source besides Maurice Joly." What?
  • Some sections require further references, including the "Title Variations" section and the "Middle East" and "Eugene Sue" subsections.

Mario777Zelda (talk) 00:28, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

edit
Suggested FA criteria concerns are prose, structure, citations, lead, images. Also note the recent change to the criteria requiring "high-quality" sources. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 02:10, 28 October 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 19:53, 12 November 2009 [30].

Isambard Kingdom Brunel

edit

Review commentary

edit
Notified WikiProject Biography, WikiProject Civil engineering, PopUpPirate (main contributor and FA nominator).

While a comprehensive article, several large sections lack inline citations (1.c), and sections of the prose, particularly the 'Early life' section, are quite poor. Image text does not conform to the manual of style, and there are two cleanup tags, including one requesting a citation (almost a month old). Parrot of Doom (talk) 10:22, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done; thanks. Images need alt text as per WP:ALT. Eubulides (talk) 18:45, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It needs a prose clean up, as sections tend to be made up of many short paragraphs, making for a choppy read.

Dead links:

Keep Still worthy and one of the better Engineering-related articles which is under-represented. Non-conformance to a manual of style, and a couple of tags, do not automatically make a bad article! --PopUpPirate (talk) 23:24, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't ever suggest that were so - its still a 'good' article, but I doubt it would, in its present state, even pass WP:GAN. Parrot of Doom (talk) 23:35, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also note that under-representation and "worth[iness]" are not considered in whether an article meets FA criteria. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:43, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Images File:Saltashrab.jpg: missing permission. File:Great Western.jpg is a copyright violation: Mark Myers (born 1945) is still living. This is a modern imagining of an historic event, not an historic picture painted at the time. File:Great-Eastern-At-Sea-.jpg and File:Brunel-Launch-Leviathon.jpg: missing permissions. DrKiernan (talk) 10:17, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Great-Eastern-At-Sea-.jpg has been commented out and File:Brunel-Launch-Leviathon.jpg appears to have been upladed by the copyright holder with a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.5 license. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:02, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

edit
Suggested FA criteria concern are citations, MOS, prose, alt text, copyright. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. FAQ? YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 02:24, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry but I'm still not happy with it. There are problems with comprehensiveness and focus. For example, the "Early life" section could be expanded with details of his schooling in Britain and his work for a French clockmaker, and there are single-line paragraphs which are really nothing more than adverts for the Swindon and Didcot railway museums. The lead goes into unnecessary detail over trivia, e.g. "Some 143 years later..." when it should explain his lasting legacy not some unreliable television poll that was hijacked by Brunel University undergraduates. DrKiernan (talk) 11:18, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Revisited. Still delist. DrKiernan (talk) 09:03, 9 October 2009 (UTC) 10:35, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yay, I was really hoping someone would step up to the plate to work on this. I can't help much with the lack of citations, but will work on prose, MOS, etc. Maralia (talk) 02:46, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If anyone would like to cast their eyes over the references now (many have been changed, more added, that would be good. Maralia is still copy-editing, but feedback on the references would be useful. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:18, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for working on that. Could you also take a look at the alt text, as it's still absent? Please click on the "alt text" button in the toolbox at the upper right of this review page. Eubulides (talk) 15:16, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have added alt text for all images, the tool does not show it, but a right click on the image and a click on properties does show it. I don't know how to add alt text to the icon for the wikisource in the ELs. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:55, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Good job on the alt text. The tool is sometimes delayed; I have a bug report in about that. I fixed the template generating the Wikisource image. Eubulides (talk) 19:21, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just wanted to leave a note mentioning that I'm still working on this. It's in much better shape already (thanks Jezhotwells!). I should be able to get back to it within a few days. Maralia (talk) 04:14, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's going to need quite a bit of MoS cleanup ... on a quick flyover, I saw a lot of WP:OVERLINKing and WP:ACCESS issues. As it gets further along, I'll have another look, but Maralia is likely to address these issues. For now, the article is not in keep territory. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:20, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It would be helpful, to me at least, to point out where overlinking is a problem. I have removed some duplicate wikilinks and one or two taht seemed redundant. I can see any other instances or over-linking. I would also apprecaite guidance on what access issues the artcile has. Jezhotwells (talk) 09:15, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I added two sample edits, faster than typing it all out, hopefully you can take it from there, and review WP:ACCESS and WP:OVERLINKing. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:26, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The prose needs work; it's saveable, but is someone going to organise it? I made a few tweaks at the top. Overlinking ("British"? "engineer"? bad piping of TA cable. Chain-links: "Portsmouth, Hampshire"—surely the second is at the opening of the first, so why link both? See WP:LINKING on adjacency. And please not "England, UK". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony1 (talk • contribs)
  • Still plugging away determinedly at this. Added the French clockmaker bit that DrKiernan has been asking for. Working like mad to improve the quality of the sourcing. I still have significant work to do in the 'text doesn't flow/single sentence paragraphs' arena. Will update here again when I feel it can withstand further scrutiny. Maralia (talk) 05:54, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am still working on this, but the FAR is admittedly heading into its fourth month. I would love to see it kept (that is after all why I've been working on it), but I honestly don't feel that it's there yet. I really don't want my personal opinion to count here, though, because if the decision is to delist, I will probably bring it back to FAC after additional work. I am going to post at WT:FAR asking for more input here. Maralia (talk) 04:05, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist
    1. 2c Final fullstop in references inconsistent. Corporate authors inconsistently cited (fn 12 versus bibliography X and Y versus X; Y style). fn18 uses a title, titles are not used in cites. As a History of Science all works cited should be listed in the bibliography. Journal citation fn39 out of style (no pp). Dates in cites are inconsistent Month Year versus YYYY-MM-DD.
    2. 1c Buchanan 2006's publisher seems dodgy. I can't find Gillings 2006's publisher to be academic. Wilson 1994 is dodgy since they don't do academic history and do professional not academic engineering. Beckett2006 is straight dodgy, its a picture book publisher (but is not relied upon). Brunel 1870 is self of course (but not relied upon). There is far too much OR leading to PRIMARY, fn57 for example makes a judgement from archival documents that only a contemporary nursing journal should be making. There are large gaps in the narrative between authorative High Quality RS focused on the life story: fns 4-11, 7-30, 32-38, 56-66, 68-78. The verification filler is made up of newspaper articles, websites, commemorations, archival documents, and single use papers which I have not checked for publisher provenance because they're not in a History grade bibliography.
    3. 1c Scholarship since 2006 is missing on important topics to History of Science, for example, DP Miller "Principle, practice and persona in Isambard Kingdom Brunel's patent abolitionism" The British Journal for the History of Science, 2007 - Cambridge Univ Press. (Additionally, some Japanese Railway studies and a Geology Today paper appear possibly relevant). Fifelfoo (talk) 01:07, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • This example seems to be narrow for a broad, overview topic; can you explain why it's important, or do you have other examples of missing sources? Specifically, what information is needed in this article that is not covered? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:56, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm inclined towards delisting only because Maralia hasn't yet been able to get to this (last edit Oct 17). I do want to point out, though, that minor issues like citation formatting or alt-text are not strong reasons for delisting a FAR. If they were, we would have to delist most of our FAs, because the alt-text requirement was only recently added. I have never seen an FA delisted over citation formatting; the quality of the scholarship is a different matter, and in this case, a specific example of missing scholarship was provided. However, I am unconvinced that the sample given by Fifelfoo is appropriate for a broad overview article; it seems to be too narrowly focused. In summary, I'd like to see more care in delist declarations here, but I'm leaning to delist only because Maralia hasn't yet gotten to this article. Jezhotwells doesn't seem to be actively working on the article either. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:59, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My questiones on Maralia's talk were mainly about the progress of work, not the state of the article YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (help the Invincibles Featured topic drive) 06:19, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There haven't been any articles delisted when the only things remaining were ALT text or bits of formatting. Eubulides makes the same reminder on each page but there is no indication that it was the deciding factor. I don't think it ever has been YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (help the Invincibles Featured topic drive) 06:20, 9 November 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 04:26, 3 November 2009 [32].

Voting system

edit

Review commentary

edit
Notified: WikiProject Politics

I am nominating this featured article for review because there is many problems with this article. First of all there seems to be an excessive amount of external links, also the following criterion seem to be violated:

1a. Some of the text seems confusing.
1c. Many paragraphs (outside of the history section) contain uncited assertions and or statistics
3. Images could use some alt text, although this is only a minor issue.

Nominator note: I'm not sure what users I should notify, beyond the WikiProject could someone help me with this? Feinoha Talk, My master 06:38, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

edit
Suggested FA criteria concern are citations, prose, alt text. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 04:37, 21 October 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 04:26, 3 November 2009 [33].

Mandy Moore

edit

Review commentary

edit
Notified: Jack O'Lantern, Plastikspork

I am nominating this featured article for review on behalf of an IP, who feels that this article may not meet the FA standards. This article was promoted in August 2006, but due to a variety of factors, I (and others) believe that its status should be reconsidered. See here. Enigmamsg 04:21, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

edit
Suggested FA criteria concern are citations, lead, alt text. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 04:34, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist, 2c, 1c
    1. 2c Citation styles not consistent
      1. Date styles all over the shop
      2. Needs a fine tooth comb
      3. fn 6 totally unacceptable
      4. fn 8 BLP vio?
      5. fn 9 broken template use
      6. fn 9-11 lack date
      7. general lack of authors
      8. fn 35 lacks retrieval date
      9. fn 42 lacks article title
      10. fn 47-49 not citations, simply linkspam.
      11. fn 50 not a cite
      12. fn 69 citation not in style
      13. fn 83 not a cite
      14. Magazines and Journal names not italicised as per style used here
    2. 1c Unverified non trivial claims
      1. fn 42 SELF
      2. fn 48 SELF
      3. fn 87 SELF
      4. fn 100 incorrectly cited broadcast => unverified.
    3. If you want to fix it: consistent styling of titles (ie: Italics). All authors attributed. All dates consistent. Remove SELF. Replace links with citations. Indicate issue number, volume number, date correctly for all items published. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:45, 3 November 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/November_2009&oldid=328927752"