Wikipedia:Featured article review/archive/September 2008

Kept status

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 User:Marskell 09:57, 30 September 2008 [1].

---

Macedonia (terminology)

Article fails to meet the requirements for all Wikipedia articles, namely it fails WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary.

Encyclopedia articles are not on the different meanings of a term.

This article is a mixture of definitions:

• history
• geography
• demographics
• linguistics
• politics
• Ethnic

Encyclopedia articles only have a single definition, and are not on a term. The wiktionary is a project which is about terms, and the different meanings of terms.

It's not about how big the article is the article doesn't go 'beyond a dicdef', on the contrary it goes beyond an encyclopedia definition by being about the different usages of the term.

Thus this article fails this policy.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 21:55, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

hmmmm ... that nomination was quite extensively debated at FAC; are there any other issues of concern? Please follow the instructions at the top of WP:FAR to do the notifications with {{subst:FARMessage|Macedonia (terminology)}} and post them back to here as in the sample at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Felix the Cat. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:00, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Apart from the fact it's not actually an encyclopedia article, no. The issue doesn't seem to have been brought up at the time at all. A few people said it was listy, but that's about it.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 22:09, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Please do the notifications. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:01, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• Close - I've seen encyclopedia articles on the history of terms, the origin of terms, and other such things. I know the term "Republic" shows up in many encyclopedias, along with "Democracy", "Feudalism", etc, and those are just political terms. This is clearly encyclopedic and not definitional. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:30, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• • You have to justify that on policy grounds, this is a policy issue. You can't just say, other articles do this. That doesn't work.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 03:46, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• • There's no problem at all with an article that is on, or contains a history of a term. However, this article contains multiple mutually exclusive usages of the term. An encyclopedia article correctly consists of only one definition, but here it is differently defined in almost each and every section. While they are related in many ways, they are not related by the definition (except for the simple term, but that is explicitly excluded by policy.) They have to be related by one definition to be an encyclopedia article.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 03:46, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
  • It's a very good article indeed, but it's just not an encyclopedia article. It fails on what is the primary difference between encyclopedias and dictionaries.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 03:46, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• Close This is not a dictionary article, it is an encyclopaedia article. The nomination seems almost pointed. - Francis Tyers · 06:02, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• Close This FAR is more or less a direct result of an ongoing dispute over the proper interpretation and application of WP:NOTDICDEF. See discussion here and here. I partially agree with some of Wolfkeeper's suggestions, and I feel that we need to discuss where to draw the line with word article. However, I feel that this article is one of the few good examples of terminology articles that is genuinely compatible with the current policies. Peter ^Isotalo 06:55, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I will close this as consensus has rapidly developed in that direction and because the nom does not directly address WP:WIAFA. There are some things that could be discussed on article talk, however, particularly reducing the number of ugly bullets in the article. Marskell (talk) 09:30, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I converted the bullet points into prose and made some minor tweaks. While editing, I noticed the prose wasn't all that great at times. There's certainly a lot of very small paragraphs that might be expanded or merged with one another.

Peter ^Isotalo 11:03, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I would disagree with Marskell's statement that the nom does not directly adress WP:WIAFA, WP:WIAFA begins with the requirement that the pages in question meets our policies. Taemyr (talk) 11:08, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

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 User:Marskell 09:57, 30 September 2008 [2].

---

Silent Hill 4: The Room

4. the Article is very short don't have Template:VG Review.don't have system requirement for PC don't have information of engine,series mode and input on Infobox 3.have few images and images are small and on left 2(c).don't have a section for Awards and a section for Guns (see:Assassin's Creed)Amir (talk) 14:22, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Notifications were not done. Anyone home? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:54, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

These all seem pretty trivial, if a bit confusing due to poor grammar:

1. The article may be short, but it was determined to be comprehensive.
2. There is no rule saying that Template:VG Reviews is needed in every video game article. Same with the infobox notes.
3. Unlike the article you seem to be comparing this one too (Assassin's Creed), SH4 is limited in the images it can use because Konami doesn't offer any free licensing of images.
4. Images are simply arranged how they best fit.
5. There were no awards given to speak of.
6. And a section describing the weapons would be crufty.

Recommend closing this shortly unless any other serious complaints can come. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 14:40, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

but don't have information about system requirements and I mean of assassin's creed for section of weapon and awrad but the article must have a table or a template for reviews don't have information about engine and series Amir (talk) 14:56, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

There is absolutely no requirement for a review table or game requirements for PC systems. Video game articles to be comprehensive do need a reception section which this article has, but no review table is required (nor possible for all games). Images should be kept to a minimum and small per MOS guidelines I agree with L&M above that the points brought by Amir are not issues with FA quality or VG comprehensiveness. --MASEM 15:22, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Masem's right, there is no problem with not having a table for reviews. I'm not seeing any problems here that merit a FAR. Pagrashtak 04:34, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

OK.a featured article about a game don't need information about physics,graphics,system requirements,engine and... I'm sorry for this wiki Amir (talk) 23:16, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

• Recommend closing—No significant actionable problems have been identified. The problems raised are either not actual problems (too few images, when non-free images are kept to a minimum; article is "short" when it is comprehensive; need for a game-guide style gun section; use of VG review), or are so minor they don't warrant a FAR (infobox parameters). This has been sitting a couple of days in this state with no further input. Pagrashtak 14:06, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

• Recuse, I promoted it, I corrected some WP:ACCESSIBILITY issues, but see nothing else obvious. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:38, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

No other comments forthcoming. Shutting down. Marskell (talk) 09:33, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

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 User:Marskell 07:03, 29 September 2008 [3].

---

Benjamin Mountfort

Review commentary

The following notifications have been left: Bishonen, Giano, WP England, WP New Zealand, WP Architecture, Wp Bio --Falcorian ^(talk) 17:20, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

The article was approved to FA in 2005, when standards were much lower, and it shows. It currently has one inline citation which makes verification of facts by readers nearly impossible. --Falcorian ^(talk) 16:11, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

In addition, it when the article was assessed in 2006, the review stated "needs inline citations and lead should conform to WP:LEAD". --Falcorian ^(talk) 16:22, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Please notify significant contributers as well as associated wikipedia projects and post these notifications at the top of this FAR (see the instructions at WP:FAR. Thanks! --Regents Park (paddle with the ducks) 16:28, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah yes, I'll add a note up top. --Falcorian ^(talk) 17:20, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

• after a quick review the only issues really seem to be inline citations. I don't have access to the referenced books, so can't do the ref formating. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 18:24, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

This is not my area of expertise, but let me know if there are specific items you want me to check out in New Zealand libraries. However, I'm in Auckland, some of the material may only be available in Christchurch, so you might need to recruit some help from down there. User:Alan Liefting and User:Evil Monkey may be able to help with such materials.-gadfium 21:55, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll get a copy of A Dream of Spires tomorrow. I can look at The Gothic Beauties (but not the first edition of 1929, only the 1941, 1950 or 1963 editions) but it isn't available for loan, so I'll need specific details on what needs to be looked up.-gadfium 22:03, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

• You three have just nearly restored my faith in wikipedia - what! 3 editors all working out where to get the books and who may help! fantastic stuff, more power to your elbow :-) --Joopercoopers (talk) 23:34, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I've found a biography in the Dictionary of New Zealand Biography - I'm not sure how much that'll help. Snippets of his work are also available in Sir Banister Fletcher's a History of Architecture. I'll begin adding citations from the former right away, if no one minds. Nousernamesleft (talk) 01:21, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

NB: I've added comments in spots in the text where the citation I have doesn't discuss the fact or disputes the fact. It would be appreciated if others could verify or debunk the statements. Nousernamesleft (talk) 01:36, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I've now got A Dream of Spires, and I'll see what I can add to the article with it tomorrow.-gadfium 06:17, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

That's good; I can't seem to find anything except the two I mentioned and the Christchurch reference already provided. The DZNB reference contradicts what the article says in several places, so I'll be needing a third source to determine which version of the events is true. Banister Fletcher doesn't provide much, I'm afraid. Nousernamesleft (talk) 17:21, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I'm having trouble with the following statement: "...[The Pilgrims] have their names engraved on marble plaques in Cathedral Square, Christchurch, in front of the cathedral that Mountfort helped to design." I've looked everywhere, and I can see nothing that even vaguely alludes to this. Is it in The Dream of Spires? Nousernamesleft (talk) 20:11, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

No, as far as I can see it isn't in Dream of Spires (but I'd have to read every word and every footnote to be absolutely sure), however I found a Christchurch City Council page about all the plaques in the city, and from there a page about this one.[4]-gadfium 08:58, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I've hit upon a goldmine: [5] - this will easily reference much of the article, I suspect, though scrolling through it and waiting for it to download is incredibly irritating. Nousernamesleft (talk) 16:03, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

• Main contributor has requested the removal of date-autoformatting. I've obliged. (It's now optional.) Tony (talk) 02:13, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:St Augustine's. Waimate. NZ.jpg says it depicts St. Patrick's Catholic Church. If so, why is it called Augustine's and why does it look totally different from the 1919 picture of St. Patrick's by F. G. Radcliffe in the collection of the Alexander Turnbull Library (Reference number: 1/2-006870-G)? DrKay (talk) 09:29, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

The church pictured is clearly St Augustine's, designed by Mountfort and pictured in "A Dream of Spires", p 191, although it has had additional structures added since the 1872 photo shown there. I think the description of it as St Patrick's is erroneous; that appears to be a different church, although I cannot find the image you refer to in ATL - they don't appear to make searching by ref no easy.-gadfium 10:10, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, should have provided a link. The correct source and author information should be added to Image:St Augustine's. Waimate. NZ.jpg and Image:Christchurch Cathedral (1).jpg. DrKay (talk) 08:45, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are referencing (1c) and LEAD (2a). Marskell (talk) 09:03, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

• Hold - I'm still sourcing this, though I've slacked off a bit recently. I think I can finish the entire article before too long. Nousernamesleft (talk) 22:36, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

  Just added a couple of inline cites. On another note, I believe the lead/lede is fine as is. WP:LEAD is a guideline, not an iron cast, and I think this lead does an admirable job of succinctly summarising the article. Nousernamesleft (talk) 02:54, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

• Hold — I agree with Nouser (said Polyphemus...). They have made signifigant improvements since my nomination for review, and while I don't believe it would as of yet survive FAR, I do think they will be able to bring it up to a level where it will if given more time. --Falcorian ^(talk) 23:24, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
• Note to Gadfium - The following paragraph:

This high-profile commission may seem surprising, bearing in mind Mountfort's history of design in New Zealand. However, the smaller buildings he and Luck had erected the previous year had impressed the city administrators and there was a dearth of available architects. The resultant acclaim of the building's architecture marked the beginning of Mountfort's successful career.

• is giving me no end of trouble. Is there anything in The Dream of Spires to source this? I'll simply move on for now, though. Nousernamesleft (talk) 01:46, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't see anything in DoS. I can give the "smaller buildings he constructed the previous year", but no information about why he was selected by the city administrators. I'll take a look at The Gothic Beauties and History of the Canterbury Provincial Buildings in the next day or two.-gadfium 06:56, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing in The Gothic Beauties either. I looked at the 3rd edition, 1950. It's a pamphlet of about 60 pages, with detailed descriptions of the architecture but only a brief overview of the history, and a few pages about Mountfort which takes an entirely uncritical approach to his life. I think it is unlikely that the 1st edition, which I don't have access to, would have contained material to support this paragraph.-gadfium 02:16, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I suppose we could simply remove the paragraph if nothing can be found, since it's not all that important, but I'd really rather not; it adds to the overall style of the article that's typical of Giano's writing. Nousernamesleft (talk) 23:19, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

• Remove - Per the initial comment by Falcorian (talk · contribs), the article still contains a significant amount of material lacking in-line citations, and therefore it is difficult to determine if there are portions of the article that may be wholly unsourced. In any event, it will be better for the project if the article were to go through WP:FAC at a later point in time - agree with Falcorian (talk · contribs) that it is apparent from this article that it was promoted when FA standards were lower. Cirt (talk) 17:14, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Wait, wait! - Active progress is being made on the article, as noted above. Would reviewers please hold off comments relating to the sourcing until the job is finished? Nousernamesleft (talk) 22:33, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Don't worry. We'll wait. Marskell (talk) 08:36, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
      • Striking out my comment pending further input from Nousernamesleft (talk · contribs) - however I still think that this article would have severe troubles in an attempt to pass through the WP:FAC process at current WP:FA standards, and most likely trouble at WP:GAC as well. It should not remain a WP:FA unless significant further work is done on the issues originally brought up by Falcorian (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 16:09, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
        • Thanks, Marskell. Cirt, I'm aware of that, thank you. Do you have any specific concerns other than the sourcing? Nousernamesleft (talk) 02:18, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
          • Not at the moment, nope - just the major sourcing issues for the most part, though will revisit after you've finished your active progress on the article. Cirt (talk) 02:59, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
• Just a note to update progress: Almost finished with fourth section; will start on penultimate section soon. Nousernamesleft (talk) 23:36, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
• Finished the fourth section, beginning the penultimate. Nousernamesleft (talk) 02:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• Very quick flyover, I see the WP:LEAD may need expansion, and there are spaced emdashes. I'll look more closely after the citation work is completed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:11, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Ah, thanks, hadn't noticed the spaced em dashes. All fixed now. As mentioned above, I think the lead is fine as is, but if most disagree with me, I'll rewrite it or add a second paragraph. Nousernamesleft (talk) 01:52, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Peeked in, saw WP:OVERLINKing (seriously, do we need to link adult, maybe we do on Wiki, never mind, rhetorical question), stopped right there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:28, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
      • Better now, I hope? Nousernamesleft (talk) 01:05, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
• I can't find much on the design on Canterbury College; could you help me out there, Gadfium? I'd assume it would be in one of the books. Nousernamesleft (talk) 02:38, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

  Dream of Spires discusses Canterbury College in detail - more than 10 pages are devoted to it. The discussion does not make any comparisons to the Château de Blois, or to Our Lady of Mercy in Birmingham. Oxford and Cambridge Universities are mentioned in passing, but not in a way that supports the current text in the article. There are a number of mentions of Pugin, but the gist is that Mountfort was developing his own style rather than adhering to elements that Pugin and others considered indispensable (in particular in relation to the pointed arch). I don't think I can help on this one.-gadfium 04:23, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

  • • • • I'll simply skip that for now, then. If nothing comes up by the time I finish sourcing the rest of the article, would you please simply replace the current text with a summary of the Dream of Spires information? Nousernamesleft (talk) 22:01, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Image:St Augustine's. Waimate. NZ.jpg, the lych gate was not added until in 1902, after Mountfort's death. The belltower was added in 1903. DrKay (talk) 09:08, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for adding the information. Nousernamesleft (talk) 01:45, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

• Gadfium kindly emailed OCR-converted scans of the pages in Dream of Spires relevant to Canterbury College to me, but I'm saving rewriting that bit to the end. I should start making faster progress on the "Provincial Architect" section now, though, because I've gotten past a rather difficult bit. Nousernamesleft (talk) 21:40, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

• Very nearly done; I only need to source the short last section and rewrite paragraphs about two of the buildings. Nousernamesleft (talk) 02:23, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

• Tentative Keep - Done with sourcing and other things. I may have missed things or been careless; please point anything like that out. Nousernamesleft (talk) 23:48, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
• Much better - Not sure this would fly through WP:FAC, but it is much better. I'll defer to consensus as far as what to do with the article itself, but excellent work so far as far as improving references. The WP:LEAD still appears a bit short, and I'm not a fan of using italics to highlight quotes. Cirt (talk) 01:54, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks. I expressed my opinion on the lead above. I changed the quote to a blockquote; I forgot about the MOS-quote thing. Nousernamesleft (talk) 02:03, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

• "List of buildings" needs citation cleanup. Pls review WP:MOS#Ellipses (spaces) and WP:MOS#Captions (punctuation). The citations use unlinked ISO dates; this may have changed recently, but I don't believe unlinked ISOs are used or preferred anywhere on Wiki. The way to make an unlinked date with the cite xxx templates is to use the parameters accessmonthday (or accessdaymonth) and accessyear separately. Inconsistent use of p. vs. p (no period) in citations. Choose one. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:16, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• I removed the ellipsis and cleaned up the image caption punctuation. Also converted all unlinked ISO dates in references to dmy format for consistency within the article, cleaned up page number formatting, and replaced some page range hyphens with dashes. Maralia (talk) 15:21, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks, Sandy and Maralia! Nousernamesleft (talk) 20:42, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• Oh, about "List of buildings" - They're not citations (I hardly think a list of buildings an architect designed needs to be cited); they're links to photos. Giano added them originally, I think, and I just reformatted them. Nousernamesleft (talk) 23:03, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• Keep featured now that inline referencing is complete. I don't believe the lede needs to be expanded.-gadfium 19:56, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

My Review

As the person who brought the article to FAR, here are my thoughts on Nouser's fixes:

1. Sourcing looks much better, this was my primary concern can I believe it has been properly dealt with. A few that might be needed though are:

• "Mountfort's skill as an architect lay in adapting these flamboyant styles to suit the limited materials available in New Zealand."

Cited. Nousernamesleft (talk) 02:28, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Great. --Falcorian ^(talk) 03:10, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

• Legacy looks like a few more cites are in order.

For example, for this "Christchurch and its surrounding areas are unique in New Zealand for their particular style of Gothic architecture, something that can be directly attributed to Benjamin Mountfort."

That whole passage is cited to the ref following it. You can see proof that it cites this particular passage here in case you're doubtful. Nousernamesleft (talk) 02:28, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm partial to put references at the end of sentences instead of paragraphs, even if that means repeating a few (dozen) times. ;) However, that's not a standard convention so yours if fine. --Falcorian ^(talk) 03:10, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

1. Prose seems like it could use a little work, for example:

• "This was an enormous blow to his reputation;" and "Whatever the cause, the result was a crushing blow to his reputation." within a paragraph of each other, and referring to the same event. Seems like needless duplication.

In fact, I think the "This was an..." sentence should probably be split and expanded. Something like: "Due to his previous failures in architecture, Mountfort looked for work in other professions. He worked as a etc. etc."

Changed to something similar to your suggestion. Nousernamesleft (talk) 02:28, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Great. --Falcorian ^(talk) 03:10, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

• "He was instrumental in shaping the city of Christchurch." in the lead. While proper English and all that, does seem like it's lacking something. Maybe "He was instrumental in shaping..." maybe something like "physical layout of" or "architectural style of".

• Well, it's not just that; he was instrumental in shaping the identity of the city. That's a terrible explanation; I'm sorry, but I don't know how else to put it. The sentence is correct as it is, I believe. Nousernamesleft (talk) 02:28, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it could still use some clarification. "Shaping the city" isn't really clear (although certainly correct linguistically). I guess what I'm saying is it makes me ask "How did he shape it? In what manner?", and while this is explained in the article, in the lead I think a summary should be provided. --Falcorian ^(talk) 03:10, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I added a word of explanation. Nousernamesleft (talk) 22:56, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

• "In 1850 New Zealand was a new country." What is meant by "new country", newly discovered, newly incorporated, something else? Maybe a few more words to clarify.

• I'm not sure what you mean - the political state/entity known as "New Zealand" had just been officially created; I'm not sure how it could be interpreted otherwise. Nousernamesleft (talk) 02:28, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

"In 1850 New Zealand was a new country. The British government actively encouraged emigration to the colonies, and Mountfort arrived in Canterbury full of ambition and drive to begin designing in the new colony." I guess I'm saying I think it would read better as something like: "Mountfort arrived in Canterbury in 1850 as one of a wave of settlers encouraged to immigrate to the new state by the British Government".

Changed. Nousernamesleft (talk) 19:18, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, not yet it looks like, I'll just assume I checked too soon. ;) I'll look back later. --Falcorian ^(talk) 19:44, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Oops, I clicked on "save", then left to do something - not noticing the session-expired notice. Heh. Nousernamesleft (talk) 22:15, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

• "Christchurch, which was given city status in July 1856 and was the administrative capital of the province of Canterbury, was heavily developed during this period. The rapid development in the new city created a large scope for Mountfort and his new partner." I think this could use some rewording. Also the "...during this period" is unclear as to exactly what period. I think it should go something like: "Christchurch was under heavy development at the time as it had just been granted city status and was the new administrative capital of the province of Canterbury. This provided Mountford (scope, opportunity, etc.)..." Although I'm not sure scope is the best word, something more descriptive would be good.

• Reworded, using most of your idea. Nousernamesleft (talk) 02:28, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Great. --Falcorian ^(talk) 03:10, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

• The paragraph starting with "Carpenter was,..." and ending with "...a breed to be despised." might be wandering a little off topic. While I agree the movement needs to be discussed, the parts about "Such theory was not confined to architects..." and Ezra Pound seem to be misplaced in this article. But I'll let others weight in, maybe I'm crazy. ;)

• Hm, I like the cultural references, actually, and as this is a fairly short article, I think it can accommodate it. Nousernamesleft (talk) 02:28, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think it's an style opinion issue, so I don't think it's really relevant to FAR on second thought. --Falcorian ^(talk) 03:10, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

• "He also designed the font,..." This is my ignorance in ecclesiastical architecture showing, but is font... font? If so, maybe a link for people like me, and an expansion as to were it is used.

• Font in this context means baptismal font (here's a lovely photo of the particular font discussed in the article); I linked it.

Now I know! --Falcorian ^(talk) 03:10, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

• The section Provincial Architect seems like it needs subsections. Some paragraphs have two topics (the cathedral and Canterbury Association of Architects and other architecture has all be slammed into one) and the section is a little unclear as to what the theme is. I think some breaking it up with headings and maybe some reordering could help.

• The scope is, I think, Mountfort's career while at the post of Provincial Architect, which is essentially the entire latter part of his career; the title is fine. I rearranged a few paragraphs, though I can't find any places where subheadings would be useful or correct. Nousernamesleft (talk) 02:28, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

The rearranging looks fine for my tastes. --Falcorian ^(talk) 03:10, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

• Not sure how correct it is to write a comment like "Evaluating Mountfort's works today, one has to avoid judging them against a background of similar designs in Europe." in the article.

• I think sourced critical commentary on critical commentary can be justified if it's backed up by facts. It also adds a certain aesthetic element to the prose. Nousernamesleft (talk) 02:28, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

"Sourced critical commentary on critical commentary"? I'm not really sure what you mean. Do you mean that's from the same source as the last sentence is cited from (that is, it's another paragraph vs. sentence sourcing thing)? --Falcorian ^(talk) 03:10, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Yup. Nousernamesleft (talk) 19:18, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Alright, I have no problem then. --Falcorian ^(talk) 19:44, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll leave issues of Lead, and formating, and nit picking like that to others. --Falcorian ^(talk) 22:03, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. Nousernamesleft (talk) 02:28, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I think all points have been addressed. Nousernamesleft (talk) 22:56, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes sir. Very well done if I may say so, you've really impressed me with your willingness to do the dirty work (finding sources) for this. I don't have enough experience to say whether the article now lives up to the criteria as established by the community, but it lives up to my standards. Best of luck! --Falcorian ^(talk) 23:01, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much, but three people have voiced their opinion so far, one (Sandy) hasn't voiced an opinion, and two (you and Cirt) have decided to defer to the community/consensus. If everyone defers to consensus, then there's no consensus to defer to! Nousernamesleft (talk) 23:31, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Well unfortunately, this is only my second dealing with FA (of anysort, FAR or otherwise) at all, my first was another article that had no sources, and no one ever improved when brought to FAR. :-/ --Falcorian ^(talk) 23:34, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

• Message to all: Input would be welcome... maybe... please? Nousernamesleft (talk) 00:39, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I think you should actually source the list of buildings and properly format what links are there. Had been meaning to drop by and tell you. Marskell (talk) 09:45, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree. It could be extended as well. There's a list of his buildings as an appendix to A Dream of Spires, unfortunately I had to return it to the library. I'll get it out again later today unless someone knows of an authoritative online list.-gadfium 19:41, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the help, gadfium. I reformatted the links, removing most of them - the ones that weren't photos. Nousernamesleft (talk) 20:42, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I can't find anything online. There's this but it actually lists fewer buildings than our article does. Searches seem to point back to the Spires book. Marskell (talk) 13:10, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Dream of Spires lists about 120 buildings he constructed or significantly altered. I'm not competent to decide which of these are the most significant. Shall I add them all, and perhaps others can then prune the list, or shall I forward the list to Nousernamesleft?-gadfium 19:57, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I've emailed the list to Nousernamesleft.-gadfium 23:48, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I responded, asking whether it's necessary to include all the buildings, or just a select list of important ones. Nousernamesleft (talk) 01:12, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I've simply changed the name of the section to "Selected buildings." If we want a full list, I'd suggest a seperate article. Nouser, if you are comfortable this list is representative, source it to the full list in Spires and I'll close the review. Marskell (talk) 10:03, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Done. Nousernamesleft (talk) 14:01, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

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 User:Marskell 16:42, 25 September 2008 [6].

---

Scotland national football team

Review commentary

Notified: Kanaye, HisSpaceResearch, user: The Rambling Man, Matt Lewis, Matt Lunker, WP Scotland, WP Football and article talk page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Domiy (talk • contribs) 05:37, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

After seeing this article as a Featured Article for the past few months, I can't help but to get a few things out of my mind. Some language and layout issues are at hand here, ones which I think have been generously ignored somehow. As much of a secondary fan of Scotland as I am, I must point out some of these things. There are numerous cases of POV, grammar and others! Its a shock seeing this as a Featured Article after thoroughly reading it. This also further arouses the possibility that it obviously hasn't been stable, a clear FA criteria!

• "with Archie Gemmill scoring a famous goal.". Dead straight POV from my experience. It may be brilliant, it may be well known and one of the best in the history of the sport (hypothetically), but famous is a clear POV issue. I've seen numerous articles that have been bashed to death over POV, and coincidentally enough it has been predominantly for the word 'famous'.

• The same goes for "Gemmill's yer mawfamous goal". I tried to find a definition of 'mawfamous' and had absolutely no luck. Again, strangely enough, when I typed it into google the only link that came up was the Scotland national football team, with a quote from that caption being shown in the preview. Its potential to say then that this is one of the only articles/pieces of writings on the entire internet that contains the word 'mawfamous'. On top of POV, its not even a word. Don't even get me started on 'yer'. ENGLISH PEOPLE, USE ENGLISH!

• Possible POV is also evident in "Scotland's fiercest rivals". While there may not be as much strictness on this (as it is somewhat true), the word 'fiercest' is still a blatant issue of POV. Also, the way it is worded sounds like Scotland have numerous rivals in football. A more appropriate wording would be something like "England are Scotland's traditional rivals" or something similar.

• "The encounters against England were particularly fierce and a fierce rivalry quickly developed." Again, not only POV but somewhat badly worded. The same word is used twice almost right after the first one. Trying to read it makes it sound confusing and again, a clear utterance of constant POV. You may be able to get away with some light POV words in some extreme cases, but using a potential POV within the same statement is pushing it further.

• "and were thrashed 7–0 by Uruguay" I've seen this pointed out like a firework in the sky numerous times before as well. Thrashed is not really predominant wording, although I must admit it does describe the context of the defeat well in this situation, it still can be challenged as non encyclopedic wording!

• "daunting encounter" can also be challenged on grounds of POV. Difficult, tense, tensional would be good to use, but daunting?

• "This joke ultimately led to the conception of the Unofficial Football World Championships". Joke is also somewhat not appropriate for an encyclopedia. Joke can mean many things, and it doesnt really strongly fit into the category of fans claiming a team to be unofficial champions. Better words are more appropriate for this statement methinks. Replace joke with anything else.

• "...beating England 2-1 at Wembley Stadium.[11] after the match Scotland fans infamously invaded the pitch, ripping up the turf and breaking a crossbar.[20]" You forgot a capital letter at the end of the sentence! It should be 'After'.

• Again, while such may sound suitable sometimes, I have seen a lot of articles being teared up for POV, again predominantly with the description of "... continued to play impressively". Come to think of it, thats clear POV to me.

• "They beat New Zealand 5–2, drawing with the USSR 2–2 and losing 4–1 to a magical Brazilian team which included Socrates , Zico , Eder and Falcao.[29]".

Are you serious? I dont know if this was in here when this article was promoted, but it surely wont pass now or maybe even ever! First of all, on the smaller of issues, it should be written in consistent prose. If they beat New Zealand, they wouldnt 'beating' or 'drawing' against USSR, they would 'draw' to USSR. So basically, It should read - "They beat New Zealand 5–2, drew with the USSR 2–2 and lost 4–1...".

Furthermore, a magical Brazilian side? Thats Clear POV without excuse! Brazil may be good, and their team may have been world beaters, but stating that they were a magical side in an encyclopedia is insane! If in any case it was accepted, I dont know how it got by the fact that there is an unnecessary space after each comma. It, should, be, listed, like, this -- not , like , this!

• "Scotland qualified for their fifth consecutive World Cup in 1990 by finishing second in their qualifying group, beating out France, but the results in the Finals in Italy were poor. Drawn in a group with Costa Rica, Sweden, and Brazil, the Scots inexplicably lost 1–0 to Costa Rica in a major upset. While they recovered to beat Sweden 2–1 in their second game, they lost to Brazil in their third match 1–0 and once again Scotland was out in the first round.". Not even a single reference within an entire paragraph explaining an entire tournament! Provide references to this stanza! You cannot explain the process of an entire tournament without a single reference!

• "Scotland made their UEFA European Championship debut at the 1992 European Championship.[32] Scotland qualified for the tournament by a narrow margin." Confusing prose. Using Scotland right after the first use is confusing, clear breach of the prose criteria. It can easily be written as '...made their UEFA European Championship debut at the 1992 European Championship, qualifying for the tournament by a narrow margin.[32]

• "Scotland failed to qualify for the FIFA World Cup in 1994 which was played in the United States finishing fourth in their qualifying group behind Italy, Switzerland, and Portugal with a record of 4 wins, 3 draws and 3 losses. This prompted the resignation of Andy Roxburgh, who had managed the team since 1986." REFERENCES! WHERE ARE THE REFERENCES!

• "The Scottish team have become famous for their travelling support". Considering its a statement based on the fans, this is a clear POV breach. Can just as easily use 'renowned' to make it sound more pro etc. Domiy (talk) 08:44, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Please follow the instructions at WP:FAR to complete the notifications and post them back to here; as a sample, see Wikipedia:Featured article review/Bank of China (Hong Kong). Also, Jmorrison230582, your interruptions of the FAR declaration make it hard to read; refactoring might help. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:47, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I think this article needs semi-protection because it will always attract low-level vandalism, either good natured by Scotland fans or sometimes by England fans. I have rewritten both the intro and the section to state that it Archie Gemmill's goal is one of the best goals scored in the World Cup, for which there is several reliable sources in support. In relation to "yermaw", that was one of two edits last night that look like vandalism which have been reverted. I have rewritten the sentence re "traditional rivals" as you suggested. I have also rewritten two sentences re the 1977 match. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 18:49, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Image comments

The Image:Archie gemill1978.jpgdoes not have any FU rationale and I feel it fails WP:NFCC#8

The copyrighted Image:SFAShirtLogo.svg is used represent the team in preference to the free Image:Flag of Scotland.svg, as is used by FIFA and UEFA to represent the team, I am unconvinced that this use meets WP:NFCC#1 Fasach Nua (talk) 09:51, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

comment The infobox lists World and Euro Cup, surely for a team like Scotland the BHC would be of more improtance, it was the primary copmpetition for 70 years, and the other competitions have only been of interest for 60, this seems like recentism Fasach Nua (talk) 10:27, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments in reply to Fasach Nua: I have added a rationale to the Archie Gemmill goal and limited it to only his page. I think it passes point 8 for his article because it is by far the most significant moment in his career. In relation to the logo, this is consistent with all other national team articles. A flag of a nation doesn't necessarily represent the national team - indeed, in the context of Scotland, you could get some people arguing that the Union Flag is the primary flag of Scotland and should be used instead. For example, Flower of Scotland was only adopted as the team's official anthem in the 1990s. In relation to the point about the BHC, the infobox template limits the information to the world cup and the regional tournament (in this case the Euros). I don't think it is just recentism to suggest that the World and Euro tournaments are more important either, because the three tournaments ran concurrently for over 30 years and the BHC died because it didn't hold as much interest as the other tournaments. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 10:41, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

The flag of Scotland is good enough for FIFA & UEFA and is an official emblem of the team, unlike the Union Flag, the issue is why is it good enough for FIFA/UEFA to represent the team but not good enough for Wikipedia, I sympathise with you over other soccer articles having logos, but WP:WAX really isnt a good argument for an FA. Fasach Nua (talk) 10:48, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I can see what you are saying there. Television broadcasts normally use a flag to represent a team in score captions rather than the logo of the national association (or federation). I also think, however, that there are weaknesses in using national flags. Some players who have very tenuous connections with a nation end up playing for that national football team (eg Tony Cascarino). The logo does more directly represent the team concerned. The Scotland team is selected, organised and operated by employees of the Scottish Football Association, not the Scottish Government or some other public body, and the same is true of every other national team. FIFA regularly take strong measures against Governments that interfere in the operations of national teams. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 11:20, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

The flag is not just used by the Scottish government to represent Scotland, but also by FIFA and UEFA to represent the Scottish football team. If it is acceptable for FIFA and UEfA, why is it unacceptable here? Fasach Nua (talk) 12:08, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment to Fasach Nua We've been over this. This isnt why I nominated this article for review. Clearly, you have been proved wrong and diminished over this more times than anyone keeps count. Images of the flag are not sufficient in relation to the national sporting teams of that country. I'm not going to go on about this, I'm sure you've heard it all before. They are all relevant arguments. Not so much that it is OK to use copyrighted images, but clearly there is no other alternative that can symbolize the same information as the logos do. Take a look at the non-free content review page where you mentioned this, that should solve all your inquiries. You can't just go around WP stating things that have already been proved incapable and incorrect. Let the logo's go, once again, they are the only thing that symbolize the national football team. There are more important issues at hand here, this is one we can cross of the list. Domiy (talk) 11:24, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Support Featured article removal candidacy due to inappropriate use of images (criteria 3), I had hoped someone would try and justify why the standards of WP are different than either of those used by FIFA or UEFA, but alas not Fasach Nua (talk) 12:01, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Just because you didn't have it in mind does not mean that it is not worth discussing. I particularly would like to thank Fasach Nua for bringing this up. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:00, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh dont get the wrong idea. The majority of things are definately worth discussing. Thats why Fasach Nua has had so many discussions about replacing the logo's with national flags. He has raised discussions about it numerous times, and myself and others have been happy to expand on it. Please try to understand that a verdict has already been reached on this. The discussions have resulted in numerous debates which have ended badly for Fasach Nua. The larger poertion of Wikipedians clearly voiced the fact that national flags are not acceptable and shouldnt be used. Its almost considered an offense to bring up a discussion that has already been proven wrong. This logo issue has had discussions on so many pages its not even funny anymore. And any replies that Fasach Nua receives are clearly a waste of time as he doesnt even bother reading them. Tell me now that this is still worth a discussion Ottava Rima! Domiy (talk) 03:19, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Consensus changes, and its never a bad thing to always discuss. Don't think of a complaint as over, or a decision set in stone. At an FAR, nothing is a waste of time, unless it is just back and forth complaining about important points that would help people figure out how to make this page an FA again. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:35, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Further comments on the article:

• "Scotland have qualified for several major tournaments, but have never progressed beyond the first stage of a tournament." Again, using the same word twice so often is difficult to read and sounds too constant. I suggest ending this sentence at 'stage' or you could even replace tournament with 'such'.

• "The team have achieved some famous results". Again, 'famous' is POV in this context. Sometimes even stating notable or memorable is considered downright POV, but personally I dont think so. I wouldnt mind seeing 'notable' instead of famous.

• "again.[37]." - Unnecessary full stop after the reference number.

• "Some matches, particularly friendly games, are occasionally played at a venue belonging to a Scottish Premier League team." Mentioning such a subject and then not proving further detail is diminishing. Which team is it? Don't neglect some clear facts, especially if you have already mentioned them! Might as well expand on it and finish of the statement, a lot of users would want to know which venue it is and which team it is used by!

And my initial points still stand until further fixed up! Domiy (talk) 11:24, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I believe I have rewritten the article to address your concerns. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 14:39, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I was the nominator when this article passed FAC (good job I'm active in the Football WikiProject and saw the message there, as I was not notified of this FAR). I've barely looked at it since, but it does get a fair amount of drive-by editing. I'd imagine many of the points raised can be resolved by restoring parts of the promoted version. Oldelpaso (talk) 16:30, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
  • 1. (numbers refer to Domiy's bullet points above) In the body the text referring to the goal is reference in a manner which would justify using "famous" as a summary (summary, after all, is the purpose of the lead). Unless things have changed since I last visited FAC, references from the body do not need to be referenced a second time when the information appears in the lead.
  • 3. The reference used for this in the body is entitled "A history of fierce football rivalry"...
  • 4. Sentence from promoted version restored.
  • 6. "Tense" has a completely different meaning to "daunting", and would be unsuitable as a replacement. I'd disagree about it being POV. The context makes it clear that the opponents had just become world champions. Facing the world champions can cause the courage of a team to be affected. I could put "potentially daunting" I suppose.
  • 7. It was originally said in a joking manner. It was not until years later that the "Unofficial Football World Championship" used it as their inspiration.
  • 9. Reworded.
  • Most others fixed by Jmorrison. In almost all cases, the issues were not present in the promoted version, it is drive-by editing which has caused them.
  • Fasach Nua's objection over football association logos has been raised at several different venues in the past, without gaining much support (Wikipedia:Fair use review#These Logos is one example). The football association badge is the primary form of self-identification used by the team, being the emblem borne on their shirts etc. Thus provided WP:LOGO is being followed, I see no problem. Oldelpaso (talk) 17:43, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

The use of the logos is still subject to WP:NFCC in addition to the logo guidelines. NFCC#1 states "...if one of acceptable quality is available; "acceptable quality" means a quality sufficient to serve the encyclopedic purpose", WP:NFCC#8 states "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic.". The issue is why is what is acceptable for organisations like FIFA and UEFA unacceptable for an organisation like Wikipedia, and how much does the use of this logo increase the readers understanding of the concept of a national football team. I have raised the issue at WP:FUR and with little support from editors, but no-one has justified the use of logos in these articles in terms of policy, but meerly attempted to shout down the topic on because they didnt like the idea of it and wouldn't tolerate a discussion. In my opinion the primary means of identification is the highly visible flag flown at every match as demanded by FIFA, and the blue shirts worn for a century, not some 10cmx10cm piece of embroidery that is hardly visible from a distance, Italy are called the "Azuri", not the red white and blues, Northern Ireland are "the green and white army", not the gold cross, The Republic of Ireland are "the boys in green" not the tricolours, France are called "Les Bleus", ,not the chickens, Belgium are the "Diables Rouges" not the belgian flags, Spain are called the "La Furia Roja", not the bulls, The netherlands are "Oranje" not the lions, it is clear from the fans point of view that the colour of the kit seems to be the primary means of identification, not whatever the current incarnation of the badgge is. Fasach Nua (talk) 19:30, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

England are called the Three Lions though. And in some of the cases you mention the flag doesn't represent any better than the logo, most obviously with Italy - green, white & red tricolour, but called the Blues (Azzurri). Jmorrison230582 (talk) 19:50, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Indeed England and Wales are the two exceptions, but the badge is definietly the minority view as the primary means of identification. As for "the flag doesn't represent any better than the logo", given the choice of two equal options, I would choose the free alternative per WP:NFCC#1 Fasach Nua (talk) 19:55, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

The likely outcome here is that we will agree to disagree. Nicknames are just that, not the primary means of identification. The nickname "Tartan Army" refers to the fans more than the team. The Scotland team use the FA crest to identify themselves, just look at their website, or try the Google Images test. Of course there's always the fact that if removed from the infobox, the crest could quite justifiably pop up again when it is discussed in the section about the colours and crest. Oldelpaso (talk) 21:02, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Final comments

The article looks and sounds MUCH better now. Please note that even though reliable news stories may call something 'famous', its still no excuse to use it in an encyclopedia. Reliable sources gain attention for their creative, if not biased language, all the time. Its how they earn recognition. A lot of reliable sites will call a goal or a team famous, but it is still POV even with references. You should search for alternatives as much as possible, although it's not much of a problem now as I see such has already been done. 'Famous' is only in there a couple of times on my estimated count, thats good to know. Please note that it can give away POV so you should be wary of it.

Other than that, I like the way it is written now. Well done. If possible however, I would change one last thing. In the final paragraph of the lead section, you start the sentence and paragraph with 'England'. This can give away the wrong idea, most sentences, especially in the lead, should restrain from subjecting another article. I would start the sentence with 'Scotland' first and then go from there to stating the rivalry. This would be much better and appropriate.

If that's done, then I will have no more objections. Please also note that FA criteria requires the article to be stable. I've seen a lot of things being changed and added even before this review was bought up. If your worried about vandalism, then I suggest you request protection for some time. Otherwise, there are many bots you can use to restore previous versions in case of vandalism. Well done again btw, hope the Croatian team makes it to FA soon :) Domiy (talk) 23:31, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

• Not yet. Some citations are not fully formatted, missing publishers or accessdates. There's still a citation needed tag. There are problems with WP:MOSDATE#Precise language, example: "The following players have been selected to play for Scotland in the last calendar year."
• Further, the review should not be closed until image issues are addressed. This statement to Fasach Nua:

• Clearly, you have been proved wrong and diminished over this more times than anyone keeps count.

• is neither correct, helpful, nor civil. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:18, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough about some image issues which were raised, they have been resolved now. The picture of Archie Gemmill has been replaced as have some other issues been fixed. Fasach Nua comments may sound uncivil but you have no idea how unfair he has been in some reviews. He has clearly been proven wrong by numerous users who disagree fully with this logo argument!. Domiy (talk) 05:26, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

He has also been proven right and backed up by other image reviewers many times; the uncivil commentary directed at one reviewer should stop. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:06, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

He has NOT been proven right. I admit that some small amount of people did agree with his argument, but the larger portion of users clearly went against it based on the countless arguments that national flags of the country are not sufficient to represent the national sporting team of a country. Look at the provided links and you will see how, as per some Wikipedia rights and responsibilites etc, it is innapropriate to use the flags. Domiy (talk) 04:20, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Domiy, I believe your comment may be viewed as disrespectful. Please try to understand that. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:00, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Also note Fasach Nua that FIFA and UEFA very rarely use national flags to represent the football teams. This is commonly only seen on foreign broadcasting channels which have little to do with FIFA or UEFA. But the official programs of the governing football bodies will most times just use the abbreviations such as 'CRO', 'SCO', 'ITA', 'SER', 'GER' and etc. Also, the official websites represent the nations with the logo's as well, so I would think more thoroughly on the situation before you go around proclaiming that "the national flags are good enough for FIFA and UEFA". Domiy (talk) 04:20, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

"rarely" is a very subjective term, it is a FIFA regulation that any international soccer international that it recognises must have the flags of the nations involved flown from the stadium. In my opinion every international is not rare. I had not made any such proclomation as you have stated, but meerly echoed the position of FIFA. Fasach Nua (talk) 10:13, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Fasach Nua - you could have easily bought this up initially when you argue this logo point. Your main problem is that you are not being specific enough. First of all, provide a link to the FIFA regulation which ensures that national flags are displayed from the stadium. Without a source, your very weak argument is even weaker (believe it or not). Secondly, this isn't even a sufficient reason. Every sport has a similar rule. Its all about national distinction. The flags above the stadium are never seen and they are merely a case to recognise the national stadium which the team plays at. This regulation (if it even exists) most likely aroused from the times of soome sanctioned national teams playing seperately when they were still a part of another state (like Croatia's case with Yugoslavia). lThis has nothing to do with national flags vs logos. The bottom line is that FIFA and UEFA formally recognise and represent national teams with their respective logos. If national flags were "good enough for FIFA and UEFA" then why did they even create the logos in the first place huh? Its blatantly obvious for so many more reasons that national flags are simply not a good enough replacement, again based on the fact that national logos were created for a reason!!! Domiy (talk) 05:11, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The regulation is at [7] article 22 & 33, I'm sure there is a better reference, but I dont have time to look for it. I dont know why they created logos, I think two of the first four nations to play association football, Ireland & Wales didnt have flags at the time, indeed 120 years ago the union flag was used for soccer internationals. Fasach Nua (talk) 07:55, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

120 years ago? EXACTLY! FIFA and UEFA weren't in existence 120 years ago, so this has nothing to do with them. You yourself have just said that you do not know why the logos were created, clearly proving you haven't sufficient knowledge on the topic/issue and the denominations within it to prolong or even discuss such an argument at this level and rate. I'll tell you why logos were created. They were created to formally represent the national teams of the sport. At any FIFA or UEFA press conference, the national associations or teams themselves will be represented formally with the logos. If the national flags were "good enough for them" then they would also make it easier for everyone else and simply just use the nations flag instead. However, the flags are clearly not good enough for them as they continue to use the logo instead. Wikipedia aims to deliver a thorough encyclopedia with as much realistic and similar information as possible. Using the national flags would be blatantly a violation of such Wikipedia objectives. Also, I'm sure Wikipedia has personal regulations which ensure the articles do not diminish the people or subjects. Believe it or not, some players wouldn't want to be represented by a flag. There have been many cases where players have said they are happy to play for a national team for different reasons rather than them being from that nation themselves. For example, a lot of players in the Croatian team are from Bosnia or Germany. They may still want to be considered Bosnians or Germans but maintain performances in Croatia's national team because it is easier/more aspiring etc. This is especially specific in a case that some Serbian players have played for Croatia and vice-versa. Representing a national team with their nation's flag is not specific enough and can clearly cause personal issues which goes against Wikipedia's common objectives! Domiy (talk) 09:27, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Teams are represented by many things anthems, shirts, logos, and flags. The issue is, "is the use of the FIFA sanctioned emblem for a team sufficient for encylopedic purposes per WP:NFCC?", and I think it is.

I was unaware that wikpedia had aims beyond that of supporting the aims of the wikimedia foundation, to which the use of non-free content is the antithesis. If there is is any suplimentry material that this is in conflict with, then perhaps you could post a link to it, however, I see no issues surrounding "personal regulations", indeed flags are used quite widely on soccer articles, to indicate match scores and club articles nationality. Fasach Nua (talk) 09:53, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Listen to your terminology. Yes, national flags are used in soccer articles such as news stories. I have no doubt that you have formed the basis of this image and logo argument simply by watching too much TV as the expression goes. Of course, its not exactly TV that you have gotten too much of, its the simple media tendency. Yes, some statistic and other minor information sites do use national flags because it is simply easier. But on a formal encyclopedia like WP, we must go by the actual standards of displaying information in a specific manner. You yourself opposed the Croatia national football team FA for a second time on the grounds of 'too confusing' because of your other bizarre argument. I knew you were solely just being deliberately annoying, but that oppose comment has come back to bite you now. You said that you thought the article was too confusing as there was no reference to the former national teams being the same as the current national teams. OK, lets call that confusion. What should we then call representing an article subject with a different image which is only concisely related? By this of course I mean using the national flag to represent the national football team. People will look at the lead/main image and immediately arouse confusion - Where did all the logos go? I thought national teams were represented with logos! What does this flag have to do with the national sporting team? Am I on the right article? Why are they representing Croatia's football team with Croatia's national flag? are all questions that can and most likely will arouse. So I'm sorry Fasach Nua, since you were able to oppose something on the grounds of confusion, then so am I. Hence, I am opposing your argument on logo removal due to the obvious confusion it will cause. After all, in specific terms of WP, national flags actually have very little to do with national football teams. They are run by a different association (the nation is run by a government or president, whereas the national teams are run by FIFA and UEFA). On top of that, they are not the nation themselves but rather the team representing that nation in a sport. As per Wikipedia:BLP, personal issues are clearly present. If logos were created to represent national associations of the sport, then it is still very sufficient to use them on the national team page. As I said, flags are used to represent a nation that abides by the law of that country. For example, the flag of Croatia represents the nation of Croatia as the nation of Croatia abides and it governed by Croatian laws. Therefore it is sufficient that the football team of Croatia is governed by the laws and organization of the Croatian football federation, hence the display of logos. I'd hate to say this, but it seems that every argument you bring forward is just as easily shut down as the next one. I think you should build a bridge and get over this issue which is clearly wrong. Domiy (talk) 10:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

When I say articles, I mean Wikipedia article, flags are used here, and I don’t see how this is a violation of Wikipedia:BLP. As for your argument about the flag being that of the state, it is true of most teams use the same flag as the state, however if you consider Northern Ireland, the flag used by the team, it is not the flag of the state, so the national FAs are free to choose the flag themselves, and don’t have to use that of the state, it is simply the flag most FAs choose to use. Fasach Nua (talk) 18:22, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

From an outsider's point of view, I fully understand that we should use free content whenever possible. If using a flag is a better option, then that's what should be done. A logo is not worth losing a featured article over. At the same time, I think it's ironic that Manchester United is being used as an example when that page has three non-free logos on it. Giants2008 (17-14) 01:33, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Thats what I noticed immediately! Its another thing to note about you Fasach Nua. You seem to only arouse this logo argument on pages that you solely choose...and it seems to be ones you have personal issues with. Other than that, please note that club articles differ significantly from national team articles. The whole presentation of the page is different, and relevancy of information is greatly impacted. Lets stick to national team pages. You say you dont think that it violates BLP? I just gave you a perfect example which you may not have really gotten. Croatia and Serbia used to be a part of Yugoslavia. They fought a difficult war which is still remembered today. Without getting too much into history, the two nations have their differences at the very least. However, some players have played for the opposite national team. It comes down to a variety of factors in the end. So a Croatian player may play for Serbia for whatever footballing reason, but rest assured he would still want to be called Croatian. Likewise, Eduardo da silva was born in Brazil but plays for Croatia. I'm sure he still likes to be considered a Brazilian, he just plays for Croatia because he spent his teen years there. It keeps going, I can pull examples from all over the globe. It stands heavily that it violates BLP. Some players take this very seriously when it comes to nationalities. Using flags is just asking for more personal issues on what is supposed to be a non-biased and accurate encyclopedia! Assuming every player is Croatian and would want to be called Croatian is clearly a biased action. Same goes for all other national teams. Domiy (talk) 03:57, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Prose Comments:

I've noticed that the paragraph in the lead section still starts with 'England'. This is a really bad idea, it even confuses me sometimes no matter how many times I read it. A lead section paragraph starting with a different national team subject is VERY BAD! Start this paragraph differently! Domiy (talk) 05:26, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Oppose removal, Support keeping this aricle! My issues have been fixed up now, and I would hate to be responible for an actually worthy article to be removed from FA because of some other unfair and NA arguments! I would just quickly reccomend filling in the citation tag required and fixing up the references very quickly. Other than that, I personally see no other issues. (how does it feel to see that an article is being treated in a 'possibly invisible' biased manner now? Taste of your own medicine is good for you.) Domiy (talk) 04:20, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment - I formatted the references myself. There are actually two cite tags, including one for their nickname in the infobox. Giants2008 (17-14) 21:27, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Struck citation formatting, it looks good. I still see some WP:MOSDATE#Precise language needs; perhaps another runthrough to check that all statements avoid words like "Current" and state timeframes or dates. For example, I saw something about a record holder ... as of when? Also, image licensing still needs sorting; we may need to ask other image people to look in here since the civility issues persist. And the remaining citation needed tags. Also, I'm not sure that blockquote is done correctly; pls review WP:MOS on that (I think we're supposed to avoid pull quotes). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:35, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I've had a run through checking for "currently"s and the like. For the record-holders, the closest currently active players are so far behind the records that there is little danger of the information becoming outdated in the next few years. More image people taking a look would be useful. I don't regard it as an issue (per my comment above), but I'd like to get a range of opinions (preferably without an overbearing adversarial tone). Oldelpaso (talk) 16:56, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I've just noticed that guidelines at WP:NONFREE explicitly cite team and corporate logos as acceptable use. Oldelpaso (talk) 13:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

A guideline is just that, a guideline, the underlying policy is what is important. Most team logos do not have a free alternative to represent them, this would apply to nearly all subnational sports teams, which would constitue ~99% of the teams wikipedia has articles for. However unlike subnational teams, national teams do have alternative free emblems! Fasach Nua (talk) 13:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The logo is principally that of the FA not the team. Interestinly in most sports teams articles the organisation and team are treated as one entity, however national FAs have a responsibility beyond running a national team, and it is difficult to treat the two in one article. Fasach Nua (talk) 15:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

national FAs have a responsibility beyond running a national team Such as? I presume you mean countries where the FA also runs the league. This does not apply in Scotland. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 15:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Further to my comment above, the Scottish Football Association has a logo which is specific to the team, which is different from the logo of the organisation itself. Therefore it is clear that the logo shown on the article specifically represents the Scotland national football team and nothing else. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 18:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Clearly I don't see the difference between this article and the Croatia national football team. Rightfully, if the latter article has failed 3 times now, this one should also rightfully have failed or be removed right now due to the fact that it has similar or even worse issues than Croatia. It uses similar references and was using a clearly copyrighted image. Really, until these two articles are at the same rating level, I won't stop thinking that WP or in particular this review project is largely based on preference which leads to biased comments. Domiy (talk) 10:57, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are prose (1a), layout (2), POV (1d), and images (3). Marskell (talk) 10:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Summary of the image issue (criteria 3)

The Scotland team can be represented in a number of ways including, blue shirts, Saltire, and corporate logo. The logo is copyrighted, however it is the primary symbol used by Scottish FA to represent the team and it is the one symbol which has an exclusivity of relationship with the team, although it also used for the womens’ and U21 squads. The Saltire is a generic symbol of Scotland, but is the primary symbol used by FIFA and UEFA to identify the team, and is freely licensed.

The requirement of the WP:NFCC is to use a free image that is "acceptable for encyclopaedic purposes" in preference to copyrighted image, if possible. Fasach Nua (talk) 15:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

FIFA and UEFA both have their own copyrighted logos displayed on their page, and on other articles. They can easily also be replaced with the flags of the countries which founded them or currently own them. Even you must agree that the amount of confusion that would cause is almost dangerous. We're trying to make an encyclopedia here! Please note that as per WP:BLP and others, the use of anything else besides the actual logo of the team is of great confusion and can arouse large personal issues. Some players intend to play for a national team simply based on aspirations or standards of ability, so in technicality, a foreigner (there are many of them) is still the nationality of his original birthplace. Do we really want to assume biased responsibility and represent these players as a nationality that that they may not be? Furthermore, Saltire or national flags don't convey the same information as the logo. They are not "acceptable" replacements and therefore this copyrighted logo, under a fair use rationale etc, is rightfully the only thing that can be displayed on the page. If it was removed, then the article would be excluding a major information factor which is part of the FA criteria. The same goes for all other national team pages. And just on one last quick note, has anyone noticed 'Today's Featured Article'? The Calgary Flames also use a copyrighted logo on their article page. Same case goes for them. By your standards Fasach Nua, this is also easily replaceable. But by appropriate standards, no other image can convey the same information! Domiy (talk) 22:46, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Who uses the national flags of the founding nations of FIFA and UEFA to represent them? I have never seen this done before!

I really dont accpet your WP:BLP argument in the slightest, if a player makes the choice to play for a team and governing body represent that team with an emblem, then I see no problem what so ever in representing this team with the emblem used by the governing body.

The removal of the logo does cost information, the question is, is this information significant, and I dont feel that it is.

You raise an interesting point regarding the Calgary flames, what would you replace their logo with? Fasach Nua (talk) 11:07, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Well believe it or not, your replacing logos with flags argument is just as extreme and inappropriate! I don't have as much as an issue with you over image copyright, I just go by the basic terms and regulations. I said the Calgary flames could be replaced with something by your standards. Of course, please note that your standards are viewed as extremely inappropriate. Using flags to convey the same info as logos doesn't work. It's so extreme that you may as well pull it on any copyrighted logo page on WP. Speaking from your major copyright issue point of view, the Calgary flames logo could be replaced with a picture of a burning fire. It is a flame, and it burns rapidly as a sign of the team's spirit and strength. That's perfectly acceptable so as per the image copyright issues, the logo should be replaced on this FA. Please note that this is speaking from your conveyed perspective. But from the perspective of a normal and fair user, it is definitely not appropriate to use a burning flame. Same goes for using flags over national logos. The information loss is significant. The logo's symbolise the specific national team including the country it represents, the sport it represents it in, and on top of all, the association it is governed by. Only one of those are present in the use of national flags, which is the basic one of conveying which country the team represents. I dont see why national pages need to lose the immediate information of what sport they compete in and what association they come from just because you have majorly extreme copyright concerns. Domiy (talk) 11:58, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I dont agree with the opinions you have assigned to me, and I would prefer it if I was given the courtesy of being allowed to state my own opinions, rather than having them stated for me. Fasach Nua (talk) 12:05, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

For what its worth, I do apologize. I knew immediately that my points came across harsh and somewhat extreme myself. Please note that in some peoples perspective, your points do actually sound this crazy, whether you intend it or not. But overall, I'm sure we can both come to an agreement. I'm sure you can see now that the logo really does symbolise a significant amount of specific information that would be greatly lost if it was replaced with something so simple as the national flag. Again, the fact that it is a football team, representing the nation, and governed by a particular association is all evident in the logo. The image only conveys one of these pieces of information to a much lesser extent when you think about the already established style on WP. I would want nothing more than for us to reach an agreement on this so every FA or FAR doesn't turn into a massive circling debate. Domiy (talk) 12:44, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Altered comments - further review needed Supporting removal! - I just finished adding major fixups to the Croatia team article as per opposing suggestions from its last FAC. My main concern are the references. I now agree, publisher names should be listed in full. This included FIFA, UEFA, BBC etc. The full domain names should be listed just as this article has done. Do this consistently throughout the references. RSSSF etc shouldn't be seen! And I'm somewhat concerned at the references reliability. Why exactly is The Scotsman reliable? Similarly, Planet World Cup is NOT reliable at all. Also, current refs 59 and 61 are dead links! What makes 'Hampden Scotland's National Stadium' a reliable source anyway? Some sources lack author or even publisher information, I have opened a few references and already seen author names listed on the page, yet it is not given in the references. Some data is in the wrong field as well. Chick Young is the author of the page, the publisher is BBC. This has to be filled out properly. It goes on like this. References need a major fixup to reach good standards!

• "From 1872 to 1954 and 1954 to 1958 the Scotland national team was appointed by a selection committee. Andy Beattie was manager for six matches in 1954 when Scotland competed at their first World Cup. After the tournament the selection committee resumed their duties, continuing until the appointment of Matt Busby in 1958." -- Needs to be sourced.

• Supporter section is very brief. A lot if good info is mentioned but not expanded upon. This section is way too short considering the facts available!

• Nothing about the Supporters and Stadium info in the lead section. These seem to be very important for national team pages, especially in Scotland's case. The lead should be expanded to include such info. Domiy (talk) 06:29, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Sources: The Scotsman is a national newspaper at the quality end of the market. Planet world cup refs replaced with RSSSF. Calling Hampden the national stadium is not in the least controversial, and I don't see that using Hampden's official website as a source for ought to be a problem. In any case I've replaced it with a ref from the Scottish tourist board. Domain names do not need to be listed in full, this appears nowhere in WP:CITE. These leaves adding author info for the occasional ref, a minor issue which I believe is nice to have but not mandatory provided the specific article can be found easily.
  • Citation for managers - added (and to answer the next question, the author is someone who has written several books on Scottish football history).
  • The supporters section was slightly longer, but concerns about OR were raised, which leaves it between the devil and the deep blue sea. I certainly wouldn't want to tip the balance between giving an good overview and going into the realms of trivia. Tartan Army exists as an article, and as a summary style section I don't think anything of real importance is missing. Do you have any examples of what you think is missing?
  • Lead edited. Oldelpaso (talk) 08:24, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad you were able to come to fix this up so quickly, but your argument on author information is a zilch in my opinion. Author info is pretty much mandatory when available. It helps the readers/researchers identify who's work it is, which can be of extreme convenience in some cases. Overall, despite how simple or easy to find the article may be, author information is still needed to acknowledge the creator of your source and for some other reasons. Also, to ensure that the article does meet top standards, I think you should get into listing the full domain name. BBC, FIFA, UEFA etc is common, but it would be very much more specific and professional to list the full names. I did it on my national team article and it really does expand the references to more specific acknowledgment. A quick tip for this is to paste the entire article in Microsoft Word and use the 'Replace' tool to fill in such information. If not that, then ensure that the sources from FIFA.com and UEFA.com actually have the '.com' at the end of the publisher field. Some references simply state the publishers as FIFA or UEFA, which is not the exact specific case. This can give the idea or claim that the info is actually from the official board of the governing bodies, which is rarely the case. These websites still have their own authors which deliver news stories so it has to be properly filled out. Fill in the '.com' at the end!.....And just one last quick thing, have you tried putting that long quote in the last section in an actual quote box? I think it may look better. Domiy (talk) 09:22, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't appear that Domiy's understanding of reliable sources is grounded in WP:V; questioning The Scotsman as a reliable source is surprising. Also, it is unusual to spell out something as common as BBC in citations (I have asked on FACs for acronyms of sports terms to be defined on first occurrence in the article text for those not familiar with the jargon). I have glanced at the citations several times (haven't examined each one in detail), and I believe they're fine in terms of reliability. If Domiy has concerns about a cited statement, perhaps he will post here each statement he challenges and the source; I'll be glad to check them all. A read of Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches may be helpful. Yes, authors are needed and citations are incomplete: see this sample edit. I think that once the image issue is resolved and citations are completed, this should be close to a Keep. If agreement can't be reached on the image, perhaps you all will consult Elcobbola (talk · contribs), but I find he often agrees with Fasach Nua. Also, Domiy, I don't find it helpful to hold this article to the standard of an article that hasn't passed FAC twice because of sourcing and image issues, particularly when the citations on that article are not yet formatted correctly (see WP:ITALICS among others). Finally, I have fixed the blockquote at the end of the article that I have inquired about several times in the FAC; pls see Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Quotations. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:22, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

All right, I went ahead and looked at two sections, to get ahead of the game here. Yes, there are problems in the sourcing and citatons: there are dead links, missing citations on direct quotes, I found a non-reliable source, there are incorrect links (I changed one, one I can't find), a press release was misidentified, incorrect dates, incorrect WP:ITALICS on newspapers and periodicals, and missing date and author info. This was in only two sections.

As an example of a problem with reliable sources:

• Gallacher holds the record for goals scored in one match; he scored five goals in a 7–3 defeat of Northern Ireland in February 1929.

is cited to http://www.londonhearts.com/scotland/misc/hattricksbydate.html, a fan club hobby site, not a reliable source for identifying a record holder. So, my apologies to Domiy, who as partly right (although The Scotsman is a reliable source); at any rate, Domiy, it's not necessary to holler your declaration each time you change it at FAR. FAR is a deliberative process, with the goal that articles will be improved, so hollering to have an article removed isn't necessary. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:21, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The claim re Gallacher scoring five goals against Northern Ireland should perhaps be removed, because the SFA states that Gallacher scored four goals. It credits the goal scored in the 51st minute to Alex James.[8] Jmorrison230582 (talk) 06:31, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Deadlinks should be sorted now. That quote added very little at all, being more relevant to Smith than the national team, so I removed it. I've also removed the contradicted Gallacher "record". Oldelpaso (talk) 09:29, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm just enforcing the need for author info. It seems that the article editors have gained a personal idea that author name is not needed if it is a common or already known article. Rubbish! First of all, such can never be assumed. Secondly, author information is part of the reference template which helps identify the creator of the source. I'm just saying that the author information should be included where possible and all other citation issues be fixed up. Thats all! Lets not get into flaming debates again. I still maintain that article comments are indeed biased at times, whether it be for one reason or another. Thats why I intend to crack down on articles which passed FAC a long time ago (when it was very, VERY lenient). This is one of many. So, until the present issues are addressed, I'll be making sure this article gets the same treatment as mine did. Specifically, I had some reliable sources challenged as 'unreliable' as well. And the idea of spelling out abbreviations in full came from FAC anyway! I was told to get rid of things like BBC, UEFA, FIFA etc and put the full domain name. Despite how uncommon this is, I was cracked heavily and asked to do it like such. I personally do feel its much better this way now anyway. Domiy (talk) 06:41, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Interjection; I reviewed those FACs, and I cannot locate where you were told to spell out common, widely known acronyms like BBC in the citations. If I missed that, please point it out on my talk page. Spelling out jargon acronyms (sports acronyms not known to all readers) is a separate matter. I have never seen someone ask for CNN or BBC to be spelled out; if they did, I'd ignore it unless there was strong consensus in favor. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:04, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Once again, please stop hollering. See WP:TALK regarding the excess markup in your posts; bolding unnecessarily at FAC and FAR just makes it harder for the person closing the nomination to sort bolded declarations. This article will be judged on its merits, not against another FAC. Work is progressing. Yes, when authors and publication dates are available, they should be included. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:29, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The toolbox shows one iffy link and one article that is a dab link. Pls check. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:32, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Fixed the dab link myself. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:01, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

There are still issues in the sourcing; for example, I just found all of this on a quick glance. These are samples only; please check them all. What makes keep-the-faith.net a reliable source? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:49, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Keep the Faith isn't a reliable source; it is a Celtic fan site. I have replaced the reference to the results with a link to the RSSSF page on the 1954 World Cup. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 14:55, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Can we get an update here? How do people feel about it now? Marskell (talk) 11:05, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Updated comments - still a few issues I think diminish the article.

• First of all, the abbreviations issue is yet to be resolved. Sandy asked for evidence and I gave him evidence in which another user formally declared that abbreviations such as 'FIFA', 'UEFA', 'BBC' etc need to be spelled out in full. I'm sure Sandy can back this up (look on his talk page). Similarly, the links from FIFA.com and UEFA.com still only list the publisher as 'FIFA' or 'UEFA'. That '.com' at the end makes a big difference. If you merely list the name of the governing football bodies as the publishers, then this can be interpreted very badly. Somebody can easily think that the source is like an official statement or release by the governing associations themselves; this is hardly the case. These domains have their own authors who merely publish stories for them, they are not representing the view or the decisions by the associations of FIFA or UEFA themselves (unless specifically stated, in which case it is still a source from a published story, therefore you must include the '.com' at the end to acknowledge such and avoid confusion).

• Why doesn't this article have a list of top scorers and top cap winners? I know this is almost always slightly restated in the 'Records' section of team pages, but a comprehensive list of cap winners and goalscorers is really needed, otherwise the article would clearly be neglecting major facts/information, which is against the criteria.

• I was never sure about the layout/order of this article. The Supporters section is least important as it has very little to do with the actual national team, but alas it is always still worth mentioning. However, it appears before the actual player or manager list. I think you should really reconsider the order of sections here. And the Supporters image of the Tartan Army kind of clashes with the other section and really messes up the distinct headings. Perhaps you could consider cropping the photo or even displaying it in a smaller size if this is acceptable (I don't do image issues on Wikipedia).

• Current ref 76 says "Cardiff City is a Welsh club that plays in the English Football League.". I have one question...Is this necessary? When identifying club nationalities, you should go by the country it actually participates in. Cardiff may be in Wales, but their team plays in England. Therefore, the players who play for Cardiff city play in the English Premiere League, not the Welsh league. Yet you have displayed the Welsh flag. I understand what you are trying to achieve with this ref/footnote, but it could be done better. I think you should put the English flag next to Cardiff City and then have the footnote saying that they are actually a club based in/from Wales, but play in England instead. This avoids confusion. Domiy (talk) 22:07, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

• Update, everything I have raised has been addressed. I don't know football (soccer), so without opining on content, everything looks to be in order. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:01, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

With the greatest deal of respect Sandy, please don't risk another flaming war of tension. You have every right to state that the article looks fine; from the majority of perspectives that is actually the case. However, I believe my issues need at least to be discussed or fixed up before any further action is taken. No pressure, just a swift reminder to you :-)Domiy (talk) 01:25, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

ho hum. Please read what I wrote, not what you think I wrote, which is Marskell's job anyway, and he does it quite well. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:44, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I am going to keep this now. First, because it seems quite clean and well sourced and second to bring an end to the trolling. I would have liked to have had more opinions from those knowledgeable about football, but I don't see how anyone can put up with this verbiage. Marskell (talk) 16:34, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Not yet! I have provided evidence which recommends/requires that abbreviations be spelled out in full. Please do not let another clear problem pass blindly before your eyes. Until this is at the very least discussed, this FARC cannot be closed. National football team pages on WP are consistently very bad quality. Hats off to this page as it is by far the best of such on WP, however, it lacks the most basic information which every other article has; a list/table of top scorers and appearances. This is amongst the most important things on football articles. You have asked for football related opinions and you have received them, if they seem extreme to you then that's because you don't know about football yourself. The layout issues can probably be passed easily, but the remaining points are extremely vital. If this closes early then I will be prompt to simply nominate it again due to outstanding problems. Domiy (talk) 00:10, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think having a large number of lists in an article is a good thing; Domiy, please read WP:EMBED for more details on that. It doesn't mean that there shouldn't be lists in articles, but diligence is required. Having 10 or more lists instead of prose is not that appealing to the reader (something to note for the Croatia article). There are still a few unformatted references, but overall I'm leaning keep on this one. I can always work on this myself if need be. Giants2008 (17-14) 00:41, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

As noted above by Marskell, Raul654's delegate at FAR, this FAR is closed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:45, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

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 User:Marskell 16:42, 25 September 2008 [9].

---

Henry Moore

Review commentary

Notified: Solipsist (talk · contribs), RobertG (talk · contribs), Teapotgeorge (talk · contribs), WP England, WP Yorkshire, WP Bio, WP Visual arts

Despite the fact that I love Moore (one of my WP:GAs is Man Enters the Cosmos and I created Nuclear Energy (Henry Moore sculpture) and Large Interior Form), this article no longer is up to snuff. It would be classified as a C-Class article now upon independent review, IMO. Even though I love Moore, I prefer to research topics I can research fairly completely over the internet. My experience with art is that to properly research things I have had to take many trips to the library. I have a lot on my plate and hope someone else will step forward and improve this article. The article has very few inline citations and many are not in modern footnote format. Some images may be questionably licensed, but that is not my area.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:38, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Tony, is your only concern cites and images, or did you read the article. My suspicion is that you came across it while brousing the arts section of the FA page looking for articles with more images that in Crown Fountain. Ceoil ^sláinte 21:54, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I have not read the article in about a year (about the time I created Man Enters the Cosmos (WP:GA)). But it has not gotten much better since then in terms of several issues. Believe me this article is well below standard. I did come across it while comparing FAs against my current FAC, but that does not mean this is any less below standard.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:57, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

ADDENDUM I have been watching problems with this article for a year and a half since I first noticed its deficiencies.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:31, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok. I always knew this would happen someday, and I suppose we might as well get it over with now. If its cites only is the prob; easily fixed. Can you calarify on this, as you have taken the responsibilty to nom for a delist. And please stop mentioning articles you've created; they have nil relevance here. Ceoil ^sláinte 22:00, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I know they have little relevance, but I feel very guilty nominating the article. I have not taken responsibility for the article. It will now be monitored by the FAR directors, AFAIK.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:25, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Accepted. Ceoil ^sláinte 23:03, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

• UK derivative works law is the key one for most of the photos; I am relieved to find this:

"Under UK copyright law, there is specific statutory provision made for sculptures permanently situated in a public place or to which the public has access. It is one of the clearest exceptions to the basic copyright position (that no-one can reproduce copyright work without the express consent of the copyright owner). Just like works of architecture under UK and US copyright law, outdoor sculptures under UK law can be reproduced two-dimensionally, even be filmed or broadcast/transmitted, without the copyright owner’s consent; and such reproductions can also be used commercially without consent." in a blog here - seems sound. Also see here. Clearly the citations are not up to today's standards. Johnbod (talk) 22:12, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Just remove them. Johnbod, the gallery seems a little unweildly; could you whittle down the no of images. Ceoil ^sláinte 22:40, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Various US images removed - now a 2 row gallery, which I think is about right. But still US pics left; I need to check other countries legal situation. Johnbod (talk) 01:53, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

• I can see little wrong with this other than the lack of citations. The prose still reads well though there are a few recent additions that could be trimmed: the theft of the statue in 2005 particularly. That does not impact on Moore himself, it should be (and is copied almost verbatim) in Henry Moore Foundation.
• I think the gallery should go, a link to commons should be acceptable.
• I could probably help out with the cites, I seem to remember I picked up a few books the last time I was at the Foundation. I will try and dig them out. Regards. Woody (talk) 22:36, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Disagree re gallery. Johnbod (talk) 01:53, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

• I've always found this article to be a little dense, the article needs an infobox and some tightening. I moved one of the two lead images further down in the text to the sculpture section. I'm currently working on rewriting the image captions, and a little CE including adding a few live links. Modernist (talk) 01:12, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

The gallery seems OK to me also, it's useful. Modernist (talk) 02:59, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I added the infobox and combined the galleries..Modernist (talk) 11:03, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Looks much better now. Ceoil ^sláinte 11:56, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Can someone please complete the notifications correctly? The correct message is obtained via {{subst:FARMessage/Henry Moore}}; see the FAR instructions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:34, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

• Anyone who says that this article should now be graded "C class" ("useful to a casual reader, but would not provide a complete picture for even a moderately detailed study")—well, that's reason for throwing out this case without examining its merits. Whiskeydog (talk) 07:41, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
  • The article could still uses some work. If each paragraph is suppose to present a new topic, how can we say an article is complete with so many completely uncited paragraphs. Many paragraps are largely uncited with only the first sentence cited. The article is not so safe, IMO.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:16, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

• Does this article need an image check? I am not sure what needs FURs, but I believe many of his sculptures should have them.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:38, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Please read the above - the UK ones have no artist's copyright. The US ones will probably be removed. Johnbod (talk) 23:23, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Can't you add FURs to the US ones.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:10, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Difficult I think, precisely because so many copyright-free UK ones exist. But anyone who wants to, please have a go. Johnbod (talk) 22:01, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I suspect that my original contributions still form the majority of this article, but I haven't spent much effort in editing Wikipedia for the last two years and haven't kept track of any changes to this article either.

I think that it is a good thing that Wikipedia's standards improve over time, but I won't be taking the time to go through every article I've written in order to add citations. It used to be claimed that editors shouldn't worry about spelling mistakes and the like. If an article was deficient in some way, other editors would come along and fix it up. Some years ago, that was kind of true, but it seems to be far less true these days. So good luck with making any changes that you think are necessary.

One other point of concern, with the article stands at the moment it is rather confusing not to show an example of Moore's sculpture near the head of the article. There used to be one as the lead image but it has been moved to make way for the portrait of Moore himself. Its good to have the portrait, but its not so good that a reader has to get past a Michelangelo, a Nok sculpture and a Toltec-Maya figure before seeing anything that is recognisably a Henry Moore. Most readers don't get as far as paging down past the head of the article, so most readers won't have a clue what a Henry Moore looks like. -- Solipsist (talk) 15:09, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I had thought that too. Johnbod (talk) 15:13, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to lose the Michelangelo. It doesn't add much to the readers understanding. Ceoil ^sláinte 23:31, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, fine. Johnbod (talk) 01:30, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

All US images removed, although an FU justification for the Chicago U one could be made, as it is discussed. Johnbod (talk) 13:51, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the appropriateness of this FAR nom discussion by TonyTheTiger (talk · contribs). I also agree with TonyTheTiger that this article would not pass a WP:GA review in its present state, and is also not up to current WP:FA standards and would most certainly encounter difficulty at a WP:FAC discussion. Cirt (talk) 18:00, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are referencing (1c) and images (3). Marskell (talk) 12:23, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

• Remove. Per the (1c) and (3) issues and my comment above. Cirt (talk) 20:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Even though I think this currently fails FA, it is so close that I would not demote below GA.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 08:41, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
  • For that to occur this article would need to go through the GA review process. Cirt (talk) 19:49, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmm...work is ongoing, you know. Neither (1c) nor (3) are so lacking that we need be so trigger happy, or hysterical. Ceoil ^sláinte 21:36, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Ceoil, progress is being made, and the article is improving again....Modernist (talk) 10:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Struck out my Remove above per comments by Ceoil (talk · contribs) and Modernist (talk · contribs) that progress is being made/work being done to further improve the article. Cirt (talk) 07:52, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Cirt. Ceoil ^sláinte 10:48, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comment All image issues raised have been addressed. The only sculptures potentially subject to derivative copyright remaining meet the legal requirements of the countries they were taken in: UK, Canada, Australia & Germany. See the Commons policy Johnbod (talk) 13:59, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Although this is not required, many artists have their own templates (see for example Template:Matisse or Template:Claude Monet). Does anyone feel comfortable enough with this subject to make a template?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:25, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Very good idea, but I personally wouldn't have the knowledge to put it together. Modernist might be the best editor to take it on. Ceoil ^sláinte 18:35, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks but I think Tyrenius (talk · contribs) is the best editor for creating templates....Modernist (talk) 11:51, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

There should at least be a Category:Sculptures by Henry Moore, which there seems not to be. Any template should be at the bottom of the article, or we'll have even less space for pictures. How many articles are there? I'm not sure a template is justified myself. Johnbod (talk) 12:34, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Johnbod (talk · contribs)...I was surprised by the request given the lack of material...Modernist (talk) 12:42, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

There is no need for a navigation box, because there's nothing to put in it. There is not a series of articles on individual sculptures and other associated topics. Likewise, I don't see the need for Category:Sculptures by Henry Moore: there is a link to Commons:Category:Henry Moore. Ty 13:02, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I hadn't seen that - it should be renamed to Category:Sculptures by Henry Moore on normal categorization principles though. This article isn't even in it! Johnbod (talk) 13:31, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia and Commons are two separate systems with their own categories. This article will not be in a category on Commons: only material on Commons will. Maybe post on my talk page if you need further explanation. Ty 14:08, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I thought (from your comment) it was a WP category. There should certainly be one of these for the sculpture articles - whyever not? That a Commons cat exists is no replacement. There are a number of articles. Johnbod (talk) 14:54, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Category:Henry Moore sculptures set up with 3 - are there any more? All these are, oddly enough, in Chicago :) Johnbod (talk) 15:10, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I didn't realise there were any articles on his sculptures. I guess that might justify a nav box. Ty 22:20, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment I want to vote keep, but I can't yet because about a half dozen paragraphs continue to have no citation and each paragraph should present a new topic if this is arranged well. That is way too many for me to vote keep without good reason. As I have said above, this could probably use a navbox template. Like I said above I would still support this as a GA.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:17, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

You want both shorter para, and a ref per para, and you want more templates. Hmm, you are free to vote remove if you want, not going to bend to that kind of formulism. Next you'll be asking for more blue links. Ceoil ^sláinte 10:57, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Navigation template done. If the same ref applies to different paras, why not just add the same one to the end of the different paras. If a longer para gets split in two, just duplicate the ref. Ty 11:36, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Duplicating refs for split paras is pointless and indicating towarads a meaningless yardstick: one ref per para. Euf. Also I find short paras an annoying panereing to mtv-like short attention spans. Ceoil ^sláinte 11:56, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Nice work on that template! I think a few more refs won't hurt. The text seems to be shaping up and really covers the territory fairly well; maybe the article is a FA after all. Modernist (talk) 11:47, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

a few more refs won't hurt? Not exactly a considered openion. Ceoil ^sláinte 11:56, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

All material in the article should be clearly referenced. It should be obvious to the reader which references apply to which material. At the minimum there should be a ref at the end of each paragraph, provided that all the material in that paragraph is derived from the given ref. I prefer often to ref each sentence, and sometimes sections of a sentence, because I often incorporate material from multiple refs in a para or even in a sentence. Ty 12:08, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Grand: Accepted. Ceoil ^sláinte 12:16, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I like the template because it directs you to many of the American sculptures whose images are not properly licensed for inclusion in the article. I still see five paragraphs without any citation anywhere in the paragraph. Although I would not nominate an article of the current quality level that only has five paragraphs without refs, I will withhold a keep vote. Again, I still support it as a GA if it fails, which probably means it will pass.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:23, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I just added a couple of refs, hmm gotta consider some moore now...I agree about short paragraphs being MTV like, the text is improving, quality matters...to be moore clear I agree with Ceoil about the paragraphs and the arbitrary marching orders....seem somewhat contrived. Modernist (talk) 12:05, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Great Modernist ;) But would you mind adding author, publication, and publication and retrieval dates to the refs. This seems do-able again. Ceoil ^sláinte 12:10, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually no - the refs are to the Tate and they speak for themselves.....Modernist (talk) 12:12, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

No your missing the point: Look at ref 38: "Henry Moore". Tate Magazine Issue 6. Retrieved on 12 September, 2008. Ceoil ^sláinte 12:16, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Good catch, I added Chris Turner's name....Modernist (talk) 12:21, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I've formatted the ref. Ty 12:26, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Although my crteria for FA status are a polar opposite to TonyTheTiger. Ceoil ^sláinte 23:19, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
• Comment the article has been improved...It is far more interesting and complete than it was in early August, although I'd still like to see more of his work. I vote Keep also. Changed my mind, I want to think on this a little more...Modernist (talk) 19:32, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Except for the lead there is a ref per paragraph......the lead has one ref.Modernist (talk) 13:29, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

No need to cite leads. Ceoil ^sláinte 23:51, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the article has improved enormously my only reservation now has to do with the limitation on the images available to us. Tyrenius's template links help. Moore was a great sculptor and we aren't conveying that convincingly enough through the currently available works. Although I think the article is very close to FA...Modernist (talk) 00:47, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

He, if anybody can fix that, its you! Ceoil ^sláinte 01:02, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

The problem is the issue of Fair Use of pieces outside the UK. I'll see what I can try...as I say I think a few more sculptures are needed.Modernist (talk) 03:03, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Would be appreciated. Ceoil ^sláinte 03:10, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

As I said somewhere above, a FU rationale could be done for Nuclear Energy, which is discussed in the text sufficiently. I don't see the current picture selection as inadequate myself though. Johnbod (talk) 03:14, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I've added four pieces - three from the 1960s including Large Arch and a piece from 1985...I have no problem voting Keep now. I think the pieces are important because seeing the work helps...the images all Creative Commons ShareAlike. Modernist (talk) 04:06, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Modernist, do you mind one more pass for ref formatting consistency? Marskell (talk) 11:17, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Please do your best, Modernist (talk) 11:35, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there are several issues in the citations that should be cleaned up before we let this one out the door. Are dates linked or delinked in the citations? Is the date format US-style or international (I see both). Book titles and periodicals (newspapers, journals) are in italics, websites are not (needs fixing throughout). For some reason there are quotation marks everywhere in the citations, unclear what the style is but usually newspaper and journal articles only are in quotations. One pass through for consistency ought to do it. Nice work !! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:44, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I've seen ye have busy, thanks; I think I caught most of the stragglers. Ceoil ^sláinte 22:33, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Nice job...Modernist (talk) 22:42, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

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 User:Marskell 10:42, 24 September 2008 [10].

---

Introduction to general relativity

Markus Poessel, WP Relativity, WP Math, WP Physics notified.

Fails featured article criterion 1a because it's not well written. 66.68.23.41 (talk) 18:42, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

No examples have been provided. Without examples, this FAR will likely be removed. Please provide examples, and complete the notifications per the instructions at the top of WP:FAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:53, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

You needn't look any further than the introduction. The fourth paragraph doesn't have a topic sentence, which makes it easy for the reader to confuse gravitational waves with lensing. More generally, the work does not flow throughout, including, for instance, too many (more than 50 by my count) parenthetical phrases. 66.68.23.41 (talk) 09:35, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

66, please complete the notifications. Instructions are at the top of WP:FAR, and a sample is at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Rudyard Kipling. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

While it's here, I corrected several issues that got by FAC: WP:ACCESSIBILITY, WP:MOS#Images, WP:LAYOUT and mixed citation styles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I'm wondering about the name. Is this even standard? Are these pages allowed? If so, I have some "intro" pages that I want to write. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 17:27, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

  This has been debated many times at WT:FAC, and consensus has been to allow them. You'd have to check archives for the many discussions; I think they've occurred elsewhere as well. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:54, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• Some information about "Introduction to..." can be found at WP:Make technical articles accessible. Markus Poessel (talk) 00:16, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

• There is an entire category of "introduction" pages. Awadewit (talk) 04:46, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. Some of the parenthetical statements in the article that the nominator is objecting to are useful in that they attempt to make the article even more WP:MTAA. However, many of the parentheses in the article are gratuitous, and should be eliminated. That said, WP:FAR seems to be a rather extreme measure. Wouldn't it be easier simply to fix this one problem with the article? siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 12:03, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• I've now gone through the article several times, eliminating parenthetical statements that might be unwarranted. At least for me, the text now flows nicely. Markus Poessel (talk) 01:45, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I have attempted to address some of the nominator's concerns by re-structuring the article's lead paragraphs - essentially the same information, but in a different order. Gandalf61 (talk) 12:49, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comment While there appears to have been some edit creep, I'm surprised that the anonymous nominator chose to start an FAR. Wouldn't it have been more appropriate to speak up on the talk page first? That said, I'm perfectly willing to have another look at the article, and try to fix what needs fixing. Markus Poessel (talk) 18:41, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

• Image:Gravity Probe B.jpg should have a source. DrKiernan (talk) 09:12, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

• Is this OK (I added one possible source - I didn't upload the image to the image's page)? Or did you mean a source in the caption (which, as far as I can see, would be rather unusual)? Markus Poessel (talk) 22:42, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

• I couldn't find the image there, although I agree that it looks as though it is a likely source. I fear that the image may need to be replaced with one with a known provenance. No, there's no need for a source in the caption. Thanks, DrKiernan (talk) 07:22, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

• I've now added the exact URL where it's at on that site, too. Markus Poessel (talk) 12:26, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I do not believe that this article fails the prose criterion. This is a good introduction to a very difficult topic. Can every article be improved? Yes. However, I do not believe that this one deserves to be de-featured. Furthermore, I'm not really seeing substantial lists of writing problems listed here. Awadewit (talk) 04:46, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: From what I can tell, there is absolutely no need to demote this article. In particular, the article does a good job telling hard things without pain. That said, I have two comments:

• AFAIK the term geodesic means, in Riemannian geometry at least, not a ray, but a line. So, writing "A person sitting on a chair is trying to follow a geodesic" is a bit ambiguous (from my lay understanding of GRT, I guess you should somehow say that there is always a time aspect to any geodesic, i.e. they are no geodesics, whose time-part is constant?). The remark applies also to the Image:Earth geo.gif which makes also some choice of an orientation.
• The second is more a question. I faintly remember that GRT has to be used to get correct coordinates for satellites etc. Is this right, or am I messing it up with SRT? If it is GRT, you might want to add something in this direction in the applications part. In general, as a lay reader looking at "Astrophysical apps" I wondered why you don't talk about other applications. Are there any? Jakob.scholbach (talk) 17:06, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
• Still in the "apps" section, you write "Models based on general relativity play an important role in astrophysics, and the success of these models is further testament to the theory's validity." If this matches the section content, then the section should be merged with experimental verification. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 17:10, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your support – as for your specific questions:

• As far as I can see, the usage of geodesic in this article is pretty common: geodesic is short for geodesic curve, and a curve is a map from an interval of R to a manifold.
• Satellite coordinates: I'm not aware of practical applications beyond GPS. The real applications – in the sense of using general relativity as a tool to do something – are in astrophysics.
• I think merging this section with the one on experimental tests would be putting the cart before the horse. The people doing relativistic astrophysics do so first and foremost to model astronomical phenomena, not to test general relativity. Again, this division – having experimental tests extra – is, as far as I can see, pretty common.

Markus Poessel (talk) 02:17, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

OK. A geodesic can be determined by giving a point on a manifold and a tangent vector. So, what is the tangent vector? "A person sitting on a chair is trying to follow a geodesic" doesn't answer this question, unless I'm completely blind. In particular, and that was why I stumbled over the point, it does not make explicit that the geodesic could not go back in time (which, I hope :), is practically impossible(?), but as far as general mathematics on a 4-dim manifold is concerned, is perfectly allowed). Jakob.scholbach (talk) 11:56, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Unless I'm missing some subtlety in your question: The person sitting on the chair has a world line (approximately) which, at every point, has a tangent vector. Markus Poessel (talk) 20:08, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I am going to shut this FAR down, which I probably should have done earlier. Any other prose concerns can be taken up on article talk. Marskell (talk) 10:38, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

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 User:Marskell 10:42, 24 September 2008 [11].

---

Craters of the Moon National Monument and Preserve

• Notified Wikiproject Protected Areas, National Register of Historic Places, Volcanoes, and Idaho

This article, promoted in 2005, has not a single inline citation. I think that is the primary issue. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 05:37, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

It's not just the lack of citations, but the whole article is sub-standard for featured level. Of course it got featured in 2005, when standards were different. The official website at http://www.nps.gov/crmo has so much information that is lacking here and a huge amount of Public Domain images. The history of the park could be easily expanded from this document compiled by the wilderness society. Some additional stuff can be found in the (unfortunately outdated as from 1992) administrative history of the Monument. I have the corresponding article in the German Wikipedia on my to-do-list and when I get to it, I will try to improve the English one along my expansion of the German article. --h-stt !? 16:57, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

The history is already several sub-sections long, which is standard for FA class articles. See below for more. --mav (talk) 01:35, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

• I am beginning the process of adding inline citations to the article. I have ordered several print reference books and will begin reviewing those for inclusion / attribution. Any preferences for citation formats? --Robbie Giles (talk) 17:21, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

• Yep - standards have increased since this article was promoted. I'm already trying to address concerns at a FAR for Geology of the Zion and Kolob canyon area but will make sure to help cite what I wrote here before. H-stt - I don't think the article needs to be expanded at all; especially the history section (which already has 4 good-sized sub-sections. But a History of the Craters of the Moon area, along the lines of History of the Grand Canyon area, is most welcome. --mav (talk) 23:44, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Many cites added. A couple minor sources still need to be checked to finish. A MoS and copyedit pass still needed as well. If not beaten to it, I'll finish this up sometime in the next week or two. --mav (talk) 03:04, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I don think it is not up to fatured standard. It is inbalanced, some tiny details are elaborated as the mule deer studies, while the preserve part, its specifics and its use are barely mentioned. Some of the images are either bad or way to small (due to panorama format) to get an idea of the landscape. The plants section suffers from mostly uncommented lists of red links. The part on recreational activities is just copied from the loop drive booklet. History is good, geology is certainsly on featured level. Overall I would oppose if the article were up to FARC. --h-stt !? 06:16, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Yeah, the ==Biology== and ==Recreational activities== sections could be improved and I'll see about doing that. However, I don't think we need to cut down the mule deer part much since the behavioral patterns of the Craters of the Moon herd have led to it having the highest fawn survival rates of any herd in the species. That needs more than a sentence, me thinks. The article does have more emphasis on the pre-2000 monument extent since that is the most accessible part and has the highest concentration of notable volcanic features. Do you have specific things you want added about the larger fields? In the meantime, I'll take a look to see what PD text can be incorporated from the NPS and BLM websites to help address your concerns. As for images; please feel free to swap out some with better examples and crop what you think needs to be cropped. --mav (talk) 00:34, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Animal part of biology section expanded with some PD NPS text. More later. --mav (talk) 02:23, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Images rearranged and made larger as needed to make them more presentable. The preserve part is covered by non-trivial descriptions of the Wapi and Kings Bowl lava fields. Other than that, general info about geography, geology and biology shared between all three lava fields is given. Of course, more info is given about the Craters of the Moon lava field, but that is b/c it is the biggest and the one with the most visited features on it. Also, any mention of the 'Craters of the Moon area' is not specific to the Craters of the Moon lava field; in fact, it is a term for the whole parkland. ==Biology== section expanded to improve balance. The ==Recreation== section is not copied from the loop drive booklet, but the booklet was used as one of the references. --mav (talk) 01:35, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree with above comments by Judgesurreal777 (talk · contribs) and H-stt (talk · contribs). This article is not up to snuff in accordance with current WP:FA standards. Cirt (talk) 17:16, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• I looked for and couldn't find the 'Around the Loop' booklet in my stacks-o-books; the primary ref for the ==Recreational activities== section. Some of the info is in a USGS site and other places. I'll try to confirm the info from those sources. If needed, I'll re-buy the Around the Loop booklet to finish that up. But the damn thing has got to be around here somewhere... --mav (talk) 02:35, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
• Note to self (or anyone who wants to help): I did MoS cleanup through History section, have to resume with Geology. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:13, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

  I've been chipping away on MoS items, but the prose and content need a lot more beef; the article is very listy, there's some prose that's hard to follow, and still some citations needs. Mav, is it in your plans to save this one? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:41, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

  I most certainly plan to save this one. The list in the recreation section can be fixed rather easily but the list in the biology section is needed b/c it, well, lists adaptions unique to this type of environment. What other lists are there? And what else is needed, beef-wise? --mav (talk) 22:52, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

  I realized after I posted this that one of the bulleted lists referred to locations on a map. OK, if you're still working, I'll keep at it. In terms of "beef", a lot of the article seemed to focus on recreation (hiking, etc.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:58, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

  I'll keep that in mind when I copyedit. The recreation section does seem a bit long; maybe some of the material can be moved to the geography and geology sections... I plan to cite that section the best I can; anything left after that simply must be from the "Around the Loop" booklet I can't find. --mav (talk) 23:38, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we need the "Around the loop" brochure, because the little content of the Recreation section can be verified by the official park brochure "Map and Guide" and/or the NPS website. I have the Map & Guide (an older print) and two more brochures of the Cave Trail and the Devil's Orchard Trail in my hands but they offer very little information that is not more easily available elsewhere. --h-stt !? 12:18, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

• NOTE: Referencing more or less done now. Please add fact tags to ID anything else that needs to be either cited or removed. --mav (talk) 00:50, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

• Note, can we please get some more eyes on this? I've done all I see that needs doing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:08, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Convoluted sentence alert:

"Located in south-central Idaho midway between Boise and Yellowstone National Park, the monument includes 53,545 acres (217 km2) in the Developed Area (the extent of the national monument before the preserve was added) and the visitor center is 5,900 feet (1,800 m) above sea level."

"...the extent of the national monument before the preserve was added..." seems to imply that there's more acreage that isn't being mentioned. And why tack on the sea level point rather than have a separate sentence? I'll go through the rest of the prose. Marskell (talk) 13:00, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Nixed during my copyedit. --mav (talk)

I just completed a section-by-section copyedit and deletion of some still-uncited sentences that aren't needed. I'm now pretty happy with the article. --mav (talk) 02:18, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

• Has anyone looked for images at the various NPS archives? The first and maybe the third on http://photo.itc.nps.gov/storage/images/crmo/crmo-Thumb.00001.html seem to be appropriate. --h-stt !? 13:15, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

• I think this article now meets the FA criteria. I don't think it needs to go to FARC. maclean 02:57, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I am reasonably pleased with the prose now. Given above comments, this can go. Marskell (talk) 10:22, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

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 User:Marskell 10:25, 21 September 2008 [12].

---

Palazzo Pitti

Notified: WikiProject Italy, WikiProject Architecture, Giano_II

previous FAR (17:21, 13 January 2008)

Extremely short on references. A topic like this is likely to be researched and many claims are made, yet very rarely referenced. There are quite a few references to books here so excuse my inability to check their verifiability or relevance to particular statements. However, here are a few visible examples:

• "Though impressive, the original palazzo would have been no rival to the Florentine Medici residences in terms of either size or content. Whoever the architect of the Palazzo Pitti was, he was moving against the contemporary flow of fashion. The rusticated stonework gives the palazzo a severe and powerful atmosphere, reinforced by the three times repeated series of seven arch-headed apertures, reminiscent of a Roman aqueduct. The Roman-style architecture appealed to the Florentine love of the new style all'antica." No sources. It appears that only the final part of the testing is referenced. yet sources are needed to back up the other many claims.

• "Work stopped after Pitti suffered financial reverses following the death of Cosimo de' Medici in 1464. Luca Pitti died in 1472 with the building unfinished." Source of his death at this particular date?

Done. Ceoil ^sláinte 12:03, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

• "The Austrian tenancy was briefly interrupted by Napoleon, who used the palazzo during his period of control over Italy." Specific source also needed.

Done. Ceoil ^sláinte 12:03, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

• "They contain a collection of Medici portraits, many of them by the artist Giusto Sustermans. In contrast to the great salons containing the Palatine collection, some of these rooms are much smaller and more intimate, and, while still grand and gilded, more suited to day to day living requirements. Period furnishings include four-poster beds and other necessary furnishings not found elsewhere in the palazzo. The Kings of Italy last used the Palazzo Pitti in the 1920s. By that time it had already been converted to a museum, but a suite of rooms (now the Gallery of Modern Art) was reserved for them when visiting Florence officially." Source?

Done. Ceoil ^sláinte 12:03, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

It goes on and on. It's useless to list examples, they are blatantly obvious. There are numerous paragraphs which go into fine detail but are not sourced at all! How can the verifiability of this article be possibly considered with so few sources? This needs extensive amounts of more references! Surprisingly enough, this article has already passed a FAR for the exact same reason. I wouldn't really agree with the article being kept as it seems that a lot of users pointed out numerous issues which didn't seem to be completely resolved. It was really only the last two comments from the previous review that supported keeping the article, and one of them was from SandyGeorgia. I think this was a little lenient (or a lot!). Despite any opinions, more refereces are desperately needed for this article! Domiy (talk) 05:15, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Domiy, you currently have Absinthe and Scotland national football team at FAR: please withdrawn this FAR until one of them closes. See WP:FAR instructions, thanks. (And by the way, you misrepresented my position on the previous FAR.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:48, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

The FAR page states no particular allowed number of article reviews by any user. Not from what the main page says at least. I have nominated all my previous and still ongoing FAR's solely due to my rights as a Wikipedian. To avoiding use an extremely nerdy cliche, I will more so say that I have nominated them because they deserve to be. Scotland was in desperate need of image copyright checks which it beneficially received, as well as some others issues. And any half blinded cyclops will be able to tell you that Absinthe doesn't even reach GA status, hence most certainly not FA. Also, please note, if you follow or observe the FAR's carefully, you will notice I have cracked down on specific things which my article failed for. I'm not making up new rules as I go along, I'm just trying to make sure articles are treated equally. Domiy (talk) 15:24, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

It's rather clear in the first sentence of the WP:FAR instructions: Nominators typically assist in the process of improvement; they may post only one nomination at a time, should not nominate articles that are featured on the main page (or have been featured there in the previous three days), and should avoid segmenting review pages. Have you helped restore any of the three articles you have running at FAR, or any others? Please discuss at WT:FAR rather than further filling up this page, and please refrain from multiple nominations; also, please be aware of WP:POINT when stating that you are nominating other article because yours didn't pass fAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:09, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Two things Sandy: first of all, its funny that you should mention point of view in an accusation that I am cracking down on other articles because my nomination failed. While that may be the case, its still blatantly obvious that both articles I cracked down on so far (before this one) were/are in desperate need of fixups. Scotland national team was using copyrighted images, had some bad instances of POV, and even had some issues with the sources (dead links, reliability etc). Absinthe is still in need of all the points I mentioned on the nomination page. The article has decreased very badly in quality and most likely wouldn't even pass GA at its current state. And secondly: yes, I have helped fix up these FARC. I have raised numerous discussions and issues which have helped the active pages regain FA status (again with the exception of Absinthe as the removal candidate page is inactive). Palazzo Pitti is no different. It requires additional sources and language fixups to reach FA standards again. And I won't take anything lightly until it gets these (unless it becomes de-featured). Domiy (talk) 03:11, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

The utter rubbish written above (no, not you, Sandy - above you) is one of the reasons I no longer write FAs, if one has to cite well known historical facts and every indisputable fact then one may as well pack up writing and just leave every page as "You will find the following books mention the subject of this page" While it is quite apparent that the nominator has a complete lack of knowledge of basic European history, that is still no excuse for every easily checked fact to be cited. We have to credit the reader with basic education, or every page would be patronising to read. Giano (talk) 06:51, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. It looks like a clean, reasonably well cited article. It underwent a FAR few months ago, there are no big changes since then. I suggest to speedy close this FAR. There are much more important articles waiting for upgrades.--Ioannes Pragensis (talk) 08:49, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Umm, no. This is one of the statements which can just as easily lead to the conclusion that Wikipedia is a ridiculous website. Read some further guidelines. For example, WP states you need to explain technical jargon relating to your article. This is just one of many instances withinin WP which states that you cannnot assume knowledge of the reader. If we were to start making assumptions, then that would mean I can just make the assumption that a larger portion of people in the world already know what the WP articles are about. So, in technicality terms, WP should immediately cease to exist due to it serving no purpose. Doesn't work this way. I'm sorry. The FA criteria clearly states that sources must be included where necessary. Have you forgotten the use of WP? RESEARCH! This is a website mainly used for research! There can be many instances where somebody has to submit a paper based on a subject they know really little about. Don't mock this. I will tell you, as a student myself, this happens very frequently in life. Furthermore, interested readers may want to use WP to increase their knowledge on a particular subject. If your going to assume that sources aren't needed regularly because the majority of people should/would already know the historical facts, then you aren't a very satisfying editor. Think of the article users!

So basically, your argument is nowhere near sufficient. At times, one can claim that references aren't needed because the statement is very basic and well known. An example of such a statement is 'the grass is green', or 'the sun is hot'. But to assume that the majority of readers already know specific historical facts based on very old subjects is not sufficient at all! Sorry, this is a clear cop-out. Follow the FA rules! I can just as easily call you an unreliable liar when you state something without a reference. For the second time, consider this statement --"By that time it had already been converted to a museum, but a suite of rooms (now the Gallery of Modern Art) was reserved for them when visiting Florence officially." Do you honestly believe that researchers can assume this statement as 'true' even though it has not a single source to it? Sorry, you can't make such an assumption. Thats not what WP is about.

Ignoring the risk of another blast from Sandy, I will once again direct you to this article. Notice how many statements are not referenced once, but twice, and even three times! Mind you as well, they are some basic facts. The large amount of references in that article as solely due to advice given from Peer reviews and FAC's. I tried to bring up the cop-out argument as well. And you must admit, it is much more stronger in my case. I was asked to provide references to the fact that a national football team have fan songs. Sheesh, what a waste of time that was...yet I did it anyway. It goes on. I have provided references for the most simple of statements. You wont find many unreferenced statements in that article because I don't make assumptions - I actually follow WP's objectives and guidelines. So once again, I'm truly sorry, but if you don't have verifiable sources to back up the fact that certain buildings were refurbished in particular ways, styles, formats etc, then you have what WP calls original research. Certainly not FA quality. I'm really still trying to get over the laughable assumption you made on the majority of people already knowing about such extreme history. In case you haven't noticed, history articles are one of the most common read ones for a reason. Its because people need to read them to gain information on them. Domiy (talk) 15:24, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• If someone were to add inline cites for statements like the four identified by Domiy, I wouldn't remove them, but I also don't see any need to add them. Those statements don't look controversial to me, and they could be verified from the references at the bottom of the page. The last FAR ended 8 months ago. Not much changed since then. Gimmetrow 13:31, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

One statement - "Many items in the collection were gifts to the Florentine rulers from other European sovereigns" -. Enough said one should think. If you think that such a statement is unlikely to be challenged, then you need a really thorough period of refreshment and modernness. I have little to no knowledge at all about history, yet I still came upon this article because I have a related assessment task due in a few weeks on design history. Therefore, I have crossed WP off my research list for now because the users on here are really being unfair and not giving me the expected correct information. Let me get this straight, if you dont provide references to more than 3 or 4 statements, no matter how basic they are, in university assessment papers, then you will have to re-do it; no questions asked. Yet here you are saying its ok to not provide sources to some very old and specific facts about historical buildings and events because you think most users should know this information already. If somebody is knowledged enough to already know some of the unreferenced statements, then they have no business being on the page in the first place because they should then also know the rest of the article; so their purpose on WP is pointless. Domiy (talk) 15:24, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

A WP article is not in the same genre as a university research paper. If your university policy requires that any fact or idea which is not your own must be cited with an inline citation, then you do that. Although a WP article can be written like that, it's not (at present) required to be written like that. Writers may work from lists of sources they provide at the end of the article, and non-controversial statements which are covered in multiple sources don't require inline citations. That doesn't assume those facts are common knowledge - it assumes the facts are commonly found in the reputable sources given, and a reader can find them if desired. If you're writing a university paper you shouldn't be using WP directly anyway. Use it indirectly: the lists of sources and external links are often well filtered and can usually be employed as a bibliography to find citable sources for your research papers. Gimmetrow 15:40, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Gimmetrow! Your much more specific and productive comments make a lot more sense than the users who are assuming that most readers should already know some very challenged history fact (from readers who have little knowledge about the subject I mean). Concerning my university paper, its not much of a problem. I'm not using WP directly, although I do use it very commonly because its easy to access and you can often find some very good info here. Don't think about me personally, think about the next reader who comes along in search of historical facts on Palazzo Pitti. I'm pretty certain that they would be disjointed to find so many unreferenced statements; especially on a Featured Article! Remember the meaning of FA, which is to exemplify WP's best work. I can find numerous articles within 10 minutes which are not only much better referenced than this, but also much better written. Now I'm not going to get into that, I feel I have made my points of FAC comments being biased; its no secret, everybody really knows it. This is nor the tome or the place for such, so I will steer back to the main discussion. I understand how some articles may work in the way you said Gimmetrow. Sometimes the later statements within the article are backed up the primary sources given earlier. However, if this is the case, be sure to reference it anyway! There are 21 notes/references on this article page. So how is the user supposed to know which reference supports whatever statement? As I said, if the references can be found in the already cited books, then create a template and use the same sources again for the unreferenced statements. Otherwise, there can be easy challenged grounds of controversially stated information known as originality research or even pure speculation. Here is another statement ---"Florence receives over five million visitors each year, and for many of these the Palazzo Pitti is an essential stop. Thus the palazzo still impresses visitors with the splendours of Florence, the purpose for which it was originally built." This needs a statistical reference. How do we know Florence receives so many tourists each year? How do we know so many of them stop at the Palazzo Pitti? Sources! Domiy (talk) 23:35, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

There are some other external factors to consider about citations. Articles which get a lot of edits often need more citations so other editors can easily check new edits. Certain topics are popular with blogs or TV-show hosts who (innocently or not) may help spread incorrect information. This article doesn't involve one of those topics. It doesn't change very fast. The article was viewed 4003 times in August 2008. The diff from the last FAR [13] for Palazzo Pitti, spanning over 8 months, includes only 24 edits. Those edits include 2 bits of vandalism and 2 reversions, 4 interwiki bot edits and 2 other bot edits. Giano wrote most of the article and is able to keep up with any changes. The text flows well without much change in style or diction. Readers can consult the references at the end at their leisure. Unlike some other articles which get a lot of edits, this one just doesn't seem to have a pressing need for inline citations, although presumably nobody would object if someone felt like adding them.

Compare that to another article I work on. In August it received at least 4000 views each day and over 200 edits including some 30 bits of vandalism and reversions. Someone has to check whether all those edits are sneaky vandalism or legitimate typo fixes. Inline citations make it easy for other editors, who may not know the entire article, to check edits for sneaky vandalism. Citations do tend to break up the writing, but I'm willing to accept that so others can help prevent the article being filled with nonsense. Gimmetrow 01:17, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

• I have a question about "The rusticated stonework gives the palazzo a severe and powerful atmosphere"—if I were to write a sentence claiming "[this thing] gives [article subject] a severe and powerful atmosphere" in my usual choice of article fare, I'd have people slapping an {{Or}} tag on that. What's the difference here? I realize this sounds like I'm trying to push a point, but this is a serious question. Pagrashtak 14:10, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
  • That phrase looks like an opinion, so perhaps it should be cited. I mentioned that in the last FAR. But does it need to be? It looks like a consensus view - almost a formula. Compare: "The Mona Lisa has an enigmatic smile". It seems unnecessary to add a citation for a non-controversial statement routinely found in sources. Gimmetrow 14:46, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• Further comments by Domiy - I just noticed a fair bit of POV in this article as well. It seems that some statements are being very praising and described without a neutral point of view. Furthermore, these POV statements are not referenced so it is clear that they do not come from any well known and verifiable sources; but rather from the admiring WP editors. Examples:

• • "Compared to many of Italy's great palazzi the exterior of the Palazzo Pitti at first glance pales: the palazzo does not have the overpowering and commanding presence of Caserta or the citadel features of the Royal Palace of Turin, nor the elegance of the Naples Royal Palace or Rome's papal, later royal, palace, the Quirinal, both with facades by Domenico Fontana. The Palazzo Pitti's architectural merit is in its great severity and simplicity. One continual architectural theme used throughout four centuries has produced massive but impressive elevations and façades which belie the long evolution and history of the structure. The architecture commands attention by virtue of size, strength and the reflection of the sun on the glass and stone, coupled with the repetitive, almost monotonous theme. Ornament and elegance of design take second place to the vast and solid mass of rusticated stonework relieved solely by the arcade-like frequency of the arched window embrasures. As with many Italian palazzi one has to enter the building in order to truly appreciate its architecture." ---- The first and last statements in particular are blatant POV. There are a few other instances as well. I think a brief copyedit could do the trick. Domiy (talk) 23:35, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

It is not POV, it is obvious fact. If you copyedit any of that - I shall revert you. Giano (talk) 06:28, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Every single source used will attribute to these claims. Its common place. Its saying Mona Lisa has two eyes in the middle of her head, and a nose, and a mouth. Ceoil ^sláinte 12:45, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

No, the way this article sounds; its more like saying Monalisa has two beautiful eyes and a well shaped nose, with a mouth that has made every other woman in the world jealous. And in case you didn't notice, that is clear POV.

Few would argue Lisa's eyes are 'beautiful', but I suppose thats why we have to pander to the few like you. Ceoil ^sláinte 22:30, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Oohh, I'm really scared. (The truth is I'm terrified. When someone reverts my edits I feel as if I am not good enough, and that I should just quit at life). Please don't make wikithreats (new word of the day!). You need to clearly recognise the meaning of POV in order to make a comment on it. No matter how great something is, an encyclopedia is not supposed to proclaim such. We all know how delicious chocolate is, but if the article states "chocolate is amongst the best-tasting solids developed within the last 10 centuries and it's extremely sweet taste is an amazing treasure of life which truly exemplifies its awesome taste" - then instances of POV come in. Consider this example. Chocolate actually is, to about 98% of people on earth, the best-tasting wrapper food available. Yes, it is nice and sweet and it just puts a smile on your face because its taste is just so darn great. However, as per WP:POV, we are not here to make assumptions. We musn't leave out the remaining 2% of people who don't like chocolate. Also, WP is NOT a descriptive or appraisal page, like a forum or anything. It's an encyclopedia. In other words, the palazzi may be great and have true beauty, but unless it is part of a verifiable quote, you cannot describe it as such in an encyclopedia. I can go on with examples all day. Within the last two years, Croatia's national football team have beaten England, Germany and Italy at least once; these are 3 top footballing nations. However, the article page cannot proclaim that "Croatia have been an amazingly succesful side from 2006 as they have dominated their respective fixtures against England, Germany and Italy. No other nation has come close to reaching their rapid rise in football power". While this may be true, and even backed up with references, its clear POV, just like some statements in this palazzi article. If you fail to comply with these guidelines, then I will ensure that the article goes through a lot more of these reviews for removal as they clearly don't follow WP's guidelines, which is an obvious aspect of the criteria. Domiy (talk) 08:33, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

tl;dr. Can you summarise that outburst please. You lost me at "Oohh, I'm really". Ceoil ^sláinte 10:45, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Ridiculous. Your claim that "they do not come from any well known and verifiable sources; but rather from the admiring WP editors." has absolutely no basis in fact - in my sourcing of Mountfort, very few praising statements couldn't be cited, and I suspect that I just didn't have access to the sources for the exceptions. Your chocolate analogy is absurd (and I doubt it's actually true), and I see nothing wrong with the description of the Croatia team's recent success. Nousernamesleft (talk) 20:41, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Then you really, REALLY, need to have a read of the guidelines. Once again, I direct you to WP:POV. You need to realise, for the second time, no matter how great something is, an encyclopedia article cannot use such language to describe it. Thats not what Wikipedia is about. Go to a fan forum and post such praising information there, perhaps it will be accepted. But not here, especially when we are considering this is a Featured Article. Observe the statements. It says that one has to actually enter the palazzi to see its true features. This may be POV. Some people may actually like the outside of the palazzi, perhaps to look at its unique design from afar. An encylopedia ecists to deliver all related information and then to let the reader decide for themselves. Including assumptive language like this is absurd, you can keep it in there, but please note that its popularity will decrease as it most likely will no longer be a Featured Article, and rightfully so if the editors can't see the blatant POV and need for citations. Domiy (talk) 21:57, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I find it hypocritical to the extreme that you would tell me to reread the guideline. Maybe you should take a look at the first sentence of the first section of the NPOV guideline, which reads "The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting verifiable perspectives" (emphasis mine). Nousernamesleft (talk) 22:54, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, and the fact that you describe the palazzi in such ways in a conflicted perspective as it does not sound neutral. Perhaps it does to the admiring editors, but to the everyday reader it certainly doesn't. Therefore, it is a conflicted perspective which must be dealt with. Many sources, even the most reliable and verifiable, will always present a one sided point of view. BBC News, SkySports, People's Daily, The Observer and even some books are guilty of such. The entire purpose of these news articles and books are in a lot of cases to entice the reader to ensure the success. So its clearly obvious that they will use praising language to enhance the quality of the writing and attract others. Additionally, many news stories and books are derived from the personal opinions of the author and not the actual corporation/domain as a whole. So even if you find a good source which praises the qualities of the palazzo, you need to be very careful in the way you word it. It can be included as a quote or even descriptive perspective (provided that you acknowledge who's perspective it is). But for an encyclopedia to create its own perspective and make such assumptions without a neutral point of view is madness at its worst, and certainly not something we can call WP's best work. Domiy (talk) 23:21, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Are you sure you understand the meaning of the word "conflicted"? Are there any sources claiming that the Croatia team had a mediocre or average recent record, or highlighting its losses? Nousernamesleft (talk) 23:32, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Ceoil for finding a ref to the obvious. Regarding you Domiy, I note your statement: "If you fail to comply with these guidelines, then I will ensure that the article goes through a lot more of these reviews for removal" - If that is you attitude, then, I wish you joy of it, many people here have chosen to make a career, which could have been better spent, of challenging me. You see I could not give two cents if this page is a FA or not, it is the integrity and information of the page that is important to me. You may remove its FA status, you will not remove it's information and integrity. That I have not provided you with the information to pass an exam, is your problem. However, I am not going to waste my time referencing facts that students should know before they begin to truly study a subject. I am normally very willing to help students interested in such subjects. In future, if you need help with exams you will find the great thing about Wikipedia, is you can normally see who wrote what, and email if necessary the author for further information - and you may find that most people will try to help you. Giano (talk) 20:46, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Your welcome Giano; it took me about 30 seconds to find that. There are bits and pieces to cite yet, but this is a strong artice; I dont see any danger of demotion at all. Domiy has raised issues, they are being addressed; Domiy dont post again until they are addressed. ie breathing space pls, dude. Ceoil ^sláinte 20:56, 20 September 2008 (UTC))

• WP:TLDR, WP:SOAPBOX, WP:POINT. I'm unwatching this FAR because Domiy has several times referred to listing articles at FAR because an article he nominated didn't pass FAC (along with accusing FAC reviewers of bias); besides the WP:POINT factor and that some of his FAR statements don't reflect an understanding of policy, that his multiple FARs remain listed in breach of FAR instructions and that he is WP:SOAPBOXing on the FAR pages is an unproductive timesink. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:20, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Close please. We should all go home now. Ceoil ^sláinte 23:26, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Nousernamesleft (talk) 23:32, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Come Sandy, don't be so negative. Remember one of the golden rules on Wikipedia: Assume Good Faith! Your accusing me of nominating removals due to the fact that my nomination failed. As I said before, this may be the case, but certainly nobody can argue that my nominations were worthwhile and productive, and above all necessary. Need I remind you that Scotland team page went through many issues as it was using copyrighted images and had terrible language (as agreed by others)? I should think not. I will wait until the others close before I nominate anymore, but be assured there will be more to come. The amount of Featured Articles which are extremely bad quality is absurd. It has been identified that the sole reason for this is because they passed nomination a very long time ago; hence my purpose is to modernize the nominations and ensure that they are treated equally as all other nominations are today. Perhaps you are shocked that I have pointed out numerous flaws in articles that you or your delegate have promoted, or perhaps you are just tired of the same work everyday. I don't know, but you really need to assume good faith. All FAR's which I nominate are productive and necessary, for whatever reason. It's funny you should mention Soapboxing when that is actually what the editors of this article are doing. They are praising the palazzo pitti as one of the greatest buildings in the world without a neutral point of view. Its almost as if they are trying to advertise it, another form of SoapBoxing. Perhaps you Sandy need to adopt a neutral POV before you make such decisions and assumptions on FA's. I don't see what running away (ie - taking this page off your watchlist) will prove or solve. Domiy (talk) 06:21, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

See talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:57, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

• I "third" the closing. Domiy, at one point I had considered a lengthy reply pointing out the problems with your arguments, but you are increasingly looking like a troll. Ah yes, "this severe and forbidding[1] building"—what an "advertisement"! (As a side note, I don't want Giano's FAs getting special treatment, I want all FAs getting better treatment. It amuses me that the cool new meme on wikipedia is to explicitly not "assume good faith" of articles. Our articles are our enemies! Paranoia everywhere! Every statement is a possible corruption of knowledge, and we must assume the reader is an idiot who can't contextualize any assertion! I've watched too many people try to condemn good articles in this forum using ridiculous argumentation.) Whiskeydog (talk) 07:06, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
• And the "POV" accusation is ridiculous. The point of view is suited perfectly to an article on architecture. It does not come across as editorial at all. What would we learn about the palazzo if we didn't conclude with an analysis like "Compared to many of Italy's great palazzi the exterior of the Palazzo Pitti at first glance pales: the palazzo does not have the overpowering and commanding presence of ..... [instead] The Palazzo Pitti's architectural merit is in its great severity and simplicity." Consensus is clear: I'd be bold and close this FAR myself but I don't know what they do with the pages. Whiskeydog (talk) 08:17, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:SNOW ahead. Careful now.[14] Ceoil ^sláinte 08:51, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Closing. 'Nuff said. Marskell (talk) 10:14, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

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 User:Marskell 12:56, 19 September 2008 [15].

---

Barack Obama

previous FAR #1: January 2007, previous FAR #2: July 2007, previous FAR #3 (closed April 2008)

Notifications left at Scjessey, CENSEI, Die4Dixie, Ohaohashingo, Justmeherenow, Rick Block, WorkerBee74, Bobblehead, Theosis4u, Textmatters, Duuude007, Always bored, Thingg, J.delanoy, Redrumracer, Sunray, Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters, Erik the Red 2, Noroton, Andyvphil, Wikidemon and Meelar by Curious bystander. ‎

Tvoz already aware; I will notify (from articlestats) HailFire, Jersyko (retired), Josiah Rowe, Johnpseudo and Grsz11. Also WP Politics, ‎ WP US presidential elections, WP Illinois, WP Chicago, WP US Congress and WP Bio. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:51, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Why not other talk page template projects? I added Chicago.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 12:25, 19 September 2008 (UTC) ‎

This article has become a piece of Barack Obama campaign literature. As User:WorkerBee74 commented on the Talk page, "What we're seeing here, in this article, is a campaign to exclude or diminish any material that would tend to wipe a smile off anyone's face at Obama campaign HQ. Even a link to Obama-Ayers controversy is forbidden." Negative material about the candidate is immediately deleted whenever it appears. This triggers a long, drawn-out battle on the Talk page.

Certain editors are homesteading on the article to prevent the introduction of any such material, or diminish it in both size and visibility: subheaders mentioning eminiently notable controversies about the candidate are routinely deleted. Even material that does not reflect negatively on the candidate, but merely indicates that it's possible he might lose, is routinely deleted. Featured Article status requires neutrality of content. This article miserably fails that test. I'm a supporter of the Barack Obama campaign, I've donated money to the campaign, I'm a volunteer for the campaign, but this is ridiculous.

Also, the content of this article is not stable. There is an ongoing presidential campaign, and the subject of this biography is locked in a very tight race. Featured Article status requires stability of content. This article fails that test. Curious bystander (talk) 23:16, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I have notified Meelar (original nominator of the article) Curious bystander (talk) 23:23, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I've just done about 20 notifications, I think that's enough to get this party started. Curious bystander (talk) 23:52, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Notifications have not been correctly posted to the top of this FAR, so all can see who has been notified. See a sample at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Felix the Cat. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:46, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I have completed notifications: if anyone sees someone I missed, pls notify with {{subst:FARMessage|Barack Obama}} ~~~~ . Curious bystander, you have not identified specific actionable issues related to WP:WIAFA that need to be addressed. Please do so. Briefly. It would be helpful if you reference, for example, crit 1a, 1b, 1c, etc. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:00, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• Suggest speedy close. This looks like wikigaming. Wikidemon (talk) 23:33, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Everything that might be critical of Obama looks like wikigaming to Wikidemon. Nothing remotely critical of the candidate can be put in the article without a World War. The Obama-Ayers controversy is not even mentioned, although it is referred to constantly by Obama's critics for at least six months now. One would think this would indicate WP:WEIGHT. Obama's close, influential relationships with Jeremiah Wright and Tony Rezko have been minimized almost out of existence in the article. Editors profess to see BLP violations in the slightest criticism of the God they worship. It's not a Wikipedia article. It's an Obamapedia article. Wikipedia is unable to deal with this many POV pushers. This website's inability to do other than worship one party's candidate for office makes me sick. When I attempted to get in a sentence describing two bestselling books critical of Obama (which one would think would have some WP:WEIGHT -- one was #1 on the New York Times bestseller list, the other, #5, while Obama's two books were described in an entire short section -- the alternative supported by the Obama supporters was to remove the section and replace it with a list, which was actually less informative for the readers. The focus of many of the editors is clearly to help Obama, not the readers. An encyclopedia that professes -- at least tries -- to have a neutral POV should be embarassed by this article, not proud of it. Noroton (talk) 23:42, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

The above personal attack is unworthy of a response - I'll just say it's anti-Obama wikigaming and is basically a fabrication from start to finish.Wikidemon (talk) 23:54, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Bravo, Noroton. You've hit the nail on the head. There are people literally camping out on this article, and instantly deleting anything that resembles criticism. Curious bystander (talk) 23:56, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Please don't meatpuppet personal attacks. The toxic incivility has been going on for months and has only been quelled by article probation and by some of the problem editors taking a break from the page until recently.Wikidemon (talk) 00:14, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• Procedural Close as this is nothing more than a content dispute. Ayers is a non-issue anymore. It had no affect on the campaign, let alone what this article is about - Obama's life. Grsz^talk 23:49, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

All should note that the nominator, Curiousbystander, was just cleared of a block for edit-warring on this article, and is just trying to make a point. Grsz^talk 23:53, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Also note that the alleged "instability" is coming mostly from the nominator. Grsz^talk 23:57, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Obama's life is this campaign, Grsz. Without this campaign, he'd be just another freshman senator with just another 250-word Wikipedia biography. Also, I notice that no one has addressed the "stability of content" problem. Curious bystander (talk) 23:52, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

• Please close this already. No need to solve content disputes in this way.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:59, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

• Procedural Close as the nominating editor is clearly abusing this process to re-ignite a content dispute. Also, several "regular" editors of the article in question were excluded from the notification process (including myself), whereas a long-vanished editor who agreed with the nominator's POV was notified - an additional abuse of process. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:01, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

No way does this meet Wikipedia:Featured_article_criteria if the Sarah_Palin page is representative of what should and shouldn't be included - comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral. Either the Sarah_Palin page needs some serious attention by administrators or the Obama page is nothing but a propaganda piece. Theosis4u (talk) 00:02, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Our newly expanded article on Sarah Palin is a mess, and a hotbed of bad editing. But what does that have to do with Barack Obama? This is an encyclopedia, not a battleground for equal treatment of politicians.Wikidemon (talk) 00:06, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

The reasoning for the comparison is self-evident. If the Obama article is reflective of certain qualities that give it a rating as an excellent quality then it can serve as an example to similar articles. One should also be able to reverse that process, if one compares it against similar articles but find a large gap of content of details on controversies that are discuss and to the depth they are discussed then the article fails on the Wikipedia:Featured_article_criteria for -

comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details

presents views fairly and without bias

focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail

And the submitter accused that this Featured Article status is being used to prevent content changes to maintain it's "stable" criteria. There is a point in stating that during an "election" process that something like "Feature Article" shouldn't be inferred as an argument to beat back edits. [note, I haven't research the truthfulness of the accusers claims] Theosis4u (talk) 00:21, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• I have notified the administrator who blocked Curious bystander yesterday and threatened a topic ban.[16] If anyone should be looking at Curious bystander's contributions it's the administrators. Wikidemon (talk) 00:06, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Procedural Close I have observed this particular article with a light hand. Typo fixes and the such. I am mostly satisfied with it. to nominate this is a waste of time, and mention of rezco and ayers is nothing more than tabloid. Even Major news sources who have reported info on them should know better than to release information that wasn't thoroughly researched, for the sake of ratings. Duuude007 (talk) 00:28, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, if you have a problem with all of those hundreds of high-circulation mainstream media sources that have reported on the Rezko, Wright and Ayers controversies, try a letter to the editor. We base content here on what the notable, reliable sources say. And the notable, reliable sources say that these controversies are worth talking about. Curious bystander (talk) 00:31, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Speedy close - This looks like wikigaming to me, too. The content in question has been repeatedly, consistently rejected as failing WP:BLP, because it consists not of reported facts about Obama's life from reliable sources, but of the opinions of people who attach great significance to Obama's association with Rezko and Ayers, despite every reputable news agency dismissing such significance. Let me make something clear: No one disputes the fact that Obama knew Ayers or Rezko. But only conservative bloggers and opinion writers attach any significance to those associations. As far as the reputable sources are concerned, those associations are notable only insofar as the conservative bloggers and opinion writers have made a lot of noise about them. They have distinctly not validated that noise. What we know, with absolute certainty, from reliable sources, is that Obama knew Ayers and sometimes attended the same meetings in his work. This does not add up to a biographically significant association. What we know, with absolute certainty, from reliable sources, is that Obama bought a house with a perfectly normal home-loan, and that is the limit of his business dealings with Rezko. This also does not add up to a biographically significant association. He is not being investigated for either association by any mainstream journalists or by any criminal investigators. The only people pushing this story are not reliable sources. They've certainly generated a fair amount of media coverage, notable enough for inclusion in the campaign articles. But until these can be demonstrated to be biographically significant relationships in Obama's life, the campaign articles are the only appropriate places for them. --GoodDamon 00:36, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Damon, you know very well that this is incorrect. Obama's business dealins with Rezko also included work done for his property management firm as an attorney, helping to obtain federal grants and loans; and of course, there's that $250,000 in campaign contributions that Rezko either gave or obtained for Obama. Rezko is now on his way to prison for campaign finance violations. This casts a dark shadow on Obama and as an Obama supporter, I am willing to acknowledge that shadow. Trying to hide it is not what Wikipedia is about. Curious bystander (talk) 00:41, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I had forgotten the campaign contributions, since so much of the Rezko discussion has been over the house purchase. And that's what's actually mentioned in the Obama article at the moment, presumably since purchasing a home is a major event in most people's lives, and in this case is more notable due to Rezko's involvement, even if unrelated to Rezko's illegal activities. But we're talking about Obama's biography. Rezko's own legal troubles are his, not Obama's, and Obama hasn't been implicated in any of them. If you feel more details about Rezko need to be in the article, that's a different topic, but it appears you agree with me about Ayers. So in the context of this FAR, is it fair to say the only remaining disagreement is on how much detail the main article should go into on Tony Rezko? If so, I stand by my vote that this be speedily closed. --GoodDamon 02:04, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: The aim of FAR is to identify problems and find ways to retain FA status if possible. I see two problems identified by the nominator: difficulties with WP:NPOV compliance, and lack of stability. A major root cause of both problems is the activity of tendentious single-purpose agenda accounts. The best way to improve the article's neutrality and stability is to assertively rein in these agenda accounts. I have some ideas on where to start with this, but will defer listing them at this juncture. MastCell ^Talk 00:51, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll add that if an editor has a content dispute that has not been solved after several months of advocating it, the proper dispute resolution procedure is RfC or something like that, not trying to get the article delisted as an FA. Wikidemon (talk) 00:55, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec X2) I certainly agree wit GoodDamon on a content basis. We have gone through an excruciating, thoughtful, serious, long process to arrive at a real consensus on exactly how to describe several matters that may be seen as negative for Obama, and having done so to maintain stability and all the while deal with the many dozens of vandals, sockpuppets, trolls, POV editors, etc., who are on the article every day. I was keeping a log on the article probation page of every account that was blocked or banned but at some point I gave up and just started covering the significant ones. The list is now at thirty. Watching over such an important article takes the cooperation of a number of dedicated, diligent editors and the natural tendency when someone wants to add for the nth time - n would probably be several hundred by now - that Obama is a closet Muslim, Arab, friend of unrepentant terrorists, communist, birth certificate forger, not really African-American, under investigation for this or that, and every possible variation of the N-word, is to revert and dismiss out of hand. And if they persist and revert, tell them to read the FAQ, point them to the article probation terms and their "welcome to wikipedia" greeting, and go find consensus on the talk page. A class of editors, equally persistent but somewhat more skilled in their efforts, have been bombarding the article for the past few months as well. Hence we have article probation. I can sympathize with anyone who is trying to keep peace on the Sarah Palin article. It doesn't have the mean streak of racism and vandalism like we do here but the POV edits and the number of people who want to insert random trivial disparaging material, rumors, campaign criticism, etc., is at least as bad as anything we ever had here. I doubt that article could ever reach featured status before the election but perhaps the editors there could learn from the editors here that hard work, a no-nonsense approach, refusal to tolerate incivility and edit warring, and so on, can greatly calm an article. The Obama article is a very good article. I won't offer an opinion as to whether it is truly FA level of not - it got its designation a few years ago when Wikipedia had lower standards. But this is not the place and time to review that decision, certainly not on the question of whether we do or don't adequately disparage him for his contacts with a 1960s radical bomb-thrower and a real estate fraud. Wikidemon (talk) 00:48, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• Curious, all news must be WP:VERIFIABLE. This is doubly so important on a WP:BLP article. Please read WP:PROVEIT for more information. Simply put, if a report is proven misleading, even from the most upstanding news source, they lose credibility, and sometimes employees. Inputting these same tabloid statements into the Obama article would effectively reduce the quality rating of the article. But hey, thats your argument, only in the reverse. Ironic. Duuude007 (talk) 01:04, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

<Moved to talk page>. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:44, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• Procedural question I would like to know how it was decided (and by whom) which editors would be notified of this action. As the editor with the second highest number of edits on the article, last one being just 2 weeks ago, I am curious why I wasn't pinged. I don't suppose it could be because of positions I have taken regarding the editing of the article in the past, now, could it? Were other prolific contributors to this article similarly not pinged? Closing admins, please take note. Tvoz/talk 01:33, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I was not informed. I would like to have been. However, it is mentioned on the article's talk page, so I'm not sure it's a big deal. --GoodDamon 02:07, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Well I think it is a big deal, because not everyone reads talk pages all the time - especially this one, which has so often been inundated with repeated POV attempts at adding content that has been rejected, that editors take breaks from it. If a legitimate FAR were actually underway, the editors who know the most about the article,and have worked to keep it as an FA a long as it has been so, ought to be pinged so they can weigh in. Easy enough to do so, by looking at the page stats or at the previous FARs, etc., yet the pinging was selective. Tvoz/talk 02:59, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Procedural answers: I am just catching up here, Tvoz. So to answer four procedural issues I see already:

1) Notifications should be posted back to the top of this page, as in the sample at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Felix the Cat. If some are missing, I will complete the rest, but first I need to see what has been done. The instructions for notifications are at the top of WP:FAR; they should include all WikiProjects listed on the article talk page, all top contributors per article stats, and in a case like this, probably all recent talk page participants. Since FARs run for a very long time, and are carefully deliberative, if someone was left out early on, it will make no difference in the long run.

2) Raul654, Marskell or Joelr31 decide whether to close FARs (see the instructions at the top of WP:FAR). They/we had several discussions after the last Obama FAR was closed; clamoring for this FAR to be closed is less likely to be helpful than calmly addressing the issues.

3) I see Barneca has gotten involved (thank you), and the page has already grown excessively long. Mastcell has explained the purpose of FAR, which is to identify issues and hopefully resolve them. Because FAR is intentionally deliberative, bickering is not going to help and is not going to make a difference in the long-term outcome. If participants want to bicker, they should take it to talk here or the article talk page: this page is for evaluating the content wrt WP:WIAFA, and off-topic or personal attacks should be moved to the talk page here.

4) FAR and FAC pages are not sub-sectioned; I suggest that participants keep their comments on topic, and focus on specifically addressing why the article does or does not meet WP:WIAFA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:06, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Sandy - perhaps not a problem in the long run, but notification is an issue in the short run, I believe, and may speak to motivation at work here. FAR is not supposed to be wielded as a weapon in content disputes, or at least that's the way I see it. Tvoz/talk 03:07, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

As you probably know, it won't be; FAR is a deliberative process, and is not dispute resolution, for just such reasons. If deficiencies are identified, they will be carefully deliberated here. If they are not, Marksell will close the FAR. All the off-topic hollering and accusations and anything else not related to WP:WIAFA will not affect the process; it will only unnecessarily fill up the page. Those who want to argue if so-and-so is a staffer or not, or picks his or her nose, or whatever, can do so, but in the final analysis, the question here will be if the article conforms with WP:WIAFA. Those arguing to keep the FAR open need to briefly, without the bickering, identify specific deficiencies wrt WP:WIAFA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:15, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, having been through numerous FARs on this and other articles, I know that you will keep the process itself on point, and that's fine with me. Now I'm waiting to see if any legitimate issues are raised. And, I hope we can keep the "I am an Obama supporter, but..." and "this article is dominated by Obama fanboys" comments out of this discussion - the first is usually laughably untrue and the second is insulting to hardworking editors, and neither is helpful to identifying if the article actually has FA issues. Tvoz/talk 03:52, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

It is possible then that it needs to be closed as a community or administrative matter, or a matter of article probation, rather than a matter of FAR process. These are not issues to be resolved here. We can't let behavioral problems and process gaming spill all over the place. Wikidemon (talk) 03:11, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

That has been argued before; take your concern up with Raul654. THIS page is for discussing the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:15, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy close as an act of Wikigaming and POV-pushing. This really has gone too far. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 01:42, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• Misc cleanup needs:
  • The section heading, "U.S. Senator, 2005–present" breaches WP:MOSDATE#Precise language: something like "U.S. Senator, from 2005" might work.
  • The image in "Early life and career" is causing text squeeze, see WP:MOS#Images. If not deleted, it should be moved down.
  • There are WP:ACCESSIBILITY issues in several sections: Images within sections should be below the templates at the top of sections, and maintenance template are in the wrong place. See the structure sections of ASSESSIBILITY.
  • WP:MOSNUM, ... its staff grew from 1 to 13 ... is awkward, might better be ... its staff grew from one to thirteen.
  • Ack. External jump in the text, sample: which authorized the establishment of www.USAspending.gov, a web search engine.[60] External jumps belong in External links or as citations.
  • I am uncertain this italicization is correct, see WP:ITALICS ... introduced follow-up legislation: Strengthening Transparency and Accountability in Federal Spending Act of 2008 ... I know law cases are in italics, but legislation, unsure?
  • Logical punctuation needs to be addressed per WP:PUNC, sample: ... "to avoid the impression that he endorsed the entire range of opinions expressed at that church."
  • Citations still look very clean, but I saw some unformatted citations, so a review might be in order (there are too many for me to look at all of them :-) All need publisher, author and date when available, and last accessdate on websites.
    • ^ Obama: I trusted Rezko" (March 15, 2008).
    • ^ ObamaSpeak
    • ^ http://www.cnn.com/video/?/video/offbeat/2008/02/19/moos.obamafied.cnn: CNN Video
    • ^ Making It: How Chicago shaped Obama
  • Inconsistency in date linking in citations should be addressed (slowly, over time, since this is a recent WP:MOS change). Some dates are delinked, others linked, example: Fornek, Scott (October 3, 2007). I don't suggest trying to do this kind of work during an election cycle :-)
• All in all, still a very clean article, none of this is significant (except the external jump in the text, I hope there aren't others). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:55, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comments on this version. Suggested prose changes:
  • "Obama directed Illinois's Project Vote from April to October 1992...powers to be." This sentence is too long and complicated. I had to read it over twice.
  • "Obama taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School for twelve years, being first classified as a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996, and then as a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004." Why not?: "Obama taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School for twelve years, as a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996, and then as a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004." I know he had another job at the same time, but it is unnecessary to complicate the sentence to point this out, when the other job is mentioned in the next paragraph.
  • Why aren't Senators Carper, Coburn, McCain, Feingold and Lugar, President Bush or St. Paul, Minnesota linked?
  • "In March 2007, 'Obama' was officially accepted...obamacam." Seems trivial.
  • "Further reading" is unnecessary given the plethora of references. Can "External links" be trimmed?
  • Images I would have said a signature was an original work of art, and hence copyrightable by the creator, but I could be wrong.
  • I did not find any obvious partisan statements or missing information. DrKiernan (talk) 10:24, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Closing. If editors would like to debate further, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. It is beyond the capacity and purpose of the Featured Article Review to deal with most of the comments here.

As for stability (1e), dealing with trolls, vandals or single purpose edit warriors does not make for an unstable FA. If it did, we'd never be able to feature controversial or widely covered subjects: instability would become self-fulfilling and trolls would exploit the fact. The question is whether there is a competently written, neutral article, that neglects no major details beneath (so to speak) the warring and vandals. Here there is. I see no convincing case to leave this open.

I will copy Sandy's and DrKiernan's comments to article talk as they provide some specific clean-up concerns for people to address. Marskell (talk) 12:51, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

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 User:Marskell 12:35, 17 September 2008 [17].

---

Edward VI of England

Review commentary

• Notified Wikiprojects England, Biography, Christianity, Anglicanism, and User:DrKiernan

This article needs a lot more inline citations to verify the content of the article, which is very lightly referenced at the moment. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:47, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I may try to add some. DrKiernan (talk) 11:03, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm cleaning the house out a bit prior to restoration—see the article's talk page. I have the books for this (Alford, Loach, MacCulloch, etc.) and am rolling up my sleeves. qp10qp (talk) 15:52, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm proceeding, but I am very very slow, so please be patient. qp10qp (talk) 22:55, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Can anyone verify that Image:John Dudley.jpg is a picture of a portrait in Penshurst Place? Can anyone close the deletion debate on Image:Edward VI Scrots c1550.jpg [18]? DrKiernan (talk) 12:59, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Slightly different versions of the Dudley portrait exist. In books it is only ever in black and white. I don't think the lack of a source is important in this case, because I can't think of a circumstance in which this wouldn't be public domain. However, I could scan one from a book and source it to the book if a source is thought essential. qp10qp (talk) 14:12, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I am 100% confident that the Scrots portrait will be kept. I think the delay is that Commons are negotiating a new policy, since Jimbo Wales and some other highups recently stated that old art shouldn't be deleted on the grounds proposed in that deletion discussion. As a precaution, PKM did upload a Wikipedia version, but I can't find it: perhaps someone has deleted it on grounds of duplication. qp10qp (talk) 14:09, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

It's Image:Edward VI William Scrots c1550.jpg. DrKiernan (talk) 07:11, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Aha—that's the one; cheers. I've replaced the Commons version with it for the present, adding a hidden note not to change it till the deletion case has closed with a keep. For reasons I don't really understand, images like this are OK on Wikipedia, but (until recently at least) assailable on Commons.qp10qp (talk) 07:36, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

The image has just been declared a keep at Commons, and so I have swapped the versions round again. The public domain policy on old art at Commons has just been freed up, I'm glad to say. qp10qp (talk) 19:38, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are referencing (1c) and images (3). Marskell (talk) 11:27, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I hope no one votes yet. I am about a third of the way through so far, and will need three weeks to finish (am away for several days next week). qp10qp (talk) 13:12, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• Remove. Article still has significant referencing issues as initially brought up by Judgesurreal777 (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 21:45, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

These issues apply to the lower parts of the article, which haven't been done yet. I am in the process of meeting the concerns, but I'm using a large number of books and it takes time. I have some more material in a good state of progress offline, which I will be adding quite soon and which should take us past half way in the article. Please be patient. qp10qp (talk) 23:44, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

No worries Qp. I'm ignoring the remove 'til we here back from you. Marskell (talk) 08:37, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Crossed out my remove above pending further input from Qp10qp (talk · contribs) - though the article in its current state would have severe difficulties at passing through WP:FAC. Cirt (talk) 16:03, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Very much so. qp10qp (talk) 16:05, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I am going away from tomorrow, 1 September, until Friday or Saturday, and won't be touching a computer in the meantime. This is not a loss of interest or momentum, and I will resume promptly on return. The task is about three quarters done now: the main sections that remain to be completed are on religious reform and on the succession crisis—complex matters that will take about another week. I will also need to develop the lead and carry out an overall tidy-up and copyedit. qp10qp (talk) 16:08, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Back at it, progressing well. Won't be long now—all being well, Monday 8 September should be OK for voting to start (I will have met the concerns by then, I hope, though I'll go on refining and adding details after that and will improve the lead). qp10qp (talk) 16:19, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, the article is at last ready for reappraisal, in my opinion. I intend to add a small legacy section, improve the lead, deepen the references in places, and perform a copyedit. But as far as this FAR goes, I believe the article now meets FA criteria, and in particular the issues mentioned in this review. In other words, it is fully referenced, and the images have all been carefully vetted for sourcing, image descriptions, etc. Vote away, by all means. qp10qp (talk) 23:45, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Done the jobs above. From here on, I may tinker, but I'm pretty much finished. qp10qp (talk) 03:05, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

• It's a keeper, but some things need to be fixed:

• Inconsistent date formatting, sometimes US date formatting is used, sample ... Northumberland marched out of London with three thousand men, reaching Cambridge on 14 July; meanwhile, Mary rallied her forces at Framlingham Castle in Suffolk, gathering an army of nearly twenty thousand by July 19 ...

• Dates are delinked in most of the text, but linked in the lead.

These two date issues have been fixed by DrKiernan. Many thanks. qp10qp (talk) 16:58, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

• There's a hidden chart in Ancestors, that won't mirror, print and violates WP:ACCESSIBILITY, needs to be unhidden.

Does anyone know how to unhide it? I can't work it out. qp10qp (talk) 16:55, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:22, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

• Keep, naturally. Another superlative effort by qp. I've unlinked the dates.
  • In the lead, I've changed "to avert a Catholic succession" to "to avert a Catholic resurgence", in an attempt to avoid repetition of "succession". However, another interpretation is that the device was designed to secure Dudley's power base. So, you may wish to cast another look over that bit.

Yes, I've yet to really revise the lead. I did worry about that repetition, but I am not sure that "resurgence" is the precise word in the context, though they more broadly did want to prevent that. I think Dudley's aims coincided with those of the crown, because his power base depended on there not being a Catholic succession. I will see if I can come up with something that covers all angles. qp10qp (talk) 15:19, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I've settled for: When Edward fell terminally ill in 1553, he and his Council drew up a "Devise for the Succession" in an attempt to prevent a Catholic backlash against the Protestant Reformation. qp10qp (talk) 03:08, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

• • Dudley is also referred to as "Warwick" and "Northumberland". It would be easier to follow if the prose did not switch back and forth between them, but instead used only Warwick up to a certain point and then Northumberland only after it.

I thought that was what I had done. But I have now included both his titles in the lead, to cover a potential objection. The grey area is the early part of his presidency (1549 to 1551), when he was still earl of Warwick. Since he was Warwick during part of his administration, it is tricky knowing what to call him when talking of his administration as a whole. But I have tried to apply a certain logic, anyway. qp10qp (talk) 16:31, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

• • I would prefer Image:John Dudley.jpg to have a source.

OK, I have removed that image and replaced it with a version I have just uploaded from a book—so the sourcing issue is now addressed. This version is murkier, but it is less problematic in that the previous one was dated 1545, whereas Dudley did not become duke of Northumberland, which he is called in the inscription, until 1551. My hunch is that the type is posthumous (the patterning in the surround certainly looks Elizabethan, even possibly Jacobean) and that this was drawn during the ascendancy of Dudley's son Robert Dudley, 1st Earl of Leicester, particularly as he is posed and dressed very similarly to some portraits of Leicester and a few other Elizabethan types. It would be nice to have a contemporary portrait of John Dudley, but none seem to exist. qp10qp (talk) 16:08, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

• • "the Council" is used throughout rather than "the council", whereas "the king" is used often but not "the King".

As you know, consistency is hard to achieve in this sort of thing. Temperamentally (and off-wiki), I am a non capitaliser in these matters, but I have had to compromise on Wikipedia. Here the difficulty is caused by "Privy Council", which I'm not sure I could get away with not capitalising: so the capital for "Council" is a corollary of that. I think it is OK to say "the king" or "the duke" when the usage is generalised rather than being attached to a name. qp10qp (talk) 16:26, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

• These are minor points; I don't intend to re-visit. DrKiernan (talk) 11:08, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

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 User:Marskell 13:18, 13 September 2008 [19].

---

Her Majesty's Most Honourable Privy Council

Review commentary

Contacted User:DrKiernan, Wikiprojects Spoken Wikipedia and Politics of the United Kingdom

• This article needs more citations, as it has only a few, meaning that large parts of the article are totally unreferenced. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 00:52, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll see if I can hunt up some references. Might be a little while, since I'm quite busy at the moment. Dr pda (talk) 11:47, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concern is referencing (1c). Marskell (talk) 07:40, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Still working on this...slowly. Dr pda (talk) 11:22, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

FYI I will be away, without internet access, for the next week or so, but I'm still working on the referencing. Dr pda (talk) 10:59, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

• Remove - Not sure this article would pass a WP:GA review at this point in time, let alone a run at WP:FAC. Cirt (talk) 17:26, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
• Hold, Dr pda says he wants to work on this one. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:32, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Struck out my comment above pending further work and input from Dr pda (talk · contribs) - but I reiterate my stance that at its present state this article is not up to current WP:GA standards. Cirt (talk) 16:10, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I've asked Drpda for an update. Marskell (talk) 11:23, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm still going with this, have just added another bunch of references tonight in fact. As for how long it will take me to finish, it's hard to say; depends on how easy the remaining facts are to source, and how much time I have available. I'll try to make an push this weekend and see how far I get. Help is of course always welcome :) Dr pda (talk) 13:02, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Good work so far Doc. Along with the referencing, I think this needs to be checked over for prose and orthography: capitalization, italics, quotation marks, brackets. I'll try and at least help with this sort of thing. Marskell (talk) 09:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I am catching up from travel, way behind, but will try to peek at the article in a few more days. Sorry I can't be more help just now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I realized reading over the lead that the last three paras really needed their own section as they were in no way a summary of the article. This means building a new lead summary. It need not be too long. Marskell (talk) 11:28, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Thanks, Doc. I've expanded the lead. DrKiernan (talk) 08:02, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the lead DrK. I would still like one more ref flyover from Drpda, specifically for the end of the History and the new Forms of Address section. Also, in the latter section, we have one paragraph italicizing titles and another placing them in quotations. What's proper? Marskell (talk) 13:58, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't know. As quotes are used more often, I have switched the italics to quotes but I don't mind either or neither. DrKiernan (talk) 07:59, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, everything's cited now, except for a couple of sentences in the History section relating to Charles I. Anyone is free to try and find a reference, or otherwise rewrite this paragraph. A couple of other refs could be improved; I couldn't find a reliable source stating that Australian Prime Ministers are no longer appointed, or that other Commonwealth Prime Ministers are (only "Commonwealth spokesmen and judges"). It would be nice to have a better ref for the Rt Hon vs PC thing for peers as well. Dr pda (talk) 11:07, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Ref 36 suggests Australia severed its ties to the Council in 1986, so I think that safely covers the fact they are no longer appointed. I don't see any of these last points as deal breakers so I'll go ahead and keep this. Marskell (talk) 12:34, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

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 User:Marskell 12:46, 12 September 2008 [20].

---

Hydrochloric acid

Review commentary

Notified WikiProject Chemicals, Wimvandorst, Cacycle, Edgar181, Walkerma, Physchim62.

This article was promoted to FA status in April 2005. However, it does not meet current FA standards, namely criterion 1c (references). Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 13:43, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Please be more specific, otherwise you will only be creating WikiDrama, not helping to improve articles. Physchim62 (talk) 15:39, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I thought the same when I saw the very brief nomination, but after looking at the article I think the nominator is right. The article is almost completely unreferenced, and there is absolutely no chance that it would pass a featured article candidacy today in its current form. --Itub (talk) 15:47, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Physchim62, I thought it was pretty self-explanatory. FA criterion 1c: "(c) factually accurate: claims are verifiable against reliable sources, accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge, and are supported with specific evidence and external citations; this requires a "References" section in which sources are listed, complemented by inline citations where appropriate;" This article is almost completely unreferenced, therefore it fails 1c. Regarding your edit summary, I keep my comments brief. I've written two lines for other FAR noms and no one else has complained. Perhaps you should take a look at WP:FAR. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 15:55, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I've been thinking to nominate this for a review since putting it on my watchlist some months ago, but have been hesitant due to the fact that nominators are asked to provide help in improving the article. That said, the one area that should be completely referenced is the History section. I believe just by having looked over the rest of the article that it is easily verifiable (college textbooks and what not should serve) and should have inline references as per the nomination.

I would also say the prose could be spruced up, for what little there is of it. --Izno (talk) 16:50, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

The prose needs tidying up. Some points don't appear to make any sense. For example, the boiling points depend on "the concentration or molarity of HCl in the acid solution. They can range from those of water at 0% HCl" Huh? Surely 0% HCl is water? DrKiernan (talk) 10:52, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, the article could do with some grooming. All paragraphs are properly referenced in the style of 2005 FA requirements, which indeed needs a change-over to more modern in-line refs. I'll give it some attention in the near future. Due to the vacationing, I'm actually now off-Wiki for another fortnight (having a great non-wiki time), so herewith I kindly ask the FAR processor to keep this FAR open for an extended period. Wim van Dorst (talk) 18:59, 5 August 2008 (UTC).

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concern is referencing (1c). Marskell (talk) 16:50, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

• Remove per 1c. My concerns have not been addressed yet. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 16:51, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
  • My concerns have been sufficiently addressed. I request that the lead be rewritten to meet current standards and I hope more refs will be added in the future. Great work, everyone. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 20:41, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

The referencing system has been brough up to date. The 2005/FA requirement did allow for all references to be grouped in the References section. I have now moved the references into the text, updating them to in-line refs. The pointed out phrases that should be clarified, and some obvious unclarity in the lead section has been updated too. In my humble opinion, the (1c) criteria has been met in the style of today. If others recommendations remain, feel free to suggest here. Wim van Dorst (talk) 16:12, 24 August 2008 (UTC).

I think the citations in #Applications, #Presence, and #Safety are very very loose. There aren't nearly enough. I'm not one to require a citation or two every sentence, but those are definitely lacking. A fact like "HCl is not a common pickling agent for stainless steel grades." — Where is that coming from? There are other examples naturally, but that is illustrative of the lack of inline citations. --Izno (talk) 16:23, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that example out: indeed, where did that come from? Apparently a new text that an unqualified editor added at a later time: I've removed it. For the rest, I will try to add some more precise references for the sections that may need substantiation. Wim van Dorst (talk) 16:31, 24 August 2008 (UTC).

• Remove - I agree with Nishkid64 (talk · contribs) and Izno (talk · contribs) here, there are still whole chunks of this article that lack in-line citations or are wholly unsourced. The article would not pass a WP:GA review in its present state, and certainly is not up to current standards at WP:FA and would have a rough time at WP:FAC, to say the least. Cirt (talk) 18:08, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. Wim van Dorst seems to be the only one working on cleaning up the article. He was on a wikibreak when this article was nominated, but he is made good progress. I suggest giving him (or anyone else who wants to help!) a bit more time and I'm sure that the article can be rescued. I think that in most cases the "unsourced" information comes from the references at the end, and it is just a matter of finding out which reference was used for each statement and adding an inline citation. --Itub (talk) 18:22, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• This article is a very long ways from where it needs to be; not sure if holding at this late stage will yield the desired result, but feedback would help. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:56, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I asked Wim for a follow up comment. Marskell (talk) 11:03, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

• Hi, my intention is indeed to further improve the article regarding the 1c criterion. I don't have too much spare time, so I'll ask some regular WP:Chem contributor to step in as well. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. Wim van Dorst (talk) 19:06, 29 August 2008 (UTC).
  • The applications section could be easily referenced with the aid of an undergraduate chemistry textbook, as has been noted above. I have nevertheless changed the order of paragraphs to reflect the usage of hydrochloric acid by weight: objections to this bold action are probably best at the article talk page, as they are irrelevant to the comments raised here. The safety section needs a little bit of work on it, but the references are easily available (I haven't added them yet because I'm spending my time replying on this page). On the other hand the "presence" section, while accurate, is not easily referenceable after the first paragraph: a bit of help anyone? Physchim62 (talk) 21:35, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

With help of several other editors of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemicals, I think we have now well taken care of the above-mentioned 1C criterion (no in-line reference). This article was one of the first FA articles of WP, and the first FA of the Wikiproject as general effort. The referencing in 2005 wasn't a major concern, and although the references were not written in-line then, it was very well-resourced and edited. I hope with this latest effort to re-do the work of three years ago, the FAR can now be closed. With special thanks to WP:Chem. Wim van Dorst (talk) 22:12, 1 September 2008 (UTC).

I would be satisfied with 1c if the first paragraph of #Other_applications could have the last two sentences referenced. I don't know if the reference after the first sentence supports those sentences or if the reference in the following paragraph does so.
On a more general note, it might be wise for WP Chem to go through all its older FAs and fix them up, similarly to what happened here, if such has not been done so. --Izno (talk) 23:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Izno. The paragraph was indeed covered by that ref (G&E). I have added the other detailed ref for this info (CEH), in such a way that it covers both paragraphs. And we'll take your recommendation for WP:Chem to note as well. Wim van Dorst (talk) 05:54, 2 September 2008 (UTC).

I see some cleanup needs here and there, and will try to help after I catch up from travel. Can someone solve the text squeeze in the first section (see WP:MOS#Images). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:05, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• Hi Sandy, yes, please dig in to improve. I took care of the textsqueeze for you. Wim van Dorst (talk) 22:39, 6 September 2008 (UTC).
  • I'm still trying to get there, just very far behind after a week away due to travel. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:43, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
    • I made my first pass through; there is still more of same to be done. The article was substantially WP:OVERLINKed, items linked in the article were repeated in See also (see WP:LAYOUT), there are missing publishers and accessdates, there were issues of WP:MOSDATE#Precise language, there were hyphens where negative signs should be used, and ly adverbs aren't hyphenated. The article can probably make it, but others should comb through for more of same; I didn't finish. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:20, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
      • Thanks for a very nice grooming effort, improving well. I checked all current links against 2008 ideas of overlinking, and I think you have now found a proper balance between being understandable for non-chemists and being pleasantly readable by experts in the field. I also checked all hyphens and similar symbols, and indeed found a few to be corrected. The only thing I don't understand is the remark 'ly adverbs not hyphenated' in your edit comments. As I don't see errors in the text, I presume it done now. PS. The FAR was originally for suspected failure on the 1c criterion; I'm glad to see we are now further improving the article on many other points as well. Wim van Dorst (talk) 22:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC).
      • I also used the FA tools (thanks Sandy), and the PR script to find OFIs. And I fixed what I found. Wim van Dorst (talk) 23:16, 7 September 2008 (UTC).
• Good enough to Keep now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:35, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

• Struck out my Remove above, I see some great work has gone into this article, and I assume further work is still being done so I will wait a bit to do a reassessment later. Cirt (talk) 20:26, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comments Keep I don't see any obvious deficiencies. Note: I am not a chemist.
  • "it was used by alchemists in the quest for the philosopher's stone, and later by European scientists including Glauber, Priestley, and Davy." To the uninitiated this sounds as though Priestley and Davy searched for the philosopher's stone. It would be better to separate the two clauses into two distinct sentences.
  • "Until the Alkali Act 1863, excess HCl was vented to the air." Should be qualified to point out that the legislation is UK-specific.
  • "It reacts with basic compounds such as calcium carbonate or copper(II) oxide to metal chlorides." I am unclear here whether it reacts with metal chlorides or forms them when mixed with carbonates and oxides.
  • "They range from those of water at 0% HCl to values for fuming hydrochloric acid at over 40% HCl" I don't really understand "0% HCl" nor how hydrochloric acid can have a crystallization point of ice at 0%, when this is not hydrochloric acid but water. The article should be on the acid not on the solvent.
  • "The use of high-quality hydrochloric acid is the regeneration of ion exchange resins." Should this be "High-quality hydrochloric acid is used in the regeneration of ion exchange resins."? DrKiernan (talk) 11:58, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
    • All FA articles should be understandable by non-chemists as well. Thanks for pointing out these improvement opportunities. We've taken care of all of them. Wim van Dorst (talk) 19:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC).
      • Thanks! DrKiernan (talk) 07:30, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

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 User:Marskell 13:51, 10 September 2008 [21].

---

Geology of the Zion and Kolob canyons area

Notified WikiProject Utah, WikiProject Geology and Mav.

Not a single inline citation. Some MoS issues, and the prose could use some copyediting. Wouldn't pass GA as it is. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 15:04, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Was promoted to FA at a time when inline cites were not needed. I'll add them and perform a copyedit to bring this to current FA standards. --mav (talk) 16:23, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

"Wouldn't pass GA" is not an argument, and it sounds quite pompous. This rhetorical tone ("not a single inline citation"), adopted too often by FAR "introducers", does not exactly promote an environment in which one would want to assist the process. What a delight it would be if FAR actually required more than two cut-and-paste sentences for someone to initiate the process. Whiskeydog (talk) 02:15, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

If I were reviewing this article in its current state for GA, I would most certainly fail it. As such, we cannot have FAs that are of lesser quality than GAs, so that is a perfectly legitimate argument. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 14:28, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

For the record I was not offended by Juliancolton's comment. This article legitimately was found to be one of the best of Wikipedia back in 2004. However, standards have increased (esp in regards to inline cites) since then, prompting a need to upgrade the referencing and MoS compliance of this article. That our standards have increased is a good thing. --mav (talk) 00:08, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Many inline cites added; more to come. --mav (talk) 02:00, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - Well, obviously Mav is adding some, so Julian please be patient. I understand and realize that the article is not Fa quality, but trust me, it will be. Mav has 20 fas under his belt. He will get it done. --Meldshal42? 23:48, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes, I see that Mav is working hard at it. My suggestion is to use some references other than the Harris book. Once the referencing is done, the next major step is to cut down on some images. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 00:06, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
    • See below. Text to image balance will be much better once the article is expanded, negating any need to remove images. --mav (talk) 03:04, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Yet more cites added. I also started to expand the article using some great PD text from the NPS that was published a couple years after this article was FAd. --mav (talk) 03:04, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Expansion from PD NPS text complete. I still need to do another reference pass once I find the Tufts, Leach and Zion Map sources. If I have time, I'd also like to confirm and directly use the hidden inline cites to Biek et al. 2000, which were what the PD text cited. Biek et al. 2000 is in a book I purchased after this article became FA. --mav (talk) 02:20, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Just a quick note (I'll give a full list of things to do later): per MoS, don't left-align images directly under level-3 (===) section headers. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 21:02, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

That seems like an odd MoS guideline. Could you provide a link to the page and section? I'd rather rearrange sections vs follow that under the current arrangement. --mav (talk) 23:27, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Do not place left-aligned images directly below second-level (===) headings, as this disconnects the heading from the text it precedes, from MOS:IMAGES. Not a big deal, though. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 23:56, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, that sounds reasonable. I thought that you meant that no images were allowed to be left-aligned inside level 3 sections. I think I just fixed this particular issue and the article looks better now. --mav (talk) 03:22, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Inline cites now exist for all the listed sources. The only two things I see that are still needed are a final copyedit and maybe a final ref pass to swap some Graham inline cites with the superior Biek et al cites. What else, besides a copyedit, is needed? --mav (talk) 01:55, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

The lead seems a tad sparse for an article of such length. I'd say try to flesh it out to three moderately-sized paragraphs. Otherwise, I'll try to help with some copyediting. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 01:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Yep - you are correct. I'll see about expanding the lead in the next day or two. --mav (talk) 02:37, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Nice work, article has improved significantly since initial comment by Juliancolton (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 17:24, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• NOTE: I haven't forgotten this. I simply have been working on another article and watching coverage of the DNC convention. I'll get back to this FAR during the upcoming long weekend. --mav (talk) 00:54, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

• Lead expanded, copyedit complete, MoS pass done and Biek refs confirmed and unhidden. I think I'm done now. --mav (talk) 03:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Minor point, but I've never seen an FA with so many redlinks. Shouldn't they be discouraged?--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 09:08, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Redlinks in general aren't discouraged, though it is indeed more visually pleasing to have them eliminated. My question to Mav is if these faults and other redlinked geographical features are notable enough for their own articles, or if they can be redirected somewhere. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 14:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

All the formations at least are notable enough. Some of the other redlinks are not really (including the faults and minor geological features). I'll de-link some redlinks. --mav (talk) 22:30, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Done. --mav (talk) 22:45, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I've added nonbreaking spaces between numerals and units of measure; prioritized US units first, and added commas in a few large numbers. I have not copyedited, as the subject matter is far beyond my comprehension at my current level of margaritization.(That should totally be a word.) Maralia (talk) 04:52, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I've only time for a quick glance, but work remains; not ready to keep yet. Check WP:MSH re: "The", and I saw a lot of lacking hyphenation. I'll look more closely tomorrow. Also, WP:OVERLINKing and some confusing prose (look at the first paragraph of the article, after the lead. Is it "The Grand Staircase" or "Grand Staircase". First we hear of the Grand Canyon, confusing, how we got there from here. Is the hyphenation correct on the 240 million year old? A whole lot of verbiage before Grand Staircase is introduced. Why are words like mountain linked? The entire section is confusing in terms of which park is which and how they all got introduced suddenly under The Grand Staircase. I think north-south has to be north–south when it means north to south. Copyedit needed, and hyphenation issues everywhere: to form the 1,800 foott (550 m) thick Moenkopi Formation. and of the resulting 100 foot thick (30 m) Dakota Sandstone ... too many parenthetical inserts to "See" another article, should be templates at the top of sections or worked into the prose. This is just a quick pass, but I think this article needs more than just citation: it needs another prose look and smoothing out of some of the prose and copyediting glitches, and auditing for clarity for the uninitiated. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:29, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

"The" nixed. Many hyphens fixed (I hope) but I sure could use some examples still in the article of incorrect vs correct hyphen and en/em dash usage. That's not something that was covered much at all in any of my English classes. As for overlinking; I removed most if not all redundant links but this article is about geology, thus linking once to terms such as stream, desert, lagoon and mountain are relevant to the topic and thus appropriate to link, no? Context added at start of Grand Staircase section. North-south fixed. Parenthetical (see ...) inserts taken care of. Another copyedit also done. Any help will be greatly appreciated and I'll make sure to learn from your efforts. --mav (talk) 17:48, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Much better now, except you made the hyphenation issues on conversions worse :-) I left you a Tony1-suggested method (see sample edits) for avoiding those awkward constructs; just reword to work around them. There are still some more (I wasn't convinced I was wording them correctly, so I stopped); once you fix those, I think it's good to go. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:47, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I dropped the hyphens on all of the -thicks. The MoS doesn't seem to suggest that a hyphen would be needed and it strikes me as a little weird (I'm "1.75 meters tall" not "1.75 meters-tall"). I will keep this now. Marskell (talk) 13:47, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

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 User:Marskell 13:51, 10 September 2008 [22].

---

Katamari Damacy

Review commentary

I count five sections without any sources, and the rest are desperately in need of citations (I could litter it with {{cn}}, but that seems counter-productive.) Goes into unnecessary game detail, and lacks information on development, failing comprehensiveness criteria. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 00:18, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I've given this a first cleanup pass - cut down story and gameplay drastically and have worked out a development section. There's still more in the sales section that can be improved and fixed. --MASEM 02:33, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Please notify significant contributers as well as associated wikipedia projects and post these notifications at the top of this FAR (see the instructions at WP:FAR. Thanks! --Regents Park (paddle with the ducks) 16:20, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

What information on development does it lack? Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:53, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I would say that that concern is no longer as relevant, though it was with the revision I nom'd for FAR: rev1 --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 20:15, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

More specifically, there was no development before I did a mass edit to add some. --MASEM 20:17, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

• Notified A Link to the Past, FAC nominator. —Giggy 03:57, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks. Would've been nice to have been notified of the FAR in advance by David, but hey, high expectations, I guess. - A Link to the Past (talk) 06:08, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

What issues are actually outstanding here? Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:09, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure there are sections of story and gameplay needing sourcing. Reviews can be used for that, I just haven't had time. --MASEM 14:25, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Baloney. Both are implicitly sourced to the primary source material, i.e. the game, which is an utterly fine source for identifying its own plot and gameplay. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:28, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

This generally doesn't fly anymore for FA's, at least for gameplay, which 99% of the time can be easily backed by collaborating evidence from reviews. The plot, fortunately, can also be cited as such. --MASEM 14:31, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I am appalled that that doesn't fly. Backing with evidence from reviews, given the egregiously poor editorial and ethical practices of the video game review industry, is a miserably poor idea for something that can be straightforwardly gleaned from primary sources within our policy. This is something we ought push back on. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:35, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

At worst, a review from a reliable source (meaning that some editorial oversight has been done) is better in terms of verifiability than an editor's interpretation of game mechanics or plot, when it can be done. Even sourcing the game itself or the manual is preferred over no source at all. Mind you, I agree that in most cases, plot and gameplay can stand on its own, but its clear from several recent GA/FAs that I've been through that lack of any source in gameplay and plot will be called out and questioned. --MASEM 15:04, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Right, obviously there are places where secondary sources can have a role to play. But in this specific article, I see nothing of significance in the gameplay section that seems to me to require a secondary source. That people will raise the concern seems to me beside the point - it is a needless concern that imposes undue requirements on articles, and it cannot meaningfully help improve them. It's something I think it's better to hold a firm line on. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:10, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are referencing (1c) and comprehensiveness (1b). Marskell (talk) 10:44, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

• Remove. Agree with everything said above by David Fuchs (talk · contribs) and Masem (talk · contribs). Masem has made some admirable changes to the article since the FAR started, but it isn't really up to the quality of current FA standards in its present state. It might pass a GA review, but not too sure on that one either. Cirt (talk) 19:16, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
• Remove. As per comments above, just doesn't meet FA-quality at moment. Wouldn't be too hard to boost it up, but it would require more than just sourcing here and there. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 19:17, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. No evidence of missing sources in any area where primary sources are unsuitable. Phil Sandifer (talk) 03:53, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
• Provisional keep. I kind of forgotten to work on this, and would like a week to do some sourcing. - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:21, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment on that note, I have added some references to the story and gameplay sections (taken from reliable review sources). --MASEM 19:45, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
• Keep; sourcing is fine (Masem just made it better) and comprehensiveness isn't an issue. I'll try and give it another touch up at some point. Looks good. —Giggy 02:22, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

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 User:Gimmetrow 11:07, 9 September 2008 [23].

---

Calgary Flames

Notified Talk:Calgary Flames, Resolute, GoodDay and Djsasso

This article has an excess of non-free images, Image:Calgary_Flames_logo_1980-1994.png and Image:Calgary Flames logo.svg are in violation of minimal usage, we dont need a non-free image to describe a black outline. Multiple instances of copyrighted team uniforms, when one is only needed, or even the free Image:JaromeIginla.jpg could be used. Fasach Nua (talk) 12:11, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

To avoid drive-by noms, we generally don't allow reviews for articles that have recently been on the main page. In this case, I don't see that a full review is warranted. However, we can leave this up a few days to get feedback on the images. Fasach, I suggest you be bold and make some of the image changes yourself. Marskell (talk) 13:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• He's done exactly that over the last couple of days, and has been reverted on the grounds that he failed to give any explanation, in edit summary or otherwise, for the action.  RGTraynor  15:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, it sure was nice for you to finally explain your complaints rather than just throw up a boilerplate message and bail. "Drive-by" is the perfect way to describe this. Personally, I think this review should be speedy closed, and the nominator given a polite suggestion that discussion of his issues on the article's talk page would be an ideal first step. As one can easily see, Fasach Nua has made absolutely no attempt at discussing any of his concerns beforehand. Resolute 14:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

And, for the record, I do have plans to replace at least two of the jersey images with free equivalents once the hockey season starts, in a couple weeks. This is something that I would have happily explained had Fasach simply asked. Resolute 14:22, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I am actually surprised this user would not even attempt to bring up the reasoning on Talk:Calgary Flames. He was asked by a couple editors to discuss his issues on the talk page before just throwing up a boilerplate message. I would agree that this is a drive-by nomination. Especially since too many non-free images is a very subjective issue. -Djsasso (talk) 14:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Quite. May I ask, since the subject has come up, for a link to the policy discussing how many images are or are not permitted in an article? (I am sure, of course, that the editor is aware that there is a right at law for the use of sports teams logos for illustrative, non-commercial use.)  RGTraynor  15:20, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

There is no set limit, use is defined by policy and aims of the foundation. Fasach Nua (talk) 17:38, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

If there is no set limit, how can you say there are too many? It's common sense that for a history of the logo of a company that there will need to be multiple non-free images at each stage of its evolution, and as such I don't see where there is a violation of trying to keep to a minimum number of them. Because the minimum number in this case would be 1 for every version of the logo. -Djsasso (talk) 17:41, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

The usage of these images falls outside policy, and several images would have to be removed to meet WP:NFCC, thus reducing the number. It is not necessary to have a picture of every single logo a team has ever had to understand the concept of the team Fasach Nua (talk) 17:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Except that that section is not specifically about the team, its a history of its logo. And for that you would need one of each logo. In that respect its fully compliant with WP:NFCC. -Djsasso (talk) 17:57, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

In which case you admit that your take is entirely subjective? I would like to hear the specific elements of NFCC you claim these images violate, because as it stands, this comes off as WP:IDONTLIKEIT rather than any concrete complaint.  RGTraynor  19:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I am closing this. What's at issue can perfectly easily be resolved on article talk. FAR is not dispute resolution. Marskell (talk) 10:23, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

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 User:Marskell 14:19, 8 September 2008 [24].

---

Helicobacter pylori

Review commentary

User:AxelBoldt, Wikipedia:WikiProject Microbiology, User:TimVickers, User:GrahamColm, User:Jfdwolff notified

I am nominating this Featured Article for further review. The Pathology section is one sentence and is tagged for improvement. The writing is no longer FA quality. It is very poorly referenced. For an article on this particular bacteria, I'd expect to see twice as many references as are there. Moreover, many of the statements just aren't referenced. The external links are way overboard (I know that's a judgement call, but it reads like a link farm). Therefore, I would say this article is no longer well-written, properly sourced, or consistently structured. It needs a rewrite before it is FA quality. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 02:07, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

• Agree - the prose contains some odd constructions and word usages in places. Luckily this is fairly straightforward and I have started tweaking it but there is a way to go yet. It would be good to save such an article. The references need proper formatting and more definitely need adding. Also, I suspect a little more could be added on the bacterium itself.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Casliber (talk • contribs) 23:07, 1 August 2008

• Mostly a great article, a pleasure to read. But I do have some comments, and think it merits another look.
  • Short lead.
  • I find this sentence to be confusing: H. pylori's helix shape (from which the genus name is derived) is thought to have evolved to penetrate and favor its motility in the mucus gel layer. Penetrate what?
  • from mucosal specimens from human stomachs Could this be put into plainer language?
  • The paragraph beginning Before the appreciation of the bacterium's role is unreferened.
  • is that is produced by other intestinal bacteria correct (i.e., is H. pylori considered intestinal)?
  • Some of the info under Structure is not about structure (e.g. the oxygen material).
  • The apparent contradiction brought up on the talk page about the reduced stomach acidity should be explained or addressed.

I have to go for now but I'll be back with more. delldot talk 14:37, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

The unreferenced section had been added after the FAC, it was a repeat of info covered more in the previous section, Colonization, so I integrated it into that section.

• More comments:
  • Under Colonization: An example of this is the Lewis b antigen. An example of what? Possibly An example of such an adhesin?

More later. delldot talk 17:00, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the experimental treatments in the Rx section; I think that section should discuss only established treatments. Those could be included in a Research directions section, but not by themselves. I removed the {{unbalanced}} tag, as I thought that fixed the problem. Re-tag if not. More comments:

• • Heavy reliance on primary sources. Reviews should be found to replace these where possible.
  • While some favorable evidence has been accumulated, the theory is not universally accepted -- not really clear what this refers to. Also, this paragraph flows poorly from the last one. Why am I suddenly reading about cancer? How does it relate to the rest of the section?
  • Even biopsy is dependent on the location of the biopsy. -- Choppy, awkward sentence.
  • The info on rates of infection in the West and Third World should go in an Epidemiology section, not diagnosis.
  • Define unfamiliar terms like atrophic.
  • Refs should be consistent: periods after authors' initials, capital letters in article titles, full page range (4888–4891) or abbreviated (4888–91), periods after abbreviated journal titles (Aliment. Pharmacol. Ther.) or none (Dig Dis Sci).
  • All instances of the genus & species name should be italicized.

More to follow. delldot talk 20:03, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

More:

• • It has been proposed that H. pylori induces inflammation and locally high levels of TNF-alpha and/or interleukin 6 -- perhaps explain the difficult terms, e.g. locally high levels of the inflammatory proteins TNF-alpha and/or interleukin 6. Also, and/or is discouraged by MOS.
  • Acid reflux and esophageal cancer is a tiny subsection all by itself. I'd get rid of it, but it's referenced above with an "explained below".
  • The last paragraph under Genome studies lost me. Any chance of making it less technical or explaining difficult terms?
  • Bacterial strains that have the cagA gene are associated with an ability to cause severe ulcers doesn't make sense.
  • I would suggest a restructuring of the article, with two main parts: the first half should be about the bacterium itself (e.g. structure, genome studies) and the second part about infection. If we change Colonization to Colonization and infection, we could convert Causes of infection, Diagnosis of infection, Treatment of infection to lvl 3 headers: Causes, Diagnosis, and Treatment (the cancer section would also be a level 3 under Infection). On the other hand, this would be a massive section.
  • I'm not sure about the comprehensiveness. So 2/3 of the world is infected? In that case, what are the usual characteristics of infection?

That's it from me. delldot talk 20:45, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Here are my issues:

• Lead is too short and does not summarize the whole article.
• Citations are done improperly, although I've fixed many of them.
• References are lacking from a number of statements.
• Prose is difficult to read. There are too many areas where repetition has occurred.
• The treatment section gives too much weight to natural treatments that are far from proven to do anything positive.
• Editors have cleaned up the see also and external links section. Those were a mess.

Hopefully more editors will get involved so more people will watch the articles. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:11, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Is there an MOS for microbiology articles? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 05:12, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

• Images: I took a quick look at them, added info tags etc. I think everything is ok, but I'd prefer someone more experienced with images take a look at
  • Image:Helicobacter Pylori Urease.png as it is showing Protein database as the source with the note of Online and printed resources are welcome to include PDB data and images from the Structure Explorer pages, as long as they are not for sale as commercial items themselves. Does that eliminate wikipedia requiring only non-commercial. I've also uploaded the en.wiki copy on top of the commons copy as they were two marginally different files uploaded.
  • Image:EMpylori.jpg and Image:Pylorigastritis.jpg are showing as Copyrighted free use from http://info.fujita-hu.ac.jp/~tsutsumi/index.html. Are we to assume based on the upload or that this has passed FA in the past that this is legitimate. I don't see anything on the website to expressly indicate a PD release or any indication of an e-mail. -Optigan13 (talk) 05:13, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

• Minor procedural note, can you post who you notified. I can't tell anymore since the FAR has already generated a bunch of edits. -Optigan13 (talk) 05:38, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments It's not a bad article but it is below the current FA standard. As mentioned above, there should be more, (up-to-date) citations. There are problems with the structure; the section headed Microbiology, is in fact a discussion on pathogenesis and there is little microbiology in the article. There is a bad error of fact in the all too short lead: H. pylori does not infect more people than any other bacterium, and the reference given does not support this claim. The article needs to make clear the important differences of bacterial colonisation, asymptomatic infection, (carriage), and symptomatic infection. Many more people are infected with Staphylococcus aureus than H. pylori. There is some poor prose too, in the History section for example: The community began to come round.... And, that image of the urease structure is purely decorative. The article can be rescued, but someone needs to spend a lot of time on it. Graham Colm ^Talk 14:52, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are prose (1a), referencing (1c), and structure (2). Marskell (talk) 10:25, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

• Delist per nom. Very many problems with structure and references. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 04:31, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Several editors (some I've not seen about these parts) have cleaned up the article. It should stay. I'm going to remove the reference tags, as soon as I complete a review of each citation. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 03:04, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Article has been substantially cleaned up. I'm going to reiterate my opinion here. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:04, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
• Delist - agree with TenPoundHammer (talk · contribs). There are still some style issues as well as referencing issues throughout that have not been addressed. Cirt (talk) 21:49, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
• Still lacking a lot of citation, and no Signs and symptoms section (per WP:MEDMOS). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:52, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure how to respond to that. We keep running into articles like this one, and how to fit it into MEDMOS. H. pylori is a bacterium, so the article describes the bug, not the disease that results from the bug. So maybe the article on ulcers refers to H. pylori, and it would be styled according to MEDMOS. Or do we describe the disease too? I ran into this situation with Chickenpox (the disease), and Herpes/Varicella zoster the virus. Do we combine the articles? Do we separate them? Does one follow MEDMOS as the disease and the other basically an anatomical/genetic/physiological description of the disease vector. And let's not even go to something like malaria!!! So, I guess I need to ask, do we do a signs and symptoms of the disease that results from H. pylori (speculated to be ulcers), or do we have a microbiology article about the bacterium, with a section discussing how it might cause ulcers? I'm getting a headache. BTW, my idea has always been to combine the articles on the vectors for the disease and the disease. So Herpes zoster and shingles would be combined. Varicella zoster and chickenpox would be combined. In these cases the virus causes one disease, and the disease has one cause. H. pylori may cause ulcers, but I don't believe all ulcers are caused by H. pylori. Wow, this is giving me a serious migraine. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 08:03, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
    • I was actually going to write something similar to above this morning - it is tricky as the bug gives rise to several disease entities. OM has been busy with AD so has a good reason to have been preoccupied. Shall we give it another week? I have an idea. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:25, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
    • There has been significant clean-up of the article. I'd say in a week or so, maybe we could discuss whether the article meets FA standards or not. I think it's "coming round"...I need to find that bit of prose and beat it to death. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 03:49, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
• Keep I have made a few edits, [25]. The prose doesn't flow very well in parts but this is difficult to achieve when describing loosely related characteristics of the species, but the article has been much improved over the past few weeks. Graham Colm ^Talk 16:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
• I've given this a copyedit and done some MOS cleanup. Maralia (talk) 16:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• I'm catching up from travel; if Marskell will allow me a few days to catch up, I'll peek in later. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• Keep, looks good to go now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:24, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

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 User:Marskell 10:38, 1 September 2008 [26].

---

Comet Shoemaker-Levy 9

Review commentary

Contains numerous vague, unattributed and unreferenced claims. Some sections are not supported by sources at all. Fails criterion 1c - verifiability. Passed FA candidacy in 2005, but today it wouldn't. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 14:59, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Notified Nominator, User:Urhixidur, User:Noren, Wikipedia:WikiProject Solar System. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 15:04, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Eleassar, please see the instrutions at the top of WP:FAR and sample notifications at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Trigonometric functions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:42, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Notified Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomical objects. (and note that Worldtraveller no longer edits here) -- Rick Block (talk) 03:32, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment: At least to a cursory scan, it seems to me that most the information is verifiable in the existing citations. In many cases it is not presented with the more recently popular inline citation method, however. The acceptable style of citation standard evolved during 2006- for examples, see several discussions about inline citations in the good article criteria talk page [[27]]. In 2005 it was more common (particularly in physical science articles) to reference the end of a section or of the entire article rather than inline. This was adequate for an interested reader to explore the details and thereby verify, but was more difficult for those who wanted to quickly judge verifiability without reading through all the references. It appears to me that the problem is with the format of referencing rather than a failure of criterion 1c. I added modern style inline references to the section to which Eleassar had recently added in a reference request template. Are there other sections in which there are verifiability concerns? --Noren (talk) 17:23, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for doing so. If I understand you correctly, some of the reliable sources that the article rests on are listed in the 'external links' section. I suggest they are referenced inline. As you said, current format makes single claims difficult to verify. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 18:18, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

• Might be savable, but the prose needs pulling apart. Here are random examples from one small portion of text.
  • In the lead, I saw "SL9 was in pieces ranging in size up to 2 kilometres in diameter, and is believed to have been pulled apart by Jupiter's tidal forces during a close encounter in July 1992." Why not "in pieces up to two kilometres in diameter"? "Is believed" is possible if there's no other wording: who believes? Based on the level of uncertainty, pick something like "is likely to have been" or "may have been". There's a spectrum of certainty-wordings.
  • Not actionable, but why "approximately" when a short, plain word is available: "about"?
  • Suddenly at the end of the lead we have imperial conversions, after several unconverted ones. If no one objects, it's quite OK in a science article not to clutter with conversions. All American school-kids are taught metrics nowadays, and adults who don't know probably don't want to visualise 37 miles per second.
  • Avoid repetition: "The prominent scars from the impacts could be seen on Jupiter for many months after the impact".

So, there's work to be done on the prose throughout. TONY (talk) 03:22, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Just got back from vacation (we left on the day of the notification!). What exactly does this article need done? Urhixidur (talk) 22:26, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

First, footnotes. Second, improvement of the style of writing. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 15:17, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are referencing (1c) and prose (1a). Marskell (talk) 15:45, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

• Remove lack of citations, in particular wrt discussion of hypotheses and conjectures, and comparing them etc, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:25, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Would you be more specific as to what statements are in need of better citation? If it's the "Predictions for the collision" section, if that's what you mean by discussion of hypotheses and conjectures, the document currently cited appears to me to be a reliable source that contains all of the information in that paragraph. It's true there's just the one source, but a year wasn't enough time to generate many secondary sources on the topic of pre-impact speculation. --Noren (talk) 02:47, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

• Keep The specific concerns raised by Eleassar and Tony were addressed during the FAR phase. I would be willing to work to address other specific areas if they are brought to my attention. --Noren (talk) 03:03, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

• Certain sections are undercited; see the "Frequency of Impacts" and "Discovery" sections, where assertions like these lack sourcing:"Studies have estimated that comets probably crash into Jupiter once or twice per century, but the impact of comets the size of SL9 is much less common - probably no more often than once per millennium." ""The comet was thus a serendipitous discovery, but one that quickly overshadowed the results from their main observing program." I also see url links in citations not properly formatted with the use of the appropriate templates. ISBNs in parentheses (which is not what would be generated if Template:cite book) was used, and other similar problems. Nevertheless, all these issues could be fixed, and therefore I'll not vote yet for the article's removal.--Yannismarou (talk) 15:28, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

• HoldRemove, lacking citations, unformatted citations, and Yahoo Groups as a citation? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:50, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

  Hold, work underway, pls ping me when ready for a look. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:34, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Given that some work was done, I am going to hold this a little while longer. Tomorrow I will look to see if I can improve it myself. Marskell (talk) 13:12, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

This actually has a decent amount of scholarly sources. Unfortunately, they need to be formatted. I'm slow with this stuff but I'll pick away. Marskell (talk) 11:19, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I started working a bit on formatting notes, but it is a damn boring job, and most of these sources seem specialized. I thus faced two problems: 1) Not sure I format the data correctly, 2) I am not sure I can find the full data of certain sources, such us some proceedings with no url. Somebody specialized on the issue should have a look.--Yannismarou (talk) 17:22, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm ... And indeed somebody should find something better for note 20. Yahoo groups?!--Yannismarou (talk) 17:31, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Still willing to leave this up a while. I added a couple of refs, Yanni took care of some really boring formatting, and an anon took care of Yahoo groups. (I think the happy ghost of WorldTraveller is still with us.) Marskell (talk) 17:11, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I think citations are properly formatted now. The article is definitely up to GA status; I am not sure about FA. Any content remarks about editors with specialized knowledge on the issue?--Yannismarou (talk) 13:44, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

He he. I like your edit summaries. I did a few ref formattings and wanted to keel over in exhaustion.

There's still some uncited hard data, particularly at the end of 'A Jupiter-orbiting comet.' If we can get to that I think we'll be OK here. Marskell (talk) 08:16, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comment while leaning towards support. More sources were added by Noren and anonymous. Though not a specialist, I also tried to help on the article's citing. I also did some MoS stuff. I think the article is close to current FA criteria, and I really like its prose. Nevertheless, I think that the following citing flaws should be taken care of:

• "Studies have estimated that comets probably crash into Jupiter once or twice per century, but the impact of comets the size of SL9 is much less common—probably no more often than once per millennium." What studies?
• "Studies have shown that the planet, by far the most massive in the solar system, can capture comets from solar orbit into Jovian orbit rather frequently" Same question.
• "Before the impact, models of Jupiter's atmosphere had indicated that the break-up of the largest fragments would occur at atmospheric pressures of anywhere from 300 kilopascals to a few megapascals (from three to a few tens bar), and most astronomers expected that the impacts would penetrate a hypothesised water-rich layer underneath the clouds." Which models?
• "While substantial water was detected spectroscopically, it was not as much as predicted beforehand, meaning that either the water layer thought to exist below the clouds was thinner than predicted, or that the cometary fragments did not penetrate deeply enough." Source?
• "Impacts" is obviously undercited.

If these limited citing problems are taken care of, then IMO the article deserves its star.--Yannismarou (talk) 16:28, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I reworked 'Frequency of impacts' and added a ref, which I think takes care of your first two bullets. I added fact requests for your third and fourth bullets—hopefully Noren or the anon can get to them. Yes, 'Impacts' could use more. There's some NASA timelines on-line that can be used. In any case, this has come a long way. Marskell (talk) 08:33, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Added two NASA refs to 'Impacts.' Also there's now four citation needed requests for unsourced paragraphs. If these are done, I think 1c is met. Marskell (talk) 09:26, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• Remove. Agree with Blnguyen (talk · contribs) and SandyGeorgia (talk · contribs). There are still some significant referencing issues throughout. Cirt (talk) 21:52, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• Excuse me but sources are added all the time, and what Blnguyen and Sandy believed to be "significant referencing issues" (and they indeed were at the time—one month ago!) are now "limited referencing issues", and this should be taken into consideration in forming our judgment.--Yannismarou (talk) 07:28, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

To be very clear, this is still being held. Cirt, even in the FARC period the question remains "are people working on the article?" Blnguyen's and Sandy's comments are essentially defunct given how much progress the page has made. Marskell (talk) 08:43, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay then at this point I am Neutral about this whole thing for now - but I would very much hope that all the unsourced portions and citation needed tags will certainly be addressed before the end of this review. Cirt (talk) 15:59, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

• This looks good as soon as the wee bits of remaining citation needs are addressed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:28, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Agree with SandyGeorgia (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 01:50, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
    • It looks fine to me now. Close as keep.--Yannismarou (talk) 13:35, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
      • Those wee bits have now been taken care of by the anon. Good collaboration here. Will keep it now. Marskell (talk) 10:10, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

Removed status

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 User:Marskell 09:57, 30 September 2008 [28].

---

Cathedral of Magdeburg

Review commentary

Notified Deus Ex, Chris 73, and WikiProjects: Catholicism, Germany, Architecture, and Christianity.

Cathedral of Magdeburg was promoted in 2004 - No inline citations, WP:LEAD is a bit short, mixed styles of listing versus paragraph formats, flow of the article could be better. Primarily 1c issues, (though 1a and 1b could probably do with reexamination) and also this image Image:DomzuMagdeburg.jpg needs more info filled out. Cirt (talk) 02:45, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Needs a lot of work - pretty clearly mostly a translation, which shows in the prose. Linking is really terrible - Archbishopric of Magdeburg, Albert of Mainz, Thirty Years War, Johann Tserclaes, Count of Tilly and many many others are missing. There is, for once, a lot on the architecture & art, but it does not seem written with much knowlege of the subject, and has little to say on style etc, mostly just giving sizes and subjects like a poor guidebook. The article does not tell you that the Archbishop was a secular ruler for most of the Middle Ages. Johnbod (talk) 17:58, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are referencing (1c), LEAD (2a), and images (3). Marskell (talk) 12:18, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

• Remove. Per my comment above. Cirt (talk) 12:22, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
• Remove 1c. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 08:28, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

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 User:Marskell 09:57, 30 September 2008 [29].

---

George Brown, Baron George-Brown

Review commentary

Notified WikiProjects. Author has quit Wikipedia.

No inline citations, lead is very short, and a lot of peacock terms flying about. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:48, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are referencing (1c), LEAD (2a), and prose (1a). Marskell (talk) 12:20, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

• Remove, certainly not a featured article in its current state. Wizardman 18:54, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
• Remove 1c. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 08:28, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
• Remove. Agree with everything said about by Marskell (talk · contribs), Wizardman (talk · contribs), and YellowMonkey (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 10:58, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

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 User:Marskell 07:03, 29 September 2008 [30].

---

The Lord of the Rings

Review commentary

Notified:SorryGuy (also original FA-nom), Carcharoth, Uthanc ,WP Middle-earth, WP Books,WP Novels, WP Children's literature and article talk page.

The article appears to fail criteria 1a) being well written. The overlong plot summary is past tense which is unconventional, not to say unprofessional, and is littered with other grammatical strangenesses. The article fails 1b) being comprehensive. There is no discussion of the works literary style or the major themes found in the work and should cite the huge amounts of critical and academic literature which addresses the work in order to cover those issues. The article would then encompass the many significant published viewpoints on the subject. Resolving these criteria would bring the article up to FA.Davémon (talk) 08:34, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Please notify significant contributers as well as associated wikipedia projects and post these notifications at the top of this FAR (see the instructions at WP:FAR. Thanks! --Regents Park (count the magpies) 11:38, 17 August 2008 (UTC)--Regents Park (paddle with the ducks) 16:19, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Someone who has more experience with this wikiproject should probably weigh in on this as I'm still pretty new to this whole wiki thing, but within the article there is the following comment:

Before editing the synopsis back to present tense, please refer to Talk:The Lord of the Rings/archive 03#In universe style and Wikipedia:WikiProject Middle-earth/Standards#Tenses

I'm not sure whether this is the forum for people that have opinions & information on the topic, but from what I know of the subject, there is a certain sense in which Tolkien is claiming to write something in a historical/mythological vein rather than a fictional vein. However, many Tolkien scholars typically distinguish between Tolkien's works that are meant to be "artifacts" of his world, and therefore have their place in that history, and simply "stories" synthesized from the history itself. I have misplaced the very nice article that discusses the distinction, but I will edit my comment accordingly once I find it (and if this is the appropriate place to post such information. Astraflame (talk) 16:19, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

While I would welcome the addition to the article of any sourced discussion of Tolkien's use of the "False document" literary device in the Lord of the Rings, the authors use of such a device is not a reason to have the plot-summary in the past tense. Other books, including Robinson Crusoe, Dracula, and a whole swathe of gothic horror short stories etc etc. use the same device, and they have plot summaries written in the correct tense. Using the fiction as a framework for discussing the fiction isn't really acceptable for an encyclopedia. --Davémon (talk) 16:48, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify my argument above, what I meant was, even in the context of Tolkien scholars, people generally do not consider the Lord of the Rings to be "texts" in the sense that The Silmarillion as it was originally conceived was (the reference, by the way, is Christopher Noad's "On the Construction of the Silmarillion" in Tolkien's Legendarium). Thus, even in that context, the past tense may be applicable for concepts in the legendarium, such as the articles on Middle-earth or Aragorn or texts that actually claimed to be true documents, such as the Lay of Luthien. In the case of the Lord of the Rings though, even though is some note in the introduction or something claiming that it is a story in the Red Book of Westmarch, Tolkien really never considered it a historical artifact at the level of The Silmarillion, but much more of a fictional work more like The Hobbit. So, even to Tolkien scholars, I think the present tense would still be more applicable to discussions of the Lord of the Rings.

I accept that this distinction may or may not be relevant to this discussion as I do not claim to be fully proficient in the conventions for what is or is not acceptable in this encyclopedia. However, I thought such information would be generally useful to know in the context of writing about Tolkien, even if it does not prove to be applicable to Wiki-articles. Astraflame (talk) 17:22, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying. This discussion is primarily to decide whether or not the article The Lord of the Rings currently meets the WP:FA criteria, and to help decide what to do about it. The kind of broader subject-matter and multi-article approach may be better suited to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Middle-earth. --Davémon (talk) 18:37, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Thank you for the clarification on Wiki-etiquette, and done! --Astraflame (talk) 19:12, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comments by Carcharoth - some other users probably need to be notified (User:YLSS, User:CBDunkerson, User:Awadewit, User:Dbachmann and User:Csernica (TCC), among others, User:Solicitr might also be interested, also have a look at the current and recent contributors to Talk:J. R. R. Tolkien and Talk:The Lord of the Rings - update: I've notified 13 other editors that I think might be interested in this - not all are still active, but hopefully between us and anyone else who becomes aware of this, we should be able to do a fair amount of work) if they don't see the WikiProject notice, but I'll review the article for now.
  • (A) I agree with the 'comprehensive' criticism point: "There is no discussion of the works literary style or the major themes found in the work, and no reference to the huge amounts of critical and academic literature which has been written on the work, so it lacks many significant viewpoints on the subject."
    • (A-i) There is mention of the themes in the lead section, which incidentally seems fine at the moment, and a link to Themes of The Lord of the Rings is there, though that article is pretty poor at the moment. Something needs to go in the main article with reference to secondary literature. I'll try and do that at some point.
    • (A-ii) About the secondary literature. We do also have Tolkien research, which is in a similarly poor state, and Category:Tolkien studies, so some overview section in this article on the secondary literature would be possible. I've also added a link to Reception of J. R. R. Tolkien in the "see also" section. See also Category:Reception of Tolkien. We have the articles, but lots of them were written after this article passed FA, and no overview has been integrated into this article yet.
  • (2) The plot summary is too long, but rewriting that shouldn't be too much of a problem - what will probably happen is most of the material will end up at the subsidiary articles and get refined still further there. Would that be acceptable?
  • (3) I do have the books to source a lot of stuff, but will need severe prodding to get them out and to write something. If citations are needed for specific points, please ask.

That's my initial response. I'll aim to get back to this later in the week. Carcharoth (talk) 02:10, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for notifying the other editors. The reference to the academic and critical literature, isn't to merely state that such a body exists, as Tolkien research does, but to be able to correctly cite, through reliable, independent, sources the significant viewpoints on the subject of "The Lord of the Rings". The basis of the missing style, theme and reception (beyond the initial reviews) can only be supported by citing this material. I've reworded the intro to clarify. Davémon (talk) 08:34, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict with dab's comment below) Yes. That should be obvious. Would you like a history of views on The Lord of the Rings over the last 50 years, or just a precis of current (sometimes still conflicting) opinion? There is rather a lot of literature to cover. This covers the work from 1984 through 2000, and the "Year's work" sections in the issues of Tolkien Studies covers most of the rest. The stuff before 1984 is covered in "Richard C. West’s Tolkien Criticism: An Annotated Checklist and Judith Johnson’s J. R. R. Tolkien: Six Decades of Criticism", but I don't have access to those. I will, however, look for articles summarising views on style and themes in The Lord of the Rings. The J.R.R. Tolkien Encyclopedia has several relevant entries giving an overview of the sort I think you are after, as does The Lord of the Rings: A Reader's Companion. One problem with writing something trying to summarise what is still a developing field of literary scholarship is being wary of original research, and keeping it up-to-date. I fully intend to use reliable sources, but there have been problems in the past with people saying that what Christopher Tolkien wrote about his father's works, and what Tolkien wrote about his own works (eg. in The Letters of J. R. R. Tolkien and The History of Middle-earth) is not "independent". I've tried to explain that to a certain extent such sources are valid, and that overviews published in the secondary literature should be the starting point, but in some areas it helps to cite all the way back to the primary sources (that the authors in the secondary literature are working with) when a citation or further explication is requested or seems needed. Does that make sense? I suppose what I'm really after is for you to say what you think are unreliable and non-independent sources when it comes to writing our article about The Lord of the Rings - can you give examples? One problem is that it is not entirely clear which views are significant among the myriad of views. There are some themes that keep being mentioned in the literature, so I guess pointing that out would be best, though ideally someone would point that out in a published paper themselves. Where the scholars disagree, that should be mentioned as well, though there are some "fringe" theories that sometimes get published, so deciding how to handle that could be a problem. How long do we have and how much room would you devote to this in the current article? Carcharoth (talk) 10:08, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to quibble about CT's independence on LoTR (but is his role as draft-reader, map drawer and commentator in the article? if not it should be!), but to rely majoritively on his work (or that of the authors) whilst discussing Style, Themes, Reception would be missing out on many other significant viewpoints, and so isn't really the answer to that problem.

The scope of the reception issues? Yes, the whole 50 years. Everything. From the initial views to "it's a hippy book" to "let's put this into the literary canon" and everything in-between. Whatever can be properly sourced. If it becomes too unweildly, it can get split off, but not gefore it's written WP:SS.

How much space to devote? As much as we need to show all significant viewpoints. I can't say which ones are significant, and which ones aren't, but if there are multiple reliable sources on them, then they're probably significant enough. Yes there will be conflicting views, and they make the article more interesting.

How long do we have? Well, this stage (discussion of "does it fail criteria, if so what do we do about it") is two weeks. Then as it appears that we have editors who are willing and able to address the issues, then stage two (vote to demote) will be put on hold for as long as it is evident that progress on the article is being made. If nothing constructive happens at all to the article in two weeks then we'll just move to the next stage. --Davémon (talk) 11:58, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with Carcharoth, I find the article generally rather weak and uninspired. The plot synopsis is too long and the discussion of "Reception" and publication history are rather weak. It generally reflects the take on the LotR taken by nerds, as opposed to literary critics or bibliophiles. I.e.,focus on pop culture, adaptations, later fantasy literature etc. Is it FA worthy? I don't know. I am not aware of a better encyclopedic article on the work available online, and I feel we have to measure the quality of our articles against what else there is out there, not against what quality they could ideally have in theory. I also don't care two bits if an article has a bronze star at the top. What we need to do is simply try and keep improving the article, FA or no FA. Carcharoth is pointing the way to go, the LotR article can only ever become excellent if we first produce excellent Themes of The Lord of the Rings and Tolkien studies articles it can rely on. So, anyone interested, why not just cut the discussion and sit down for a couple of hours' work on those. --dab (𒁳) 09:45, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

What, instead of writing long comments here? :-) You have a point. Carcharoth (talk) 10:08, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

My primary motivation wasn't to get the article delisted, but to encourage people to improve the article, so I'm glad that is the response we're getting. For the purposes of this discussion "is LoTR article an FA", whether article's meets WP:FACR is of paramount importance. I'd like to dissuade people from seeing developing "supporting" articles as a way forward. The problems aren't with those articles, it's with the fact that the wikipedia Lord of The Rings article (demonstrably the most popular work of fiction of the 20th century) just isn't very good. Improving related articles isn't going to fix that problem. If the LoTR article actually develops enough properly sourced, reliable content to need to be split into a summary style article, then that would be great, but I fear (if you'll excuse my Tolkienism) painting the detail on the leaves before constructing the branches is counter-productive. --Davémon (talk) 11:58, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I beg to differ on the point that improving an article's WP:SS sub-articles is indeed a crucial step towards the improvement of the main article itself. Any article on a major topic will eventually end up in WP:SS, and as such needs solid sub-articles that are to be summarized properly in the main article's various sections. dab

(𒁳) 12:16, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

The real question is "shall we take sub-articles into consideration in this FA review?". My answer is "No: let's not lose focus". The article under review is The Lord of the Rings, not a combination of it and one or more of Themes of The Lord of the Rings,Translations of The Lord of the Rings,The Fellowship of the Ring,The Two Towers,The Return of the King,J. R. R. Tolkien's influences,Reception of J. R. R. Tolkien,Adaptations of The Lord of the Rings,Works inspired by J. R. R. Tolkien and any other sub-article I may have missed. Themes of The Lord of the Rings has absolutely no wp:v,wp:rs content, so starting from scratch in the main article shouldn't really be a big challenge for anyone wanting to develop the themes section. --Davémon (talk) 20:33, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

This isn't "the real question" at all. The real question is, how to improve this article. We do need work in the Themes of The Lord of the Rings department for that, but not in the The Two Towers department. --dab (𒁳) 14:38, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

It has been my experience that writing subarticles first and then summarizing in the main articles is much more efficient than writing the main article, writing the subarticles, and then rewriting the main article. However, I do recognize that we would need a committed group of editors to achieve this in a short amount of time. Awadewit (talk) 17:19, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll try to make myself clear one more time before dropping this as irrelevant: my aim is to improve our coverage of the topic. I don't really care which article sees an addition of quality material first, just as long as quality material is being added. Once it has been added, it is perfectly trivial to transfer it from one article to the other. So yes, it can also be added to the LotR article first and then be transferred to the sub-article, the outcome will be identical. --dab (𒁳) 09:42, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Image For Image:Middle-earth.jpg, the source [31] gives permission for anyone to use the map for their personal or classroom use, but I don't see where it's released under GFDL. DrKiernan (talk) 14:21, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

worse, the map isn't so much "based on the works of JRRT" as the copyright note claims, as a blatant rip-off of Christopher Tolkien's map. I don't think there is any way we can justify keeping it on any Wikimedia server. We might sooner just hsot a copy of the actual CT map and give some fair use rationale. --dab (𒁳) 14:42, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Awadewit I agree with the nominator. I have thought myself about nominating this article for FAR for just these reasons, but I have never had the time to devote to improving it. I can commit to copyediting at this point, but no extensive research.

• Large expansions - These expansions will require substantial research. Much as been written by scholars on Tolkien's books - this literary criticism could be mined for this article. Without it, the article fails the comprehensiveness criteria:

• There needs to be more discussion of genre - there are brief mentions of "novel" vs. "romance", but no in-depth discussion of what this means. There is also a passing reference to allegory, but again nothing in depth. Many scholars have written about the allegorical nature of these books - exploring that would be helpful to the reader. There is also no discussion of "fantasy" in relation to LOTR - only in relation to books influenced by LOTR. Considering LOTR was a foundational fantasy work, this is a glaring omission.
• There needs to be a discussion of Tolkien's writing style in the books. This would include symbolism, for example, which is used extensively in these works, as well as a brief discussion of Tolkien's use of languages.
• There needs to be a discussion of the themes of the books. Essentially, the meat of the article is missing - what is the book about? It has meaning beyond the plot and the reader is not given any of that information.

• Small expansions - Throughout the article, there are areas where the reader is left hanging, where one or two more sentences are needed to flesh out a point. Here are some examples:

• Since the second edition many different printings of The Lord of the Rings have appeared. - But the section focuses on recent editions. What happened between the 1960s and the 1990s?
• Tolkien, an expert in philology, examined many of these translations, and had comments on each that reflect both the translation process and his work. To aid translators, and because he was unhappy with some choices made by early translators such as the Swedish translation by Åke Ohlmarks - What were some of these comments and why was he unhappy?
• Tolkien acknowledged the influences of William Morris and his Huns and Romans, as in The House of the Wolfings or The Roots of the Mountains. - This and other of the influences need to be better explained to the reader. Where can the influences be seen in Tolkien's work? Right now the reader has to piece all of this together. The second and third paragraphs in this section are much better.

• The plot summary needs to be rewritten.

• It is in the past tense when it should be in the "literary present".
• There is too much detail in some parts (e.g. "Bilbo's 111th (or "Eleventy-first" in Hobbit speak) birthday party").
• Characters and things are poorly introduced at times (e.g. Merry and Pippin are first mentioned in "The Two Towers" without explanation).

• Some copyediting work needs to be done. Here are some examples:

• The idea of the first chapter ("A Long-Expected Party") arrived fully-formed, although the reasons behind Bilbo's disappearance, the significance of the Ring, and the title The Lord of the Rings did not arrive until the spring of 1938 - The first chapter is not Athena - this language of arrival is strange - the book is not a baby.
• Once Tolkien considered the Ring, the books really became centred around it and its influence on the inhabitants of Middle-earth. - "really became"?
• Several other authors in the genre, however, seemed to agree more with Dyson than Lewis. - The article then goes on to talk about a science-fiction author, but LOTR hasn't been discussed as science fiction in the article (nor is it usually considered science fiction).
• The live-action film trilogy has done much in recent years to bring the novel back into the public consciousness - The novel? What about "the novels" or "the trilogy" or "the works"?
• It is often assumed to have strongly influenced the RPG industry which achieved popularity in the 1970s with Dungeons & Dragons - RPG is not explained or linked

I hope these suggestions are helpful. Awadewit (talk) 17:16, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - 1. I disagree about the plot summary. I believe that, for the length of these works, the plot is too short. 2. "There is no discussion of the works literary style or the major themes found in the work" Section influences suggest otherwise. 3. Most of the material needed is linked via main templates, so redundancy would be pointless. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:12, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I think you have looked at the ToC, but not actually read the article, let alone the articles linked via the main templates. dab (𒁳) 09:44, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I could throw back far worse against you. But I think my history and experience here with these pages verify what I say above. Furthermore, those linked articles don't diminish the quality of the page. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:34, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Each article must stand on its own and explain the topic it claims to cover - it cannot rely on other articles to do this. LOTR must outline the themes and genre of the trilogy, for example, which it does a very poor job of. Awadewit (talk) 20:31, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I feel that the above is an unreasonable request. If you notice at Johnson's page, some major topics are limited to a simple link. The same goes for Shakespeare, and most other major literary fields. These are three major books that spun into many movies and other derivative works. Wikipedia has a policy against redundancy. This is how I feel on the topic. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:01, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

• sources: I am looking at Drout's JRRT Encyclopedia for comparison. This is the only recent publication of an encyclopedic article with the topic "The LotR" I can think of. On pages 385-392, it has the articles "Lord of the Rings, The" (Amy H. Sturgis) and "Lord of the Rings, The: Success of" (Jared Lobdell). Sturgis discusses "Publication history", "Summary", "Style" and "Adaptations". Lobdell's "Success" article is on the impact of the commercial success on Tolkien himself. Recent literature quoted by Sturgis includes:

  Zimbardo, Rose A. and Neil D. Isaacs, eds. Understanding The Lord of the Rings: The Best in Tolkien Criticism. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin, 2004.

  Shippey, Tom. J.R.R. Tolkien: Author of the Century. Bos­ton, MA: Houghton Mifflin, 2000.

• I don't think the Sturgis article is particularly great. It's still an useful tertiary source. She does make some pointed statements as to the work's critical reception, What some critics see as meandering, other scho­lars find intricate, Critics over the decades remain divided over The Lord of the Rings, as some continue to see it as an epic masterpiece of timeless relevance and others perceive it as an adolescent adventure with delusions of gran­deur.
• what neither Sturgis nor we are particularly strong in is the history of the work's composition. This would be our The_Lord_of_the_Rings#Writing section. This period covers a decade of Tolkien's life, and has been meticulously researched, in The History of The Lord of the Rings and in biographical studies, most notably The J. R. R. Tolkien Companion and Guide. We absolutely need to elaborate on that. --dab (𒁳) 10:07, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Davémon having nominated the article for review, I think it only fair I elaborate on what I think must be done to the article to bring it up to the level I'd expect from a wikipedia Featured article on "[the greatest book of the 20th century]".

Structure:

Presenting the information in a closer adherence to Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Style guidelines will help ensure the significant areas interest are covered properly by the article, and help people who haven't read the book to understand its meaning and place in the world. It's not too far away right now and a bit of adjustment would make it great.

Focus:

• The article must avoid intentional fallacy. This means that the article should not report Tolkien's comments about his own work at face value. Where Tolkien, or his literary executors opinions are cited, as much biographical context as possible should be given (i.e. date, reason for comment, who the comment was addressed to) and what independant sources have said about the comment or the subject. This is a fundamental requirement of maintaining neutrality. ( e.g. : from the lead: larger conception of a legendarium about an alternate mythological past of the world when did Tolkien say this? why? what relevance does this factoid have? does anyone else discuss the book this way? why?; #inspiration: Some locations and characters were inspired by Tolkien's childhood again, when did Tolkien say this? what motivated him to do so? has anyone else actually noticed this influence?).

• Plot summary needs to be much tighter, summarising the whole book rather than trying to recount every event. The plot of The Lord of the Rings is reasonably simple in comparison to many other modern novels, and it should be simple to describe "what happens". Use the individual book articles to flesh out significant detail if needs be, but the main article should be as concise and accurate as possible. (e.g. : While Fatty acts as a decoy for the Ringwraiths - Fatty Bolger !?! but no mention of the barrow-downs? barrow-swords far more significant to the plot than Fatty Bolger! "After hearing the story of his Brother's death, Faramir became convinced that the Ring was better off destroyed than used as a weapon." - so what? it's not really a critical plot point. etc.).

• Reception needs to have a wider focus than a simplistic good reviews vs. bad review dichotomy. It should include academic and expert opinion, comment from cultural observers and cover the extremely well-documented discussions of reader-reactions including:

• Racism ("Why is the Only Good Orc a Dead Orc?" Rearick in Modern Fiction Studies - Volume 50, Number 4, Winter 2004)
• Conservatism ("Breaking the Magic Spell" Zipes)
• Environmentalism ("Ents, Elves, And Eriador" Dickerson et al)
• Popularism: how did the critical establishment react to LoTR being voted greatest book 20th C. etc. ("The Truth Beyond Memory" miller 2001)
• What was the books role in the counter-culture of the 1960's - how has that modified both the critical reception of the work and it informed the cultural movements that championed it.

• The Major Themes section needs to summarise and cite the major well-documented themes that have been seen in the work, including:

• The Quest (at the very least, "The Quest Hero" by W. H. Auden)
• Morality - Good vs. Evil.
• War ("Reading The Lord of the Rings", Eaglestone, 2006)

• Stylistic concerns, use of language

• Poems: their function and effect.
• Nomenclature: oft hailed as one of Tolkiens greatest skills - how? why?

• Context:Lord of the Rings relates to Tolkien's other works.

• How the main plot mirrors that of The Hobbit.
• How elements from The Silmarillion appear, and how LoTR changed the direction of it.

Legacy needs to encompass the novels effect into the wider world.

*The Hobbit hominid Homo floresiensis.

• Sources

• Anyone working on the article should start by reading: Hammond and Wynne "Review Essay: Tom Shippey's J. R. R. Tolkien: Author of the Century and a Look Back at Tolkien Criticism since 1982" which overviews many of the literature this article should be citing: [32] (for free)
• Journal of the Mythopoeic society do publish some articles online (for free) at FindArticles - which is also a great source for other journal articles related to The Lord of the Rings. not as good as access to JSTOR, but not everyone (including me) does.

Hopefully not teaching grandmothers to suck eggs:

• google books
• google scholar

• Citations:

The article fails WP:FACR 3c : consistent citations. These would be better formatted using citation templates, and where one book is cited regularly (Letters or Biography for example) then harvard style applied. see WP:CIT & WP:HARV.

Hope the comments are taken in the positive spirit they're intended, and the article really becomes worthy of being a Featured Article! --Davémon (talk) 10:58, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Some useful links there, thanks. Did you see the links others have provided as well? As you can see, there is quite a lot, and it can quickly overwhelm anyone attempting to work on this. Where do you suggest we start? I suggested the overview articles in the literature, and the one you cite is good. There are others as well. It is also important to be able to focus on the really notable and key points in the literature, and not end up citing obscure stuff that will soon be forgotten. That is the real trick. I could easily cite papers on some of the more, shall we say, outlandish stuff, but that wouldn't be useful. It all comes back to using overview article by respected Tolkien scholars. Anything by Shippey, Flieger, Hammond, Anderson, Scull, would do. There are others though, whose work is as good. I suggest that if an author or book gets questioned, then a positive review by the accepted scholars should be provided as evidence for the reliability of the source. That should limit things to a manageable level. As for time to work on the article itself, I had been intending to do something this weekend, but real life is about to get in the way. Hopefully there will be time after that, or others will make a start on this. Your point about citations should be actionable without too many problems, though it could be fiddly work. Carcharoth (talk) 01:03, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I think it's a bit early to worry about wp:weight and wp:bias issues, any research based developments would be progress. If problematic sources or problems around bias issues do arise, it's probably best to deal with those on a case-by-case basis, rather than trying to establish a general ruling here. Davémon (talk) 10:46, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. We should be concerned about Weight all the time, especially with summary style, which allows us to put most of the minor works in separate pages devoted to it; if not, we would have a serious weight issue. You have to remember, this is a series page, not the individual book page, and needs to be treated as such. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:09, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree with Ottava Rima: wp:weight isn't currently a problem and with the stance suggested, it shouldn't be a problem for this article in the future. --Davémon (talk) 21:00, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

• Followup comment - hmm. I see I've failed to keep my promise to do some work on this. Apologies for that. Not an excuse, but I'd like to quote from the interview of Mav that was the latest dispatches article, Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-08-25/Dispatches: "It now often takes me 5 times as long to bring two similarly important and extensive topics to FA quality. At one time I thought that spending 4 hours working on a single article was a huge amount of time. Now I spend at least that much time reading sources before I write anything." (User:Mav) So, in short, this is going to take more time than I thought, though that doesn't mean I won't find time in the next week or so, but I can't guarantee anything. I wouldn't normally say this, but I did promise to do something so I felt a follow-up was needed. Carcharoth (talk) 20:11, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

• My estimate for this article (for someone with a job) would be about a year (assuming more than one hour per day). There is a lot of scholarship on Lord of the Rings. And think of the all of fandom. Wow. This is huge. Just huge. Find a collaborator and cut it down to six months! :) Awadewit (talk) 04:36, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

• A year? I think a summary for the main article can be produced quicker than that. And I'm hopeful that I've found a collaborator (though at the present rate, I may end up being the cheerleader!). See User:Astraflame/Tolkien Bibliography. That is exactly the sort of collection of mini-review/summaries of the most relevant (or possibly relevant) articles and books in the literature, that I was thinking of producing myself (and that page is still a work in progress, so lots remains to be done). There are also exisiting "literature reviews" in the literature, so that will help (just need to find them again). Thanks for the support and encouragement. As Dab said above, the bronze star is not that important. Getting the article expanded and comprehensive and bringing it up to today's standards, is. Carcharoth (talk) 06:33, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are prose (1a), comprehensiveness (1b), and referencing (1c). Marskell (talk) 10:51, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I disagree that comprehensiveness is a problem, unless we completely disregard Wikipedia standards of summary style. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The 'branch' articles lack proper sources, proper citations, make little-to-no claims for notability and in no way reflect the standards. --Davémon (talk) 22:31, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, summary style does not mean that the topics aren't covered at all in the main article, it means that they are properly summarized. That does not happen in this article. There is no adequate summary of the themes, style, or genre of the novels. There are only fragmentary comments, if that, regarding these topics. Awadewit (talk) 04:32, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikilinks says that a wikilink is used to rely on more information, making it an appropriate tool for summary style, so everything doesn't need a paragraph. I say focus only on things that deal with all three as a whole, and the individual books have the rest. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:47, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

It is rare that an author will discuss aspects of the individual books in isolation. They will normally address the book as a whole, since it is a unified, single story. Plot arcs, character arcs, and so on, of the significant characters at least, usually span the whole book. But I think I do get your point. Specific detail can be relegated to subsidiary articles. General, broad, overview points, are what is needed in the main article. The trouble is that sometimes the layout of such a broad overview is difficult to write without studying and writing the detailed stuff first. Since I'm writing at the moment (ie. I feel like writing something), and stuff has been rumbling around in my mind for a while, I'm going to rattle something off, without sources, and see what comes out. And yes, I'm going to do this here, so those of a process-minded orientation may want to avert your eyes. :-)

Since the publication of The Lord of the Rings by J. R. R. Tolkien, a wealth of secondary literature has been published discussing the literary themes and archetypes present in the story. Themes that have been identified and analysed include friendship and sacrifice, forgiveness, power, temptation and addiction. In Tolkien's works as a whole, death and immortality feature strongly. In a quote from a letter written in 1958, Tolkien said of his work "It is mainly concerned with Death, and Immortality; and the 'escapes': serial longevity, and hoarding memory." (Letter 211). Tolkien wrote about other themes in his book in letters to friends, family and fans, and also in the book itself. However, in his Foreword to the Second Edition, Tolkien said that he "disliked allegory in all its forms" (using the word applicability instead). Tolkien's work also deals with a love of nature and the problems of technology and industrialisation. Tolkien also wrote about how his religion (Catholicism) affected the work, and this is a point taken up by many subsequent writers who have examined the book in detail looking for parallels and influences. Tolkien's work as a philologist, Anglo-Saxonist and medievalist heavily influenced the book, with his languages and detailed backstory setting his work apart from those by later authors. The concepts of fate and doom in his works emerge from the older, pagan, worldview he was exposed to by his studies of ancient languages. The passage of time is an enduring theme, with moments of loss and and farewell present at many levels. <yadda, yadda, yadda, add sources, etc>

Is that the sort of thing people are looking for? Carcharoth (talk) 14:46, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to see the issue of themes treated in much the same way as in The Illuminatus! Trilogy or Sir Gawain and the Green Knight. It should probably be the largest section in the article, and each theme given its own paragraph / subsection. An authors opinion of their own work fails neutrality independance, and often reflects a highly personal take on the text, rather than what the average reader or literature-critic may think. --Davémon (talk) 17:56, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Lets nip this bud quickly. Davemon is expressing a complete misconception of NPOV. "As the name suggests, the neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints." The author's opinion of their own works is very important and necessary. There cannot be an argument made to remove such a thing. Furthermore, BLPs and controversial material guidelines allow for an author or an organization to express themselves on their own pages. It would follow that authors who are dead equally have this right. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:12, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

No the authors opinion of their own work isn't necessary. Point to a single literature FA which uses it. --Davémon (talk) 18:20, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I sense an argument brewing which is entirely unnecessary. Using the author's viewpoint to illuminate a work is entirely acceptable and scholars do it all of the time. In Mary Shelley, for example, we explained her own views on biographical criticism and quote her to explain her intentions regarding her edition of Percy Shelley's works. However, all of this must be balanced by the views of scholars. Awadewit (talk) 18:34, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:38, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Sure, biographies should cover authors intentions, but Novel articles...? In the Themes section, not Writing or Publication history? Wikipedia: Intentional fallacy a-go-go! :-) --Davémon (talk) 18:41, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Intentional fallacy is something that scholars are much more aware of, yes, but they are still interested in what authors meant to say. Biographical criticism is not totally dead - we are just much more aware of its pitfalls and much more cautious now. Also, perhaps this is the time to mention psychoanalytic criticism? (Interestingly, in Proserpine, it is evidence from Mary Shelley's journals that scholars use to help establish that the play is children's literature - is that intentional fallacy? We don't want to be too absolute here.) Awadewit (talk) 19:02, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Where critics have read journals/letters and then decided something about the work - we're citing the critic, not the author, and that is fine. For us to cite the authors journals/letters and draw conclusions about the work is WP:OR. For us to base editorial decisions regarding weight / focus based on the authors journals/letters is intentional fallacy (undue weight to extreme-minority views), to base weight/focus on the body of criticism gives due weight to majority views. We need to use WP:RS reliable, independant sources: "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." - Tolkien isn't any of those things (except "published", obviously) with regards his fiction, and his opinions about his work aren't generally supported by the wider literature. --Davémon (talk) 20:03, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

To solve this problem, I usually only use quotations from authors that scholars have already deemed important. That way I don't have to decide myself. So, for example, all of the quotations from Mary Shelley in that article are used by multiple Shelley scholars, so I know that they are significant in someone else's view other than my own. It is not me picking them. This is one good compromise, I think. Awadewit (talk) 20:14, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

This is complicated for Tolkien because a vast amount of posthumous material was published, along with a volume of selected letters. See The Letters of J. R. R. Tolkien - you actually have to read that collection to really get why people so often quote from it (and our articles do rely heavily on it for biographical material - some of the points Cirt asked for citations for will be sourced directly from either J. R. R. Tolkien: A Biography, or Letters, or someone who was working from those sources). One thing to be wary of is that the Letters, covering as they do many years of Tolkien's life, show his views changing or merely being inconsistent, so synthesising views from his letters is definitely a trap to avoid. Having said that, I agree that authorial intention is extremely tricky to handle. There have been whole literary criticism movements rejecting such concepts and focusing on the response of the reader, rather than the intention of the author. I think the only way to balance things is to represent both to varying degrees. But when there is a wealth of primary material (his letters), and commentary from his son and literary executor (read any volume of The History of Middle-earth [HoME]), and there are people still rummaging through his drafts (both in HoME and elsewhere) for some meaningful nuggets, then there is a problem, but the solution is not to ignore large swathes of what has been published, though I agree that focusing on what quotes others have published is best. Deconstruction is also a pleasant bedtime read. And just to confuse matters, Tolkien said (in the Foreword to the LotR):

"I think that many confuse 'applicability' with 'allegory'; but the one resides in the freedom of the reader, and the other in the purposed domination of the author"

Make of that what you will. Tolkien was talking about allegory there, and he did also express distaste at those people who deconstructed works and tried to make links to an author's life experiences (I'll try and find that quote as well), but equally he had strong views on his work and his reasons and motivations for writing it, and that can't be ignored. Quite how to get the balance right is, again, difficult. Carcharoth (talk) 08:35, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

The authors views are marginal and aren't significant to the broad, general understanding of the work that one would expect from reading an encyclopedia article. The literature directly on allegory in the Lord of the Rings is tiny in comparison to the literature on, say, the influence of Anglo-saxon culture/language or the theme of War or Faery. Just because Tolkien got a bee in his bonnet about allegory (or whatever) in the 1950s doesn't mean allegory (or whatever else) has to be covered in the Lord of the Rings article - although a brief note in the publication history saying what edition the anti-allegorical forward first appeared in, and what gave rise to it being written and published would be good biographical / historical info. Of course Tolkiens letters and other posthumously published works has had an effect on the reception of LoTR by some readers/critics but that is better discussed at Reception of J.R.R. Tolkien where proper space can be allocated - it's not vital to understanding the books. From what I can gather, we are in agreement that we need to use independent secondary sources for any type of analytical or interpretive content. While I'm here, do we consider commentators published by the same publishing house as the author an 'independent' source? The money trail obviously leads back up to the same point. Davémon (talk) 15:39, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd just like to point out that there are at least two reasons why Tolkien's posthumously published material is considered so important to scholarship regarding The Lord of the Rings: 1) as a work, The Lord of the Rings was never meant to stand alone. As part of a legendarium (some of which only survives in the posthumously published notes), studying The Lord of the Rings in isolation is like studying Machiavelli's Prince without also reading his Discourses; it can be done, but would only be a mediocre-quality work at best. Relying only on primary resources while working on a Wikipedia article of course risks WP:OR issues, and I suppose that is the point that you are trying to make here. However, we also shouldn't just pay attention to internal critiques of The Lord of the Rings, for many of these (sadly) do not always take the legendarium into account. [I suppose my first point is therefore two issues: one regarding the legendarium context and the other regarding the generally spotty quality of Tolkien research] 2) Tolkien was considered one of the leading scholars in his field of his day. His work has been shown pretty definitively to build upon this work. Therefore, topics like allegory are often not considered for further criticism since Tolkien already thoroughly criticized such claims in "On Fairy Stories" among other works -- not just (or even directly) in regards to his own work, but in the more general field of scholarship that he was working in, and which future scholars have inherited. This isn't to say that such discussions of allegory in Tolkien are impossible or do not exist, but it is a contributing factor to why they are so rare.

That said, in regards to what is pertinent to improving the article, in my opinion, the issue is more what sources out of the extensive and largely-unsorted scholarship we'd like to see cited/considered. Such a discussion should probably take place on a case to case basis, rather than going round and round regarding abstract or semantic requirements, for if the above discussion indicates anything, it demonstrates that the criteria involved can get both contentious and messy. [For instance, clearly quoting anything from Tolkien's Letters or notes is nonsense, but the above quote that Carcharoth brings up is one of the most widely quoted lines of Tolkien by scholars studying his work and the lynch-pin of a great deal of Tolkien scholarship.] Towards such a discussion, I've already put up a workpage that begins (and by no means, at the moment, completes!) the work of listing the main secondary sources regarding Tolkien, and would greatly welcome your comments there. Astraflame (talk) 22:42, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

So Tolkien cunningly guided the course of Tolkien scholarship by his comments in Forewords, in Letters, and his essays such as On Fairy-Stories and (I would add) the essays in The Monsters and the Critics? That's an interesting perspective. :-) Hmm. I see from our OFS article that an expanded edition of OFS was published this year and I don't have it! :-( Carcharoth (talk) 23:51, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• Remove. Though some great work has been done on this article, there are still a good deal of glaring (1c) issues. This article would not pass a WP:GA review per the current standards in its present state, and would most certainly encounter significant difficulties if it were on WP:FAC. Cirt (talk) 21:32, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I see that Carcharoth (talk · contribs) plans to work on the article further, though it may take some time, so I have struck out my Remove for now, though my assessment of the article remains the same. Cirt (talk) 21:33, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Update: I tagged some problem issues in the article that will need to be addressed. Cirt (talk) 01:22, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

• Remove Dealing with (1b) properly will be a massive undertaking, with careful balancing of conflicting opinions to keep weight and neutrality issues minimal. I'm sure there is enough interest and knowledge out there to bring the article up to scratch, but think it might take very long time. --Davémon (talk) 22:31, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
• Remove Comprehensiveness and prose issues. If the article is rewritten, I will of course reassess it. Awadewit (talk) 04:32, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
• Comment While I agree that, ultimately, comprehensiveness will require a lot of work (I think the above estimate of a year is actually rather optimistic), much of this work really spills over to articles that have recently been deleted or put up for deletion (i.e. Themes of The Lord of the Rings and Reception of The Lord of the Rings). These articles are/were in fairly poor condition and need to be rewritten, which clearly will take a huge amount of time. However, the problems with the prose in The Lord of the Rings article, and issues simply being disregarded or omitted from the current article (no mention of racism, the "hobbit" species discovered, etc.) could be fixed in the main article before the subsidiary articles are complete. [See the paragraph that Carcharoth posted above starting "Since the publication..." as an example] Adding these paragraphs and otherwise filling gaps and copy-editing would take a relatively short amount of time, and clean up the article a great deal. Some work, in fact, has already been done to change the plot synopsis back to present tense. So, is it the opinion of the current reviewers that such work is just meaningless and boot-strapped without the full articles on the Themes, Reception, and Tolkien Scholarship? or should that be what we are actually focusing on here instead of concerns that are really in reference to the sorry state of those other articles? [Also, as the previous paragraph would demonstrate, I'm clearly in no position to do any copy-editing, but even so, I thought that the distinction was worth making] Astraflame (talk) 23:04, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Reception of The Lord of the Rings? I think you meant Reception of J. R. R. Tolkien, which by the way has not been put up for deletion (though you are right that the "themes" article has). I also think Reception of J. R. R. Tolkien (which was largely written by User:Dbachmann - Dab) is quite a bit better than the "themes" article and has great potential. But that's less important that the point you are asking the FA reviewers and directors - is it acceptable to "bootstrap" and place a 'sticking plaster' on this article while the subsidiary articles are being extensively rewritten? Links to these subsidiary articles will still be there, so people being directed from a (possibly) featured article to these "under construction" articles might be a concern, but maybe not if the 'sticking plaster' is well-written and can stand alone by itself. I think something can be written as a stopgap measure, but am wary of doing so if that contravenes some aspect of FARC etiquette. Dab also makes the point that good content should just be added, rather than talking about it. Personally, I'd read through the secondary literature books steadily (well, as much as I can) and add in summary points and relevant points to different articles, as I come across suitable material. That would lead to a steady improvement (though possibly some WP:UNDUE weight concerns may arise) and then overviews can come later. Carcharoth (talk) 23:38, 7 September 2008 (UTC) PS. It's Carcharoth, not Charcaroth or Charcharoth... Surprisingly common mistake. Glad I didn't choose Thuringwethil or Tevildo as my name. :-)

Closing. I accidentally let this go three weeks with no updates. Much is said above, but the article remains largely as it was when the FARC period started. The removes seem to take this. Carcharoth has some ideas for it and subsidiary articles. Perhaps something can be taken back to FAC; in the meantime, removing. Marskell (talk) 06:55, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

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 User:Marskell 16:42, 25 September 2008 [33].

---

Irish Houses of Parliament

Review commentary

Messages left at User talk:Jtdirl and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland‎

The number of unreviewed FAs with zero inline citations is now down to about ten. Here is one from early '04. (Looking at the FAC I can't tell who originally nommed.) Along with the obvious 1c issue, I was hoping someone who understands the image rules could go through this as it has a great many pics. The ToC headlines need to be shortened and made less conversational. Marskell (talk) 14:54, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Agree with everything said above by Marskell (talk · contribs), another good FAR candidate - this article is not up to WP:GA or WP:FA standards. Cirt (talk) 17:32, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Images

1. Image:Irish Parliament.jpg - Possible candidate to be moved to Wikimedia Commons, could use more source info however.
2. Image:Hoflentrance.jpg - Should be moved to Commons, with full source info filled out.
3. Image:Hoflchand1.jpg - Should be moved to Commons, with full source info filled out.
4. Image:Hofcent1-crop.jpg - Should be moved to Commons, with full source info filled out.
5. Image:Pthcceiling.jpg - Should be moved to Commons, with full source info filled out.
6. Image:Bofihofl.jpg - Already on Commons.
7. Image:Bofiboyne.jpg - Should be moved to Commons, with full source info filled out.
8. Image:Woolsack-crop.jpg - Possible candidate to be moved to Commons - however owner agreed to photograph is not sufficient - requires permission/verification through OTRS.
9. Image:IrishHC1780.jpg - Already on Commons.
10. Image:College-green-aerial-thumbnail.jpg - Possible candidate to be moved to Commons - however owner of shot emailed full permission is not sufficient - requires permission/verification through OTRS.
11. Image:Ihopcurved.jpg - Should be moved to Commons, with full source info filled out.

See above list of images currently used in this article. Cirt (talk) 17:38, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

All images not already on Commons have been moved except #1 & #10. ww2censor (talk) 04:31, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

• I agree that this article has some major flaws, especially with the aesthetics of the images. There are also only two references (though not cited) on the topic). I also feel that this page should also cover some of the history that happened within its walls, and not just the walls themselves. A rough example of this can be found here. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:51, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the image work guys. And yes, I had had the same thought Ottava: should this solely be an architecture page or should it also cover history? Marskell (talk) 09:02, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I dont see this as an issue, as long as the orginisation is correct. Anyway they are intertwined.

Articles on paintings are able to cover provenance/style/influences/influence, and all are all closely related, and I don't see a difference here. Ceoil ^sláinte 00:17, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are referencing (1c) and images (3). Marskell (talk) 15:14, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

• Remove 1c. Note that the "modern view" section also reads like a pundit's voice, rather than telling us who thinks what and why, it seems like wikipedia's POV/verdict. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 07:26, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
• Remove - Agree with YellowMonkey (talk · contribs), and per my comments above. Cirt (talk) 07:46, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
• Remove - I have to agree. ww2censor (talk) 15:28, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
• Remove 1c. Ceoil ^sláinte 21:15, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
• Remove per 1c. Complete lack of inline citations for references means that this article does not pass today's FA criteria. JEdgarFreeman (talk) 12:46, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

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 User:Marskell 16:42, 25 September 2008 [34].

---

Laal

Review commentary

• Notified main contributor and nominator User:Mustafaa, Wikipedia:WikiProject Endangered languages, Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa, Wikipedia:WikiProject Chad and Wikipedia:WikiProject Languages

1(c) Lacks inline citations, in fact has none. Tom (talk) 14:42, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• Agree with appropriateness of FAR candidate nom started by Tpbradbury (talk · contribs). Article would not pass a current WP:GA review in its present state, let alone the WP:FAC process. Significant improvement is needed. Cirt (talk) 17:40, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• Noted. I may have time to improve. Ling.Nut ^(WP:3IAR) 04:53, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

• I looked for info. It is pretty scarce; don't believe I can help, at least not right now. Ling.Nut ^(WP:3IAR) 22:37, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

• I agree that the lack of inline citations is a serious issue, specially for an obscure language - since we have no way of knowing where the info is coming from. This article shouldn't have been given FA status in the first place.KelilanK (talk) 16:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
• Also, the sole main contributor and original nominator for FAC appears to be inactive[35].KelilanK (talk) 21:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concern is referencing (1c). Marskell (talk) 15:17, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

• Remove 1c. no inline cites at all.YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 07:27, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
• Remove - Agree with YellowMonkey (talk · contribs), and will all comments made by users above actually. Cirt (talk) 07:47, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
• Remove - Criteria 1c of Wikipedia:Featured article criteria requires that FAs be "complemented by inline citations where appropriate". This article does not have this feature. maclean 23:36, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

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 User:Marskell 16:42, 25 September 2008 [36].

---

Coconut crab

Review commentary

Notifications at Chris73 amd WP Anthropods

Coconut crab is a 2004 promotion, lacking citations, mixed citation styles, numerous ciation needed tags, WP:LEAD underdeveloped, and MoS cleanup needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:07, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Definitely needs changes to structure and improvement on citations. A search on Google scholar for "Birgus latro" yields a significant number of research papers and reviews. Given that the subject may not have many exhaustive secondary or tertiary sources, one would expect it to include reviews of content from primary sources. Shyamal (talk) 10:06, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are referencing (1c), LEAD (2a), and MoS (2). Marskell (talk) 13:36, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

• Delist lack of citations, which are incorrectly formatted. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 03:48, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
• Delist Per YellowMonkey (talk · contribs) and Shyamal (talk · contribs) as well as other issues raised above. Cirt (talk) 05:04, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

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 User:Marskell 16:42, 25 September 2008 [37].

---

Cricket

Review commentary

Notified: WikiProject Cricket and users THUGCHILDz, JPD, RobertG, and Tintin110 (top 4 contributors with edits to the article in '08).

Cricket is one of those featured articles that was promoted ages ago, on 4 September 2004. While it may have met the criteria then, I believe it extensively fails today's criteria 1(a)(c), 2(b)(c), and 3.

• 1
  • (a) well-written: The prose is not engaging, brilliant, or professional; it is overly wordy and relies too heavily on links to other articles. As somebody who knows nothing about cricket (and was hoping to learn something), it took me over 20 minutes to get through the lead alone. Every other sentence sent me to another article, as Cricket fails to explain even the most basic aspects of the game, thus relying far too heavily on links to other articles.
  • (c) factually accurate: Few if any claims within the article are verifiable, as 25 of the 33 provided inline citations are used within one section (verifying the sport exists in a long list of countries). There are a few other sources listed, but it is impossible to know which sources, if any, cover the claims within this article.
• 2
  • (b) appropriate structure The headings and TOC on this article are extensive and overwhelming. It appears that many of the sections could be combined, eliminating much of the bulk but requiring a major restructuring.
  • (c) consistent citations With the exception of one section, citations are all but nonexistent in this article. The references that are provided mostly use the citations templates, but some still consist of bare links without proper formatting.
• 3. Images. Cricket seems to have gone overboard on images, and also includes audio recordings throughout the article. If the recordings come from a reliable source, their content would be better incorporated into text. The images I checked do, however, appear to have proper licensing and source information.

I know the FAR instructions indicate I'm supposed to propose some remedies to correct these problems, but I believe nothing short of a total rewrite would suffice. Maybe I'm being too critical, but I imagine any editor who nominated this article for FA today would be pistol whipped and sent to the corner. I don't think this one can be saved. - auburnpilot talk 02:31, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

• Remove. I agree with you entirely. The problem is that the article has had too many minor changes in the last couple of years and most of them do not add value. Far too much time has been spent in citing every single little point instead of, for example, providing one source such as Wisden that covers the whole list of countries.
• In addition, and frankly speaking, the article has suffered because certain people (including one of those named above) are obsessed with trivialities such as the perception that cricket is the world's second most popular sport after football. So it might be, but the object of this article is to present an informed discussion of the subject that will provide readers with a useful knowledge base.
• You are absolutely right that it needs a rewrite. We had to do that with History of cricket last year for similar reasons. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 07:43, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

  Please see the instructions at the top of WP:FAR; Remove and Keep are not declared during the review phase. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:43, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

• I have no comment on the rest, but I very much disagree about the lead being clear as to how the game works, in fact posting this after reading it. You definitely seem correct about the audio files (though I haven't listened to them, if they are what they claim to be they don't belong), and I question whether there should be a video in the infobox (again, I haven't watched it, but I can't see how it would be appropriate). --NE2 07:40, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

• Remove. Article is way below FA quality and too much work to be done to make it reasonably savable during this process. I'm going to try and bring it back to scratch, hobpefully with the help of others, but you may as well remove it here and I'll work it through FAC in due (lengthy) course. --Dweller (talk) 12:53, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment. The state of the article is being discussed on WT:CRIC, mainly by Dweller and myself. We have already begun the process of restructuring and rewriting the article, which has had its status reduced to start-class accordingly. I suggest that this FAR is closed now. Thanks to AuburnPilot for bringing this matter to a head as we probably would not have taken action without this review. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 14:32, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments - Is it allowable to change an article's rating before the FAR process concludes? Keep in mind that FARC hasn't even started yet. Remove declarations are not supposed to be made during this period. That being said, the article did need revamping. As I look at this now, it isn't comprehensive enough for an FA. Of course, chopping almost half the article for rewriting doesn't help in that regard. More in-line citations are sorely needed throughout. Giants2008 (17-14) 01:02, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Project assessments are a process unrelated to featured status, although it is unusual and confusing for the Project assessment and featured status to be out of sync. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:43, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

The point is that the article is badly in need of restructure and we have begun that process already. If you like, I'll remove the project rating until the FAR has formally been concluded. Let me know. Thanks. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 12:30, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are prose (1a), referencing (1c), structure (2), and images (3). Marskell (talk) 13:34, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

• Remove - For all the reasons listed above. Just not an FA-level article anymore. Giants2008 (17-14) 03:07, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
• Comment – It's not up to scratch. I have problems with the prose. (eg more delicate parts) I think it should be sent to people not familiar with the sport to review and copyedit. That way we address the issue of readability and brilliant prose together. My next (minor) concern are the size and placement of the images. They are too large for lower screen users. The layout also needs fixing. =Nichalp «Talk»= 11:05, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
• Remove Can I say remove now? It's in the early throes of a major reworking and is a long way from ready. Personally, I want to finish working on Keith Miller before I can give it the attention it needs/deserves, but Blackjack is doing sterling work laying foundations. But it's not a FA. --Dweller (talk) 13:40, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
• Remove. We'll review the revised version against our B-class criteria once it has shed its stars and whatnot. I think it probably will make B-class. Still needs a lot more work to reach the higher standards. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 16:22, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
• Remove. Agree with rationale given above. Many issues still remain. Cirt (talk) 10:57, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

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 User:Marskell 16:42, 25 September 2008 [38].

---

Canon T90

Review commentary

Notified WikiProject Photography and Morven. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:06, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Though informative, this article has a few issues:

• 1a. A few minor problems; the tone is rather inconsistent and needs to be made more professional.
• 1c. It has a glaringly short "Notes" section, with only 13 inlines, and many sections do not have citations. It would be good to incorporate some of the references from the "References" section as inline citations.
• 2b. A bit too many sections.

This article was promoted back in 2005, when the standards were lower, so it needs a major rewrite to bring it up to 2008 FA quality. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:56, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

• Hmm. Is that last line a piece of boilerplate? Three criticisms does not equal 'major rewrite' to me. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:31, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
• I'll be working on the references to get them to 2008 standard, though; this was what was the standard in 2005 when only major sections or controversial points got inline refs. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:36, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
• Too many sections? I'm not sure I agree; they're all multiple paragraphs and I think combining any would reduce the readability of the text. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:41, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

  It needs a bit of MoS cleanup after you finish the citing work, but I don't see the "too many sections" issue at all. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:06, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are prose (1a), referencing (1c), and organization (2). Marskell (talk) 08:58, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

• Remove. The references have seen no improvement. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:03, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
• Could you guys hold off for a little? I'm in the middle of a very busy couple of weeks at work, which should slacken off about the middle of next week; students return on Monday, and we have a lot of preparation. After that, I should be able to improve this. Thanks, Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 19:29, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
• Remove. Most certainly agree with King of Hearts (talk · contribs). The article could also do with some more secondary sources, instead of such an over-reliance on primary sources. Cirt (talk) 21:46, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
  • For factual information on operation, any secondary source is going to be itself sourced from those primary sources and will therefore gain nothing except distance from the facts. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 05:59, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Disagree. Relying so heavily on primary sources instead of secondary sources opens the article up to risk that whichever Wikipedia editor used those primary sources made personal inferences into those sources. Cirt (talk) 16:06, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
      • That may be so for some facts, but really, the operation of a camera? Are you serious? Nousernamesleft (talk) 01:59, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
        • Yes. Otherwise we risk venturing into WP:OR violation territory. Cirt (talk) 19:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
          • Ignore all rules is there for a reason. How you could possibly think that different interpretations on the working of a camera, of all things, could be significant enough to violate the OR policy is utterly beyond me. Nousernamesleft (talk) 19:00, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I still agree with King of Hearts (talk · contribs), but striking my Remove per comment above by Morven (talk · contribs) that work is pending and progress will be made on improving the referencing to 2008 standard. Cirt (talk) 07:58, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
• Holding until Morven is ready. Marskell (talk) 09:03, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Pressure at work is now down and I'm pulling together my references again. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 20:17, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
• Remove until issues with referencing are taken care of. Wizardman 18:40, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I gave this one plenty of extra time as well as a user talk notice. With FAR backlogged, it's time to remove. Marskell (talk) 16:29, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

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 User:Marskell 13:25, 19 September 2008 [39].

---

History of Test cricket from 1884 to 1889

Review commentary

Notified: WikiProject Cricket and Jguk.

This article, promoted in March 2005, needs a radical overhaul to be considered among Wikipedia's best work today. Allow me to run down a list of problems:

• 1a: Needs a thorough copy-edit to meet modern prose standards. Just in the lead, I see "...to describe a form of cricket when the Press used it in 1885." Why is Press capitalized? Also, 2-1 needs an en dash, and then there's this: "But, although it was only recognised as a Test nation later, after 13 years, cricket had a third Test-playing team." Redundancy at the start, and the comma usage could be reduced. Some WP:MOSNUM issues as well.
• 1c: This is the big one. No inline citations, and the References at the bottom include generic Cricinfo and Cricket Archive links, which don't help verify this article at all. FA referencing standards have simply passed this article by in its current condition.
• 2a: The lead is short, even stubby, and badly needs expansion.

There is some unencyclopedic language mixed in as well. One example: "Ideally, they would not have spent so much time batting..." Comes off as POV. I'd also like a photo in the lead, but there are more vital issues to take care of first. Overall, this does not compare to modern cricket FAs in my view, and would not even pass a good article nomination today. Giants2008 (17-14) 22:54, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Please notify significant contributers as well as associated wikipedia projects and post these notifications at the top of this FAR (see the instructions at WP:FAR). Thanks! --Regents Park (count the magpies) 23:09, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

To start with a minor point, the History of Cricket template at the top of the article hasn't been updated since the early days of WP:CRIC and should be deleted as it no longer reflects the project's cricket history coverage and adds no real value given our category structure.

The major point I would make is that the entire article is superfluous because the cricket project has evolved and left this sort of multi-season review far behind. The contents should be checked against the relevant tour articles and merged in to those where they are useful. The tour articles are:

• Australian cricket team in England in 1884
• Australian cricket team in England in 1886
• Australian cricket team in England in 1888
• English cricket team in Australia in 1887–88
• English cricket team in South Africa in 1888-89

Having done that, the article should be AfDed. It was a good enough article when it was written because the cricket project was in its early days then, but we have moved on.

I should add that the 1887-88 section contains serious factual errors and is very misleading. For example, the Melbourne club invited Vernon's team, not Shrewsbury's, and it was Vernon's team that sustained what Wisden calls "frankly a heavy loss". It is a complete distortion to imply that Shrewbury's team was all-pro and Vernon's was all-amateur: both teams had a mixture of amateurs and professionals. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 05:41, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Giants2008 (talk · contribs) and BlackJack (talk · contribs) (though not sure this article should be AfDed). The article in its present state is most certainly not up to current WP:FA standards (or WP:GA standards for that matter). Cirt (talk) 17:29, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are prose (1a), referencing (1c), and lead (2a). Marskell (talk) 13:34, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

• Remove - Nothing has been done to address my concerns. The article has barely been touched since the review started. Giants2008 (17-14) 18:07, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
• Remove - Per my comment above. Cirt (talk) 04:33, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
• Remove Concerns over reliability, article focus and structure, prose and neutrality are unaddressed. Two images lack sources. DrKiernan (talk) 10:48, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
• Remove per above. My biggest concern is the lack of historical accuracy. Needs to be completely revised and I would question if that is even worth attempting given that WP:CRIC now has articles covering individual seasons and tours. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 15:39, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
• Remove this is a relic from the old days, when "interesting" and "long details" were effectively the criteria. The article is written in a jolly/fly of the seat type manner which in some parts is reminiscent of a good-natured fellow talking about his mates from the old days at a Hall of Fame tribute speech or something. There is even an excalamation mark at one point. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 07:34, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
• Remove per above. I was quite surprised when I saw the star on this article. Wizardman 00:51, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

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 User:Marskell 12:35, 17 September 2008 [40].

---

Pilot (House)

Review commentary

Notified: WP:TELEVISION, The Filmaker (talk · contribs)

I have nothing to do with this article, but it is really bothering me that this article remains an FA when it fails many parts, if not all of them, of the criteria. -- Jɑɱǐε Jcɑ 21:47, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

The article needs both additional citations and more sources, a majority of the information (including entire sections of the article) may be deemed completely original. I'm baffled as to how this managed to pass it's original FA review, an article requires more than just information alone. UniversalBread (talk) 23:19, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Please notify significant contributers as well as associated wikipedia projects and post these notifications at the top of this FAR (see the instructions at WP:FAR. Thanks! --Regents Park (count the magpies) 11:40, 17 August 2008 (UTC)--Regents Park (paddle with the ducks) 16:19, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

• The {{unreferencedsection}} template should be removed from the Plot Section. Plots do not need references as the source is the episode itself. Everything can be verified by watching the episode. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 22:42, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
• Plots technically don't need citations/references, length is a nonissue, and I see only one citation needed tag. However, we should take advantage of this and give the article a followup copy-edit; it has been a year and a half, after all. — Deckiller 05:29, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
• In my opinion, WP's "best work" on a pilot episode should say where the idea for the series came from and how the series was picked up. Although the article discusses casting, it says nothing about where the episode was produced or how much it cost. FAC nominators argued that sources didn't cover these topics. In other words: reliable sources did not provide comprehensive coverage of this particular topic. Ironically, the "one citation needed tag" shouldn't even exist; the info was cited to imdb, and during the FAC a reliable replacement link was provided, but the link was never incorporated into the article, and presumably someone in the last year and a half removed the imdb link. I expect this interpretation of the comprehensive criterion is controversial, but episode articles are not without some controversy of their own. If WP is going to hold up some episode articles as the "best work", they should show the best possible work for a comparable topic. Compare the production section of "Where No Man Has Gone Before", and that's not even a FA. If that coverage is not possible because the sources don't exist or haven't been found, then the article isn't really comprehensive yet. (GA doesn't have a "comprehensive" criterion, so this article would pass GA.) Gimmetrow 23:22, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Supporting Removal! - Reference numbers 10 and 11 are deadlinks and lead to a 'page cannot be displayed' in the browser. Additionally, the article is extremely short (could include more background info on the show since it is the first episode) and lacks any form of media which are both Featured Article requirements. As much as I love this show, I cannot believe this is a Featured Article. This needs to be fixed up and improved dramatically. Images are an almost 'must' as per the criteria, same goes for sufficient sources. I support this removal/review completely. Domiy (talk) 06:20, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

The part about the dead links is no longer an issue. –thedemonhog talk • edits 20:35, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concern is referencing (1c). Marskell (talk) 12:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

• Remove. Referencing issue seems to have been addressed, but this article simply is not comprehensive enough to be of WP:FA quality to present standards in its current state. WP:GA standards for television episodes these days usually require a bit more breadth. A subsection about Themes of the episode, or Cultural references, any Controversy, more substantive Production information as mentioned above by Gimmetrow (talk · contribs), etc. Cirt (talk) 20:50, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
• Remove as per current state. I think that any article, no matter how short, can be FA if it exhausts all possible sources, however this article does not use all possible sources. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 22:06, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

As David says, length is not an issue. Comprehensiveness is. Clearly people are concerned about that with this article; Gimme puts it quite well above. As no one has stepped forward to work, removing now. Marskell (talk) 12:33, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

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 User:Marskell 12:35, 17 September 2008 [41].

---

Blues

Review commentary

Notified Vb, WP Music genres, WP African diaspora, WP Media, WP Chicago, WP Illinois and WP Music.
Other editors with 25 edits were also notified (Deeceevoice, TUF-KAT, Notinasnaid, Blainster, RobertG, and Cielomobile) as was the second leading talk page editor Hyacinth.

There appear to be many statements lacking citations, including two entire sections without any citations. This article seems to have been promoted when the standards for featured articles were more lax, but this article seems hardly featured-worthy with the current standards. Xnux the Echidna 16:07, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

• Delist The article is quite informative and detailed, but it does need quite a bit of research in terms of finding WP:RS for all of the information.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:02, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

  Please see the WP:FAR instructions, delist or keep are not declared in the review phase. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:59, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

• This is a very good article that is also an important one. Many articles link to it and depend on the information being relevant and well sourced. The article lacks reference citations for many statements and also treats some hypothesis as facts. I think some work, especially with the sourcing (and removal of information without solid sources), could fairly quickly return this article to a status deserving of FA. I don't think its deficiencies are fatal. —Mattisse (Talk) 18:10, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
• Internal links are often enough either missing or, as with "chord progression" in Blues#Musical style, not at first mention. Hyacinth (talk) 15:25, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Image problems

• Image:RobertJohson.png is missing a fair-use rationale for use in this article. It is also arguable whether its use here can be justified.
• The licensing is confused on Image:Okahumkee-On-The-Ockl.jpg: it has a public domain tag plus a CC tag as well as saying it's copyrighted and used with permission.
• Image:Muddy1.png has no fair use rationale for use in this article. Again, doubtful that its use is justified (at one extreme of the debate it's just a black man holding a guitar).
• Licensing is confused on Image:Svaughan.jpg: it says copyright of Scott Newton, and "Weselex Depository Rights Reserved", in addition to a PD tag. The original upload was copyright Lloyd Litt.
• Image:Rhapsody in Blue cover.png lacks a fair use rationale for use in this article.
• Image:Tajmahalblues.jpg has three licenses; it should only have one. DrKiernan (talk) 12:53, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are referencing (1c) and images (3). Marskell (talk) 09:04, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

• Remove. Significant Image, Style, and Referencing issues as mentioned above have not been addressed. Cirt (talk) 21:41, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. All the critics expressed here are correct. This article needs to be improved. I have added many new references to the article. They may not be enough. I however think one could remove the different banner and instead inlude specific fact tag which could help better. Thanks. Vb (talk) 08:58, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I generally object if an article does not have at least one citation for almost every paragraph. Thus, I am likely to vote to remove.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:46, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
• Thanks for the improvements, but the images still need sorting out. DrKiernan (talk) 11:01, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

• Remove, numerous opinions lacking attribution, citation tags, incomplete citations, publishers lacking, numerous MoS issues (image layout, seealso templates at ends of sections), clearly needs copyediting (notice this exact text:

  Georgia also had an early slide tradition.[37] ok (Y) :D

• SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:32, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Judging the history, I assume Vb was working as an non. There was some good improvement but this is still not there and work has ceased. (Musical articles on genres, as opposed to specific bands, are difficult and usually require a team.) Removing now. Marskell (talk) 12:28, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

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 User:Marskell 13:18, 13 September 2008 [42].

---

Ido

Review commentary

Most of the main body is unsourced, thus against WP:WIAFA criteria #1c. D.M.N. (talk) 15:57, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Please notify significant contributers as well as associated wikipedia projects and post these notifications at the top of this FAR (see the instructions at WP:FAR. Thanks! --Regents Park (paddle with the ducks) 16:19, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I've informed Mithridates (talk · contribs), but I don't know whether to inform WikiProject Constructed languages as it's inactive, and whether to inform WikiProject Languages as it covers a huge scope of articles. D.M.N. (talk) 16:31, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia is probably a better judge but it wouldn't hurt popping a note on the constructed languages and/or the languages pages. The article looks dormant and there may be some Ido lovers out there. --Regents Park (paddle with the ducks) 18:57, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

As a rule, notify as broadly as you can, in the hopes of snaring an editor willing to work on an article. Even inactive editors may have friends who still follow their pages. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:03, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Note: I've informed WP:Lang and WP:CL of the FAR. D.M.N. (talk) 14:34, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

What evidence is there that Image:Ido.jpg and Image:Ido Kongreso en Desau 1922.jpg are released by the copyright holder? While it is possible that Alfred Neussner is alive today and took a photograph in 1922, it seems unlikely. DrKiernan (talk) 14:09, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

• I agree with the initial assessment by D.M.N. (talk · contribs). It was appropriate to bring this article to FAR - it would not likely pass through the WP:GA review process in its present state, is not up to current WP:FA standards and would certainly encounter difficulties at WP:FAC. In fact, looking through its original FAC page at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ido/archive1 - it looks like there were several individuals that had raised objections there as well. Cirt (talk) 18:15, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns is referencing (1c). Marskell (talk) 10:46, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

• Remove. - Per my comments above and initial assessment by D.M.N. (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 19:10, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
• Remove - 1c YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 07:38, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Nothing happening on the article and clearly deficient in terms of referencing. Will remove now. Marskell (talk) 12:54, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

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 User:Marskell 13:18, 13 September 2008 [43].

---

Spoo

Review commentary

FAR 1 FAR 2

1c. There are 27 footnotes in the article. Let's break them down:

• Wikipedia:No original research states: "Wikipedia articles should rely on...secondary sources. Secondary sources are accounts at least one step removed from an event," whereas "primary sources are sources very close to the origin of a particular topic or event." 17/27 of the footnotes comprise primary sources: Internet postings by the creator of Babylon 5, Dining on Babylon 5 (a book published by Warner Brothers, the company that owns Babylon 5), TV episodes, a short film, and a song. The article, therefore, fails the requirement that articles should rely on secondary sources.

I rarely comment on a FAR but I feel that this policy must be clarified. The policy uses the word "should" which is not be confused with the word "must". The FA criteria requires reliable sources. Joelito (talk) 20:17, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Should and must are synonyms. "Wikipedia articles should rely on...secondary sources" appears in an official policy, and all FAs must abide by official policies. Punctured Bicycle (talk) 20:30, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

No they aren't. Phil Sandifer (talk) 18:33, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I must respectfully disagree on this. Joelito (talk) 20:47, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

As do I. There's a very clear difference drilled into me in High School debate team, yea these multiple decades ago. If a policy states a requirement, it must use must. In the same way, a guideline should use should. Jclemens (talk) 20:51, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

So when WP:BLP says "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons — whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable — should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion", we don't really have to follow it, since it says should instead of must? Punctured Bicycle (talk) 21:02, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

That is the way it's written, yes. Of course, there may have been a decision made to avoid the more precise language. Reasons to do so include that the use of the word 'must' seems demanding and incompatible with a volunteer project, or that the Foundation's legal counsel felt that use of the word 'must' would create legal problems for the Foundation in the event that the policies are not followed. I have no knowledge of any such considerations, however. Rather than saying that should and must are synonymous, which they are not, it might be more on point to assert that 'should' when used in an official Wikipedia policy is normative, not optative. That seems to support your point, while still avoiding unnecessary torture of the English language. :-) (disclaimer: I write policies for a living, so my usage of words in this context may be overly precise and downright arcane) Jclemens (talk) 21:42, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

That does indeed say "should" as it ought. Using "must" in that context would have the unfortunate meaning that any editor who sees such material is obliged to remove it, no matter what. Phil Sandifer (talk) 18:33, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

"Wikipedia articles should rely on...secondary sources" does not mean that "Wikipedia articles should exclude primary sources." Primary sources are legitimate sources, per WP:PSTS, the very section you're selectively quoting, and are often the best sources for a given area of coverage. You cannot use primary sources as the basis for an independent analysis of a subject (that is OR), but factual descriptions of the contents of primary sources are a vital part of our sourcing. Have you looked, for instance, at the "Plot" section of nearly every movie article on the site, including the FAs?--Father Goose (talk) 21:39, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I never said "Wikipedia articles should exclude primary sources." Of course factual descriptions of the contents of primary sources are a vital part of our sourcing—when used in conjunction with ample secondary sources. That is not the case here. Movie articles, if they truly are FA quality, will draw heavily upon secondary sources. Punctured Bicycle (talk) 22:07, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, then what you're saying is "delist, too much use of primary sources". I don't see how this in and of itself should be a reason to delist an FA. If it had no secondary sources, it would fail WP:N. (That is, depending on whether you considered "inherited notability" kosher... which is not at this time a resolved issue.)--Father Goose (talk) 00:08, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

It is obvious I haven't presented this point very effectively. My point is that once you remove the 7 citations that clearly violate WP:V and WP:NOR, as explained below, you are left only with primary sources and a few highly questionable secondary sources. The problem is not too many primary sources but rather too few, or no, good secondary sources. Solid secondary sources are the flesh and blood of this encyclopedia; although primary sources are useful in some cases, for the most part we should let the historians handle them. This, I take it, is what Jimbo means when he says "this is Wikipedians obsessed with trivia trying to be historians rather than encyclopedists" in the quote below. Punctured Bicycle (talk) 21:37, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Verifiability states: "Self-published...personal websites...forum postings...and similar sources are largely not acceptable." 3/27 of the footnotes comprise forum postings and a personal website, none of which involve J. Michael Straczynski, creator of Babylon 5.
• Wikipedia:No original research states: "Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. Synthesizing material occurs when an editor comes to a conclusion by putting together different sources. If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion, or if the sources cited are not directly related to the subject of the article, then the editor is engaged in original research." 4/27 of the footnotes comprise sources that attempt to support the conclusion "Straczynski was not the first person to use the word spoo - uses can be found in popular culture since the 1970s," but none of them explicitly reach this conclusion, and none of them are directly related to the subject of the article.
• So, 24/27 of the footnotes fail the content policies that 1c is based upon. What do the remaining 3 contain?
  • A draft of an article and a tv.com biography, which attempt to support the claim "Straczynski's use of Usenet and other internet forums is well known," a fact that, while important, is not specifically about spoo.
  • A USENET FAQ, which attempts to support the claim "The question of what spoo is made it into the major Babylon 5 FAQ," an absurdly inane fact.
  • A Lurker's Guide entry, containing the statement "The price of spoo is highly volatile: near the beginning of the episode, as Mack and Bo ate lunch, Mack claimed it cost 10 credits an ounce. At the end of the episode, he said it cost 15," which somehow has been stretched into "As a widely consumed food product, like coffee or beef, spoo is a traded commodity, where the price of the product at the consumer level is dictated by the price on common exchanges. During one episode the price of a spoo sandwich is stated as ten credits an ounce; at the end of the same episode it is stated as fifteen credits. While this could be a simple mistake by Straczynski, a bit of fanon assumes that it is an intentional reference to spoo's exorbitant volatility in the market." in Wikipedia's article.
• One final thought: "The article spoo that you mention is a very good example of a specatularly horrible use of original research. This is Wikipedians obsessed with trivia trying to be historians rather than encyclopedists. This should all be nuked from the encyclopedia with extreme prejudice, in my opinion." —Jimbo Wales, creator of Wikipedia, a year after the article was featured. Punctured Bicycle (talk) 19:54, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment: The article has only minor changes since the last FAR, mostly some changes to accessdates. Sourcing was addressed in previous FARs. Nothing really has changed here, so no need for a review. Gimmetrow 20:18, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comment diffs between the version of the article Jimbo criticized and today's iteration.
  • To me Jimbo's opinion has the same weight as that of any other editor on this encyclopedia. The community has decided that the article is worthy of inclusion on this encyclopedia. Joelito (talk) 20:47, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
• Remove this nomination now - The article has twice been FAR'd, there are no new issues whatsoever, and it was decided that the references used are allowable. Jimbo can have his opinion, but the people who actually build his encyclopedia have been very clear about where they stand on the issue. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:05, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Gimmetrow, Joelr31, Judgesurreal777: Consensus can change. The last FAR was a year ago. If you actually read the previous FAR, as well as the AFD, you will see that lots of people have misgivings about this article. Punctured Bicycle (talk) 21:21, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I did, I remember when they happened, and I didn't agree with the AFD or the FAR then, and I don't now. The sources are not the most optimal, but they are from the creators of the substance, and are therefore reliable. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 00:43, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

• This article has excessive non-free images. The lead image, Image:Gallery Spoo lite 2.jpg is two guys talking, with the caption that they are discussing spoo. Is it really necessary to have a picture of two characters talking about the subject? Likewise, you can barely see the spoo in Image:Midnight Spoo copy lite.jpg. Do the images in the Real-world etymology of the word section provide anything that the text does not? Pagrashtak 15:50, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Midnight_Spoo_copy_lite.jpg might be unnecessary, but the others all seem pretty justifiable. There aren't going to be free images available of a fictional subject.--Father Goose (talk) 21:32, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

That's only a small portion of the non-free content criteria. Does Image:Gallery Spoo lite 2.jpg convey signification information that Image:Spoo Close Up 3 lite.jpg does not? (3a) Does it significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic? (8) Is it impossible to convey by text alone? (1) Pagrashtak 18:00, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Have the WikiProjects/users associated with this article been notified of this FAR? I don't see a list of notifications at the top of this FAR. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 00:35, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

• My Concerns- Delist
  • Images: How do any of the images, besides those directly identifying the subject, meet WP:NFCC? Can't it be said in text Skeletor got offered Spoo?
  • WP:WAF- entire sections such as "Commodity" don't help an outside reader understand the subject, and veer into unnecessary detail
  • Sources: I have nothing against using primary sources, and have used them many times. However there needs to be a balance. Flood has 14 secondary sources. Many of Spoo's citations are more like footnotes, and several are flying in the face of WP:RS (such as current ref 23; we can't throw people at Google and just say 'it is notable, look here'.) Next to no info on creation or reception beyond fans- in other words, little to show the actual food, not the word, have relevance outside of the series.
  • Summation: Fails 1b, 1c, 3, and 4 of WP:FA?

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 01:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

• Keep listed. It is clear that this article relies on the best available sources, and that the sources available are reliable by any sane or objective measure. To declare that these sources fail to meet our criteria misses the point - this article, and I say this as a published scholar in popular culture, is well-sourced. It is we who are mistaken if we say otherwise. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:35, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Well-sourced /= reliably sourced. I could make you an excellent sourced article on the Helljumpers from the Halo series. That doesn't mean it is fit for this encyclopedia. Spoo lacks secondary reliable sources for its continued inclusion. This is a minor piece of fiction which appeared, according to the article, in only eight episodes of a series and is inherently fanbait. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 17:06, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

When you are arguing that "well-sourced" and "reliably sourced" are not synonyms, you have departed reality in favor of Wikipedia jargon-land. Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:12, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Show me how forum postings meet RS, and I'll stop considering this fancruft in need of deletion, let alone demotion. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 17:23, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Explain to me how comments by the creator and more or less sole writer of a television series aren't reliable sources. Never mind RS - if RS says that J. Michael Straczynski talking about Babylon 5 in any verifiable medium isn't a reliable source, RS is on crack. And, notably, I haven't read RS in a month or two. It's frankly irrelevant to this discussion - if it says that JMS speaking on B5 isn't a reliable source, it is transparently wrong. Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:28, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Phil, the relevant quote from WP:SPS is "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." JMS is an expert on B5. JMS' work on B5 has been published in RS. Therefore, use of JMS' SPS are RS WRT B5, QED. If we're agreed on the logic, WP:B5 members can certainly source each statement therein to everyone's satisfaction. Jclemens (talk) 20:19, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not talking about that guy as a source: it's a primary source which falls under WP:SPS as long as its verifiable. But the article has, next to no secondary sources which prove the article is notable. All I know is that the creator used the phrase once before in a show he worked for, and that fans spoofed it, and that college students used the term. That doesn't equal notable, and none of the "See Usenet posting via Google" are reliable sources and should be removed. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 17:34, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I would hope, given the contentiousness of notability and fictional subjects, that FAR would not become a frontier in that battle. Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:52, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I would also note, I object strenuously to the use of FAR for a problem like "too many non-free images." That's trivial to fix - go remove the images and challenge the fair use rationales. FAR is not an appropriate response to easily fixable issues. Phil Sandifer (talk) 18:02, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

This is neither here nor there, but it was brought here for 1c concerns, not 3. Pagrashtak 18:10, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't speak FA jargon. What are 1c and 3? Phil Sandifer (talk) 18:14, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

1c and 3 are "factually accurate" and "image" clauses of the FA criteria. Ec: "claims are verifiable against reliable sources, accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge, and are supported with specific evidence and external citations; this requires a "References" section in which sources are listed..." Ergo, we need reliable sources, of which at least five are patently not. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 18:23, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Would you be so kind as to specify what five? Phil Sandifer (talk) 18:25, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, only four (though there are more I'm not sure about.) Current refs 14, 16, 25, 13. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 19:26, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

13 and 14 seem to me trivial - they're minor references for a side point, and I don't really see them as major issues. Remove them if they offend. 16 does not bother me particularly - the Usenet post is a sufficiently reliable primary source for the basic fact that the term was used. The only bothersome claim is "earliest use," since to my knowledge Google's Usenet indexing is not complete. 25 is a non-issue, being redundant with 26, but is probably worth keeping due to its link to the primary source of the song. I'd agree with removing 13 and 14 and recasting 16 slightly, but I am unable to see how these add up to de-listing. Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:34, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm going about this the wrong way... explain to me what the significant secondary sources are which make this article notable. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 19:40, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I do not think this is an appropriate discussion given that the overall question of notability and fictional subjects is ambiguous. Delisting a FA while this is being discussed seems unwise. If nothing else, we have learned by now that we cannot effectively stem the tide of articles of this sort being created. Given that, a FA that is a genuinely good model for how to do articles of this sort seems to me a positive. Phil Sandifer (talk) 20:20, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, that was a great question. Starting with the secondary sources that provide notability will probably be the best way to improve the article. I've removed refs 13 and 14 based on the above. Pagrashtak 20:36, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I think, seeing this discussion and looking at the article again, the references that do exist are very poorly done, they are much more like notes and not actual references; they say what happens in the episode they reference, instead of citing the actual episode, for example. Proper formatting and fixing this aspect will give us a much better idea of what is a reference and what is not. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:39, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

• Found a new secondary source: Babylon 5 The Role Playing Game It's secondary, but not independent. Doesn't have preview enabled, so we can't see the depth of the coverage. Anyone got a copy? Jclemens (talk) 22:40, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
  • A Babylon 5 role playing game rulebook written by the creator falls under primary. Punctured Bicycle (talk) 21:40, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
    • JMS did not write the role playing game. He's credited on the cover as the creator of B5, and the book uses quotes from the series. It may have an intro by him, but he is not the writer of the rulebook. Phil Sandifer (talk) 21:49, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
      • Regardless of who wrote it, this is not the kind of source we are looking for. We are looking for reliable secondary sources; for example, objective articles written by pop culture historians that might, say, detail how spoo has had an impact of society. Of course, spoo is so insignificant that these kinds of sources don't actually exist. Punctured Bicycle (talk) 22:06, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
        • There's ample evidence that "Spoo" has significant impact within the fandom of a popular and acclaimed television series - such that it appears regularly in materials marketed to said fans, both by JMS and otherwise. When you say "impact of society" you seem, basically, to be creating an "I don't like it" argument. The impact provided, it seems, is not important enough for you. Phil Sandifer (talk) 22:20, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
          • Phil, this is the issue. The article is not demonstrating an impact, critical, cultural, or otherwise. Can you show what current references support your impact theory? (dino-nerd inside joke, ignore it) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 22:39, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
            • For me, the cookbook, RPG, Babylon Park, and Luke Ski references show meaningful impact within B5 and sci-fi fandom. Phil Sandifer (talk) 23:03, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
              • Setting aside the cookbook, neither Babylon Park or Luke Ski's articles demonstrate notability, so I don't think they can be used to bolster the notability of spoo. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 17:16, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
                • Um. What? How do they not demonstrate notability? Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:19, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
• Um, they too don't have secondary sources. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 17:24, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
  • ... And? WP:N does not specify that the sources establishing notability much again be notable. Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:29, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
    • GNG requires secondary and reliable sources. If there's no assertion that Luke Ski is important, how can his writing a song that contained 'spoo' also be important enough to merit an article on Spoo? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 17:46, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
      • Is Luke Ski a primary source on Spoo? Clearly not. Is he a reliable source for the claim being made - that this song from B5 fandom makes mention of Spoo? Clearly. Does this provide support for the central claim of notability - that Spoo is significant within B5 and sci-fi fandom? It certainly seems so. Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:51, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
        • How is Luke Ski clearly a reliable source for the claim or otherwise? If he's not notable, then the fact he made the song cannot be used as a claim for notability. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 03:35, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
          • Please point to a passage in any policy or guideline page that supports the view that the reliable secondary sources used to establish notability must also be independently notable. Phil Sandifer (talk) 04:05, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
            • Um, if we don't use sources which are reliable, or failing that notable, then we can hardly declare that because they mentioned something in a song, it's notable. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 02:03, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
              • The source is reliable for the claim being made. Phil Sandifer (talk) 02:07, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
                • That is my point: how do we know he is reliable for the claim being made, and how does that impact the notability of spoo? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 02:09, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
                  • What do you see the claim as being? Phil Sandifer (talk) 02:24, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
• The sentence: "In 2008, rap-filk artist Luke Ski recorded and released a parody of the Beastie Boys song "No Sleep till Brooklyn" called "No Sleep Till Babylon."[23][24] The song features lyrics about the Babylon 5 story; as the song fades out, in a leitmotif similar to the Beastie Boys song "Girls," a voice mimicking that of the character Londo Mollari pontificates on his love of Spoo." - disregarding whether the sources cited fall under RS (assuming they have as close a relationship with Ski as their about page states, I can see this) we basically have to prove that Ski is a reliable source on fandom, which funnels into whether he is notable as such. The references which prove this are missing from his article, and so far I haven't been able to find any online. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 03:15, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't see how Ski's overall reliability as a source on fandom comes into it. Ski is a primary source for the claim that the song exists. It is sufficient, in this case, that he is in fandom. But he remains a secondary source for Spoo in general. Phil Sandifer (talk) 03:36, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
    • What? I can state that I am Halo fandom, but that doesn't make me any more a reliable authority on Halo canon and stuff than the next guy. Just because I say something exists doesn't mean it can be added to the article, or used to back up WP:N concerns, unless I am proved a authority on Halo, recognized as a Halo fan (by a newspaper or something), or somehow notable in relation (as noted previously). Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 03:46, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
      • Of course, in this case, judging from Luke Ski, there's plenty of reason to think he's notable. Phil Sandifer (talk) 03:50, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
        • No there isn't! The article has no sources to verify any of the information besides himself, and doesn't assert notability. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 12:54, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
          • Am I hallucinating the appearances on two seemingly notable radio programs and the Doctor Demento reference? I've been driving cross country all day, and it's entirely possible I am... Phil Sandifer (talk) 03:29, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
            • Assuming that those appearances are real... as there are no sources, what's in the article means jack. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 12:01, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
              • Radio Adventures of Dr. Floyd and Dr. Demento claims are both sourced. Phil Sandifer (talk) 12:54, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
• Please see the WP:FAR instructions, votes to delist or keep the article are not declared in the review phase of this FAR. You can ask that this FAR be moved to Featured article removal candidates. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 16:33, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
• Listen, I'm a WP:RS fascist, and I think this discussion is ridiculous. JMS' usenet postings are completely and utterly reliable. If the problem is that the entire thing is not notable enough, can we have an AfD instead of this, please? --Relata refero (disp.) 22:02, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
  • It was nominated for deletion a year ago. At least 14 people voted in favor of deletion or merging, despite the bronze star. Punctured Bicycle (talk) 04:48, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Oh, that's right, you're the one who nominated it then. By any means necessary, eh?--Father Goose (talk) 07:56, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
      • If the issue is notability, AFD is the proper venue, but the way spoo is parodied seems to indicate it's notable. Gimmetrow 10:41, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
        • This is my issue. I dont think one guy who parodies science fiction means that the fictional element has a serious fan impact. We need a reliable source to say such a thing, not to just point at Luke Ski's song and say, "There it is." Besides, looking at the lyrics, the song isn't about spoo, it just contains a reference to spoo- it's pretty much trivial, though I believe that Luke Ski himself might meet the threshold of notability.

• So if we axe that reference, the only other source that meets secondary criteria and is a reliable source (maybe) is the Babylon Park short, but that too, is just a video, and isn't a reliable source for demonstrating the notability of spoo. The main issue with this article is serious original research and synthesis is being done here. We need a source that says "Spoo, a fictional food, has a significant impact in the fan community" or something along those lines; we can't take some songs and say that they are indicative of a wider impact. For all you know, those two guys were the only ones who gave a damn about spoo. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 13:48, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

• You are elevating notability concerns to an almost Cartesian level of skepticism and doubt. This seems monstrously unhelpful. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:27, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

• I'm simply elevating notability concerns to the level due of a fictional subject FA. I would expect you, Phil, to know better about reliable sources. The OR and questionable sources are a serious issue, and I'm giving it serious thought and time. If need be, we can do an RfC to judge the reliability of all the usenet sources. But if we gutted all questionable sources and possible OR, we'd be left with very little in the way of featured material. The burden of evidence falls upon you, Phil; we have every right to be skeptical. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 15:21, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

• I see the Luke Ski, Babylon Park, and JMS posts (which I am skeptical of the appropriateness of calling primary sources for Spoo) all as establishing notability. I remain broadly skeptical of the relationship between notability and fictional subjects, and I am sure you are well aware that the matter remains controversial. I find your dogmatism here unhelpful and ill-advised. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:37, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

• And I'm saying that I don't see any of the above as establishing notability, least of all the JMS stuff (If you can explain how that is not a primary source, I'm all ears.) I think soliciting the opinions of venues such as WP:RSN is warranted, since I believe we have a fundamental difference in opinion. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 19:19, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

• A primary source is a B5 episode. A discussion by the creator of B5 is a secondary source. Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:37, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the person who posted the usenet information said at some point he did post the information listed, in which case it would be usable. I would look around for that. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:56, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

• "Primary sources are sources very close to the origin of a particular topic or event [...] published experimental results by the person(s) actually involved in the research; original philosophical works, religious scripture, administrative documents, patents, and artistic and fictional works such as poems, scripts, screenplays, novels, motion pictures, videos, and television programs." He's a primary source; he's not taking information from primary sources and performing synthesis, then he'd be secondary. Developer commentaries, et al are all primary. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 04:07, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

• I'll grant that they're primary on the overall work, but I'm disinclined to agree in terms of specific elements. But then, I'm inclined to look at this from a larger perspective - in covering Babylon 5, there are numerous reliable sources that provide a good deal of information about Spoo, a fair bit of it real-world. If there were no length limits on articles, it seems clear to me that Babylon 5 would rightly have a sizable section on Spoo. I think questions of its notability have to be taken in that context. Phil Sandifer (talk) 13:54, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

May I remind those who keep defending this embarrassment that featured articles are meant to exemplify our very best work? Look at the sources. Actually look. Read them. All of them. Here's one example: Rusty0918 of the Jedi Council Forums writes "Yes, this is Spoo Space, keep going down..." in a message board post, so that means "spoo space" is a verifiably widespread term. This scholarship exemplifies our very best work? Really?

Here's another: the fan-made Lurker's Guide to Babylon 5 notes "The price of spoo is highly volatile." This has been expanded into some crackpot highschool lesson on economics in the Wikipedia article: "As a widely consumed food product, like coffee or beef, spoo is a traded commodity, where the price of the product at the consumer level is dictated by the price on common exchanges." This exemplifies our very best work? Are you kidding me?

Another: A Wikipedian found "[Deleted Spoo]" in some 1989 sci.physics post, so that apparently means it is the first recorded instance of the word on USENET; linguistic researchers are apparently out of a job. Paradigmatic cases of original research represent our very best work? You're joking, right? Punctured Bicycle (talk) 21:49, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

You're silly. Phil Sandifer (talk) 13:54, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

And you haven't refuted Punctured's opinion (and mine) that there aren't "numerous reliable sources that provide a good deal of information about Spoo, a fair bit of it real-world". If there are, they should be in this article. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 14:48, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comments, nothing more, nothing less.

1. The used sources and how they were used (as demonstrated by Punctured Bicycle above) make it extremely unlikely that this article would pass FAC if it was nominated today. Although I do not have a problem with JMS as a source (he is reliable after all), or his forum posts (his way of commenting doesn't make him less reliable), the article still violates WP:V's "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", and the article is therefore not among "the best articles in wikipedia" (my emphasis, WP:FA).
2. Unlike the times when this article was promoted to FA, there is significant acknowledgement now (see e.g. the current discussions at WP:Good topics) that some articles do not have FA-potential although they are legitimate GAs, simply because of their limited scope, which seems to be the case here.
3. Talking from a disambiguation perspective, the section "Real-world etymology of the word" describes a totally different concept and should thus have its own article (or just a wiktionary page). Which limits the real-world info about spoo in the B5 universe even more, and it's coming dangerously close to "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." (WP:V) - although I am never opposed to merging.
4. This whole article reminds me of Jello in the Stargate universe which was picked up in several audio commentaries (acknowledgement as a running gag by the producers) and fan forums ("Jello" as the name of the reputation blocks etc., google results imply that jello stargate is over five times as popular as spoo babylon). Most people would agree that Jello (Stargate) would be a bad idea for an FA article, so how is Spoo any different? (This is probably the least convincing argument, but at least I see where people are coming from when they say that Spoo is simply not an FA-worthy topic.)

(I do realise that I am digging my own grave here since I have created similar fiction articles that are dear to me, but I accept that the future of an FA-quality wikipedia is not going to be with all the Spoo-like articles.) – sgeureka ^t•c 16:59, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concern is referencing (1c). Marskell (talk) 11:24, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah Spoo. Please keep the declarations short and sweet. Marskell (talk) 11:24, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I shall. Marskell, you have my deepest condolences. I wouldn't do your job for all the tea in China. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose removal. Babylon Park, Luke Ski, and JMS Usenet posts all are, to me, valid sources for notability purposes. Other sources adequate. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:03, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support delist. Phil has not demonstrated per the requirements of WP:RS and WP:SPS how the above are reliable or demonstrate notability of the subject as defended. USEnet posting in particular should not be used for sourcing. Secondary issue of original research in the article in part reinforced by the use of unreliable sources. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 14:25, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
• Remove. Punctured Bicycle (talk) 20:14, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
• Remove. - I agree with David Fuchs (talk · contribs) - the article lacks in-line citations to secondary sources which satisfy WP:RS/WP:V - and in other locations the cited "sources" simply violate WP:OR/WP:SPS. Cirt (talk) 21:36, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Where are these other places? Phil Sandifer (talk) 23:24, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Many of the cites in the References section draw on inferences from primary sources made by whichever Wikipedia user added them, as opposed to relying on secondary sources. Internet example at Jedi Council Forums, and numerous USENET examples can be attained via a Google search, (linked at Google groups). Both retrieved on 2008-06-24. - is one example, though there are multiple others. Cirt (talk) 00:06, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
      • That seems a tangental sentence in the article - easily removed without major change to the article's substance. Heck, I'll go take it out right now. Any other objections? Hopefully ones that you couldn't fix yourself in five seconds? Phil Sandifer (talk) 04:57, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
        • Yes. As I said earlier, I echo everything already said by David Fuchs (talk · contribs) above. The article may have improved slightly, but in its present state with the current standards of WP:FA, I do not think it would successfully be promoted after a discussion at WP:FAC, due to the points raised by David Fuchs (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 16:04, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
          • Which points? He's made rather a lot of comments - please sum up. What specific flaws do you see in the sourcing? Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:29, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
            • Specifically, I agree with everything said by David Fuchs (talk · contribs) directly above me in his "Support delist" comment. Could not have said it better myself as to why this article is not of WP:FA quality per current standards and would not make it through WP:FAC, and would most likely also not successfully get through a WP:GA review in its current state either. Cirt (talk) 19:43, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. This is one of the most disgusting things I have seen in my time on Wikipedia. The continued raising of the bar in this debate has been utterly pathetic. Every time a response is marshalled or a change has been made to this article, suddenly the criteria demanded changes. It is pathetically obvious that this is in no way about improving the article, and that nothing will ever satisfy the de-listers. This is a pathetic, naked hit job being used to open another front in the discussion of notability on fictional articles. Never mind that this is as good and thorough an article on a fictional topic as we have on Wikipedia. Never mind that its sourcing is, in practice, impeccable and reliable by any measure. Never matter the hair-splitting and residence within the echo chamber of Wikipedia necessary to twist this article into some unreliable piece of flimflam. This article must die, clearly. Fine. Delist it. Delete it. Clearly this is going to get rammed through process without any regards to reason. Why fight it.
• I am ashamed to be a part of this project some days. Phil Sandifer (talk) 02:36, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose delist The interpretation of WP:SPS is uncompelling, and I don't see meaningful change since the last review. Jclemens (talk) 02:56, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
  • If you oppose delist then you think the article exemplifies our very best work. Explain, as one example, how appealing to anonymous Internet poster Rusty0918 exemplifies our very best work. Punctured Bicycle (talk) 04:24, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
    • I am uncertain of the problem here. It is clear that Rusty0918's post says what it is presumed to say. Still, this is one sentence that is incidental to the article at large. If this is really your objection, I'm sure we can compromise on removing that sentence and you dropping your FAR. Phil Sandifer (talk) 04:55, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
      • You think the FAR is based on one sentence? It was one example. The article is rife with this kind of shoddy scholarship. You can remove sentences until your heart's content, but I guarantee that what remains won't be featured quality. Punctured Bicycle (talk) 05:52, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
        • Now you're just insinuating. Come on. Where's the bad sourcing? "The whole thing just isn't featured quality" isn't a valid objection. Phil Sandifer (talk) 12:56, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. There are two separate issues: sourcing and notability. Nothing with regard to sourcing changed since the last FAR, and FAR isn't the venue for notability discussions. Gimmetrow 03:51, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
  • If you oppose delist then you think the article exemplifies our very best work. Explain, as one example, how using a Beatle Baily comic strip to substantiate a claim about a word (rather than, say, a scholarly article by a linguist) exemplifies our very best work. Punctured Bicycle (talk) 04:24, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
    • How is this an invalid use of a primary source? It is making a non-controversial and obvious claim about the usage of the word in the strip in question. Please, explain how this violates WP:RS. Phil Sandifer (talk) 04:55, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
      • Phil, the relevant policy is no original research. According to WP:OR, you must not use sources to "advance a position that is not directly and explicitly supported by the source used." The Beatle Bailey comic strip does not directly and explicitly support the position advanced in the article: "The earliest known print usage was as an exclamation in a 1971 Beetle Bailey comic strip, as a play on the reverse spelling of 'oops.'" (emphasis added). The only kind of source that could support this position is an article or dictionary entry written by a professional linguist. "Firsts" are frequently controversial, and are never obvious. Of course, I am ignoring for the moment the fact that this has absolutely nothing to do with the Babylon 5 foodstuff and can just as easily be removed for being irrelevant. Punctured Bicycle (talk) 05:52, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
        • Oh. OK, that's easy to fix too. Again, fixed so that the claim is wholly uncontroversial. Anything else? I mean, surely you have some sort of substantive objection that's going to take more than five seconds to deal with. Phil Sandifer (talk) 12:56, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
        • Punctured, the title of the article is "Spoo". Not "Spoo (Babylon 5)". But if you really think the concept is too much to contain in one article, you're welcome to create "Spoo (Beetle Bailey)" and "Spoo (Internet slang)". Gimmetrow 18:25, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
          • On the other hand, the article starts with "Spoo is a fictional food product that served as a running joke within the Babylon 5 science fiction television series." And since there is no other Spoo article, Spoo and Spoo (Babylon 5) are identical. – sgeureka ^t•c 18:32, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
            • PB just removed anything from the article not related to Straczynski - he made the article only about Babylon 5. Gimmetrow 18:38, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
• Remove 1c. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:52, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

List of objections

One of the most important rules, as I understnad it, at FAC is the idea of actionable criticisms. That is, an objection to a FA nomination must be something that can be fixed. As it stands, the objections here are not actionable. When specific objections have been raised they have been, without fail, easy to fix. But beyond that the objections have amounted to "there's... stuff that's not good." This is not fair, and should not be counted. To better clarify this discussion, I would appreciate if the specific, actionable objections to this article's featured status are compiled so that actual response and editing is possible. As a gesture of good faith, perhaps the vote could be suspended for a few days while this process goes on. As it is currently a straight-up deadlock, this ought not be terribly controversial - it is not as though this is a tactic to block a vote that is currently going against the article).

I've added the three actionable objections that I am aware of - all of which are now fixed. Will others please note the specific flaws in the article so that a better idea of what needs to be fixed can be obtained? Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:35, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

• Beetle Bailey reference. Claim changed to be more specific and supportable by source.
• "Spoo Space" internet forum reference. Claim removed.
• Google search reference. Claim fine-tuned. Google is, in this case, a fine source because it is a complete Usenet index, and so can be used to make historical claims of this nature.

You need to show that the Babylon Park and Luke Ski uses of spoo are notable, or that they themselves are reliable sources for fandom (or, for example, replace the current 1st-part sources with, say, a New York Times article mentioning Luke Ski's contributions to fan music and the spoo shindig.) You need to clean up the prose, which is not brilliant ("After several years of speculation from Babylon 5 fandom, Straczynski finally offered an extensive, humorous explanation of the origins and nature of spoo. [...] After several years of cryptic answers, Straczynski finally made a post explaining what Spoo was.", et al). And then we need more content, because I'm not sure if 800-something words can qualify as an FA. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 18:29, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Are there length requirements for FAs? I was unaware of that. I also confess, I don't see the problems with those bits of prose. Explain? Ski's notability, I thought, was clear. Babylon Park seems notable: [44] is a pretty high-profile accolade for a fandom site, and its first episode was called Spoohunter, which is a significant reference. And the Luke Ski song has, effectively, a full verse on Spoo with the fade-out dialogue. Both seem non-trivial mentions, and both are clearly secondary sources of independent notability. Phil Sandifer (talk) 18:34, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

If Luke Ski and Babylon Park are not notable, maybe someone should list those articles at AFD. Gimmetrow 18:43, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Gimme, stop serving food on the bait-train, we're here to discuss one article not a slew of crap on the far side of the wiki. Meanwhile, I believe my main issue here is what Ski and the Park tell us. That fans really loved Spoo? First off, two fans don't equal the entire base, so the references don't help us there as they aren't indicative of any other impact. Secondly, there's no "tangible" impact mentioned. I'm talking little plush spoo-thingies, merchandise, something of that sort which most fictional items seem to have (although looking at TARDIS, it's in need of some major cleanup itself, but that also is irrelevant to the current discussion.) As to length, there has been considerable discussion at FAC and GAN to the effect that articles of such limited scope cannot become FAs (thus the auditing requirement of FTC for these articles.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 18:49, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

This is moving a bit existentially, and starting to go beyond what I think WP:N demands. In my understanding, WP:N demands multiple independent sources with non-trivial mentions of the subject. Babylon Park and Luke Ski are independent, they are two different sources, and both non-trivially mention Spoo. That satisfies all policy requirements, doesn't it? Phil Sandifer (talk) 18:51, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm just throwing out concerns when I think of them, I'm not out to get you Phil. N states the preference for secondary, and in this way I think it's best we have someone say that Luke Ski/Babylon Park did the spoo-referencing works, for one thing. Now, given the current size of the article, I'm also suggesting that it might be best to merge the article into the Babylon parent article. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 18:58, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh lordie... that kind of mergism would bloat the B5 article very, very quickly if we started targeting similarly notable things. In any case - are we at least in agreement that there's no policy issue in terms of WP:N here? Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:06, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

David, the arguments are blurring, and that's the problem. Sourcing is in relation to the topic. Some topics can be discussed entirely from peer reviewed literature, others not so much. Spoo is not a major character in Babylon 5 (as far as I can tell). It's a plot device that appeared in a few episodes. It looks to me like the tribbles of Babylon 5. I'm not sure fuzzballs contribute any more to "tribble" significance than spoo keyrings, but if you think so, the Babylon 5 cookbooks may be relevant. As for the GA/FA thing, GA was originally for short articles, but it quickly began reviewing very long articles, and FA has promoted a few very short articles. Short articles can run into problems with the comprehensive criterion, but the issue isn't simply length, it's whether the article covers aspects of the topic expected of comparable topics. Gimmetrow 19:19, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

@Phil, my WP:N concerns haven't entirely been allayed, but I think we should try and avoid the repetitiveness of you and me beating our heads on opposite sides of the same wall and try and inject some fresher blood into this discussion. Perhaps some of the FAC wigs (Ealdgyth, if she's willing) might be able to help move this in a more constructive direction? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 19:35, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

In light of Phil's comments, I have removed all questionable sources and their corresponding statements, edited out trite detail, rewrote entire sections, restructured the article, and copyedited for stylistic consistency. I've tried as hard as I can to make the article as good as possible given the subject. And yet it still isn't featured quality. It fails WP:V and WP:RS, which both say the same thing very clearly: articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. The article is not based on third-party sources. It is based on first-party sources: recollections from the show's creator, TV episodes, songs, and film shorts. Similarly, it fails WP:OR: for example, no reliable, third-party, published source notes that spoo is referenced in the film short or song; these are true, but "unpublished facts."

There has been talk of merging above. I actually think that if this was boiled down some more it could be a decent entry in an article like Babylon 5 universe. It seems common practice to merge minor fictional elements into one main article, rather than have individual articles for each. But before any merging can happen the article must be defeatured. Punctured Bicycle (talk) 20:17, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I am utterly unimpressed by the suggestion that the remaining sources in the article are in any way problematic. Phil Sandifer (talk) 21:46, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comment The article as it stands now has way too many section headers. One section has two sentences, and another two sections have only one paragraph with three sentences each. I still do not understand how Image:Skeletor-spoo.jpg meets the non-free content criteria. It seems to fail NFCC 1 and 8 at least. Pagrashtak 13:58, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

• Remove, this is archaeology, a lovingly restored facsimile of something that was once a big deal to a few people. But the picture is so incomplete and the sources so rudimentary that it can't be anything other than original research.--Nydas^(Talk) 18:16, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

• Remove per 1c. --RelHistBuff (talk) 11:34, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

• Very strong remove and nominate for deletion at AfD. None of the sources cited meet Wikipedia's criteria for reliable, secondary sources and how this managed to reach featured article status despite such a serious shortcoming is completely beyond me. The date on which it appeared on the home page -- April Fools Day 2006 -- says it all. 91.109.218.176 (talk) 19:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• Close I can't bring myself to say "Keep" but, historically, articles are only removed if their deficiencies are obvious. In this case, the argument seems to be a very subtle one, and one on which people disagree. Consequently, on the basis of precedent, the article would perhaps be kept. DrKiernan (talk) 07:36, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

• Remove The article is gravely lacking in out-of-universe context. Stripped of the in-universe material the article is little more than a stub and fails to establish the notability of the subject. The lack of sufficient secondary sources is also worrying. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:20, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

• Remove. The fact that this article has appeared on the Main Page sends me a clear message that Wikipedia has vastly improved. But, that's not to say it's perfect; this article in no way meets the FA criteria, and should be removed. NSR77 ^T_C 21:06, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Closing. First off, I am going to remove this because it's more than two to one in that direction. But I would be remiss if I did not comment on the above trainwreck. While I tend toward deletionism myself and have long had concerns about pop cult sourcing (including with Phil on ATT) I have also sympathized with inclusionists: they have so often been treated as a kind of abhorrent Wiki sect concerned only with Pokemon and sci-fi. I've seen that with this article. Attitudes toward it have often bordered on the vindictive and I don't quite understand why. The Wikipedia house will not come tumbling down because of our Spoo article, notwithstanding Jimbo's comment on it. So the star goes. And let's just leave the damn thing in peace after that. Marskell (talk) 13:14, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

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 User:Marskell 14:19, 8 September 2008 [45].

---

Bank of China (Hong Kong)

Review commentary

Notified WP Companies, WP Business, ‎ WP China, WP Hong Kong and Juntung.

Lacking inline citations, outdated (most as of dates are dated), and MoS cleanup needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:01, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree. This article needs major work. There was another major restructuring of the bank in 2005 or possibly 2006 that is not mentioned at all. --Patrick (talk) 01:13, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

At current condition, it won't even meet the criteria for GA. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 02:14, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Needs more work, i agree with OhanaUnited --Itemirus (talk) 08:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Agree with OhanaUnited (talk · contribs), this article certainly does not meet WP:GA standards at this point in time, let alone WP:FA. Cirt (talk) 17:08, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are referencing (1c) and MoS (2). Marskell (talk) 08:59, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

• Remove. Per my comment above and the initial comment by SandyGeorgia (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 21:42, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
• Remove per 1c issues. LuciferMorgan (talk) 18:19, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
• Remove. Explained my reason on the above section. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 18:23, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
• Remove 1c. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:53, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

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 User:Marskell 10:57, 5 September 2008 [46].

---

Sesame Street

Review commentary

This was raised per concerns on IRC. Looking over the article, I notice very many problems which definitely make it far below FA class, especially given how much stricter FA has gotten since this was passed in '06:

• Plenty of red links
• "Funding" and "Characters" sections are almost entirely unsourced
• {{Fact}} template in "Live characters" and "rumors and urban legends"
• "Regional variations" also unsourced

Overall, I think these make it clear that this is no longer FA-class. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 21:44, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

• Notified WikiProject Television and User:WordyGirl90. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 21:48, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

• Red links are not at opposition with featured status and are not a valid objection at FAR or FAR, unless they are, for example, to articles unlikely to meet notability. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:16, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

• Ah. Some of them looked like they would stay red, though. Also, I removed a link that pointed to the wrong person; it was pointing to a Mad magazine contributor named George Woodbridge, who was not the same George Woodbridge involved with the show. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 23:39, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

• Agree, this is no longer an FA class article. The vast majority of it is unsourced, with only a spattering of references in each section. The lead doesn't summarize the article well. The article doesn't follow the Television MoS well (sections out of order and all over the place), nor the Wikipedia MoS, with basic errors in heading names, organization, the infobox, etc. The characters and cast sections are very disorganized and messy looking. The list in regional variations seems unnecessary when it already has an entirely separate list, much less two. The "Rumors and urban legends" seems entirely unnecessary. Relevant content should be merged to other sections. The criticsm section shows a lack of neutrality as it is not part of an overall reception section, and the only other reception info given is a much briefer ratings section. Its awards are relegated to a see also without so much as a lead, and no corresponding positive reviews are given at all. The reference section includes unsourced commentary. For the actual references, I saw at least to references to the Muppet wiki and one to a personal Tripod website! Quite a few others are missing basic information and refer to log in only articles on EBSCOhost. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:03, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
• Agree to delist Delist - many unsourced facts and prose is kind of below FA standards. miranda 01:41, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Declarations to delist or keep aren't made in the review phase. Nousernamesleft (talk) 17:25, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Several issues in the article:

First paragraph in "Overview" needs to be better worded for prose flow.

Paragraph one and paragraph two are unsourced.

History of the show - one cite for the section. One external link.

"Rumors and Urban Legends" - OR?

"Featured Films" - unreferenced

If delisted, this article needs a B rating. miranda 20:37, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Images Are there too many fair-use images, especially considering that there are a couple of free ones in the article? DrKiernan (talk) 09:58, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are referencing (1c) and prose (1a). Marskell (talk) 08:55, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

• Delist, initial concerns unmet and little activity on the article beyond vandal control. No responses from any article contributers here either. Unlikely issues will be addressed. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 13:54, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
• Delist as nominator. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 02:05, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
• Delist per Collectonian. SchfiftyThree 02:07, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
• Delist Definitely agree with Collectonian (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 21:47, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

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 User:Marskell 10:38, 1 September 2008 [47].

---

Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs

Review commentary

Notifications to Rad Racer and WP Drug Policy

A 2005 promotion, this article badly needs a tuneup. Inline URL citations need to be formatted, it is lacking citations, it has a long list under references that may have grown to an external link farm, listy prose, external jumps in the text, and MoS cleanup is needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:47, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I second all of the above. I was about to nominate this for FAR as well when I came across this article. --Allstar86 (talk) 08:08, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

• I agree. Not even close. None of the refs are formatted properly, no real inline citations to speak of, choppy/list-y prose, et cetera. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 22:02, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Image problems

• Image:Opium harvesters3.jpg: source is a dead link. Can we be sure it's a DEA picture?
• Image:Grizlov 139.jpeg: source is a dead link. No evidence that Rosbalt news agreed to the image's use.
• Image:Opium-processing.jpg: source is a dead link.
• Image:En incb.gif source is a dead link. No evidence that the copyright holder has released the image into the public domain.
• Image:ECOSOC meeting.jpg: no specific source cited. No evidence that the copyright holder has released the image into the public domain. (Indeed, most if not all UN sites have "All rights reserved" at the bottom.) DrKiernan (talk) 13:13, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are formatting and MoS (2), referencing (1c), and images (3). Marskell (talk) 16:54, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

• Remove Numerous concerns remain unaddressed. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 20:05, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
• Keep featured IIRC, the source of the Rosbalt image had a policy of releasing all their stuff. As for the other broken links, it's to be expected that after several years, some sites would change/remove some of their pictures; does that mean we have to remove ours, because they removed theirs? It would not have made it to featured if there were blatant copyvios. The promotion predates the type of inline citations we use now; but it's nothing a bot couldn't take care of quickly, given that the bare urls are inline. These concerns are insufficient to merit removal. EVCM (talk) 17:19, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
• Remove - I agree with Nishkid64 (talk · contribs) and with above points by SandyGeorgia (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 17:10, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
• Remove per 1c. LuciferMorgan (talk) 18:22, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
• Remove 1c, linkfarm. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:57, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I still say you're making a mistake. It's not a linkfarm; substantially everything under the references header is something that is cited inline so as to back up a fact with a citation. All that really needs to be done is to put it into our standard format of <ref>'s, which a bot should be able to easily do. EVCM (talk) 03:42, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
• Remove, all of the above. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:57, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

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 User:Marskell 10:38, 1 September 2008 [48].

---

Ammolite

Review commentary

Notified WP Alberta, Gemology and Jewelry, Hadal and Rmhermen‎.

I am not a gem person but I do know an article that contains few referenced citations when I see one (fails 1c). There are turely no notes or citations with the exception of noting it as the official rock of Lethbridge, Alberta.

Promoted in 2005, does not look like it had been reviewed since. Could likely stay FA if citation work was done but it does not appear that there are any active editors on the article (only a couple edits conducted in the last year) Labattblueboy (talk) 19:20, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Images Image:Ammolite mining.jpg, Image:Ammolite mining2.jpg and Image:Ammolite jewellery.jpg should have OTRS tickets, or more definite evidence that Korite International has released them under GFDL. (Though, they probably did because it's a free advert for them.) DrKiernan (talk) 13:04, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are referencing (1c) and images (3). Marskell (talk) 16:53, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

• Remove - Agree with above points made by Labattblueboy (talk · contribs) and DrKiernan (talk · contribs). Article in its present state would not pass a WP:GA review, let alone a discussion at WP:FAC. In addition there are formatting issues as well as a lack of information across certain subsections - for example the section Use in jewelry could use more information on historical usage. Cirt (talk) 17:52, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
• Remove per 1c issues. LuciferMorgan (talk) 18:20, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

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 User:Marskell 10:38, 1 September 2008 [49].

---

W. Mark Felt

Review commentary

Have Notified:

• PedanticallySpeaking - the editor who originally nominated this article;
• WikiProjectBiography Here;
• WikiProjectFBI Here; and
• WikiProjectLawEnforcement Here

factually accurate Article needs a lot of work to keep up with current historical thinking. Specifically, Ed Gray and John Dean have both argued that Mark Felt could not possibly have been the only person to be Deep Throat, Gray even names another person that must have contributed to the Deep Throat we see in All The President's Men. For a summary of what I'm talking about, you can see the "composite character theory" section on the Deep Throat page. For details, you can look here[50] and here[51].

In this light, we see that much of this article depends on the idea the Felt = Deep Throat. At the very least, the sections on how Felt and Woodward stayed in contact need to be re-worked to recognize at least the possibility that when Woodward writes in All the Preseident's Men about how he contacted Deep Throat, he is not necessarily talking about Felt. And I think a new section should be added to talk about how Felt may not necessarily be the only Deep Throat out there. (Morethan3words (talk) 04:43, 25 July 2008 (UTC))

Alright, so the main issues here are factual accuracy (FA criterion 1c) and comprehensiveness (FA criterion 1b), correct? Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 12:58, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, yes, thanks, that's correct. (Morethan3words (talk) 08:02, 26 July 2008 (UTC))

This might also need overhauled per 2C. I think we should avoid using ibid in case paragraphs get moved. Not all the references appear to have actually been used (though they would be useful for future researchers). I don't know what the citation guidelines actually say and am basing this on my instincts... Does someone knowledgeable about this know what all actually ought to be fixed? --JayHenry (talk) 01:44, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

• I was reviewing a different PedanticallySpeaking FAR, and stumbled across this on his talk page. This is an issue I know something about. Gray and Dean's arguments should be noted, but it's important to bear in mind that Dean was Nixon's lawyer and Gray his FBI director and as such they are possibly the earth's least-unbiased people on this issue, after only Nixon. Further, they had published their own theories that were contradicted by Felt and Woodward. Their points should nonetheless be noted, but Gray and Dean do not by themselves reflect the "historical thinking".
• The article does need some updating, but it does not need overhauled. Neither doubts that Felt was an off-the-record source for Woodward and very little of the article depends on whether it was Felt or Donald Santarelli that gave a specific piece of information. (It's already acknowledged by all parties that other anonymous sources were used in the reporting.) Needs updating on a few other points as well. --JayHenry (talk) 00:25, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Just a quick note in response. Of course it's worth noting who the writers are on this particular issue, but in that light it's worth noting not just who they were, but who they currently are. In Gray's case, it wasn't actually Pat Gray who discussed the Mark Felt/Deep Throat issue in his autobiography, but his son Ed who had done the research (and subsequently wrote the last chapter on the issue). And as for Dean, he has made becoming an expert on the Watergate era as a way of kind of atoning for the whole affair, and as such has been praised for his fairness, impartiaility and knowledge in his writing on the time period. Although, I think the most important thing to note on this is that, in both cases, the writers use Woodward's own records to draw their conclusions, and in Gray's case referencing Woodward's notes against the FBI investigation files. Furthermore, these conclusions are really more of an attack on Woodward, and not so much on Felt, so any perceived bias against Felt is almost beside the point.

Of course the conclusions by these two writers do not yet constitute a consensus on historical thinking regarding Felt/Deep Throat. But then, it's also worth noting that there is still more to be revealed in this regard. Woodward's publicized notes only cover 3 of the 17 conversations with Deep Throat indicated in All The President's Men, once the remaining notes are publicized, more writers will scrutinize Woodward further, and it is likely more criticisms and/or questions will come up.

What I am suggesting is not that the article be orverhauled, per se, but that the sections that refer to the conversations and information about Deep Throat provided in All The President's Men, simply be amended to refer to Woodward meeting with/talking to Deep Throat, as opposed to Felt. Furthermore some statements, perhaps in a new section, that discuss the composite character theory and its persistence beyond 2005. (Morethan3words (talk) 10:32, 2 August 2008 (UTC))

Yeah, that sounds completely reasonable. I think we're on the same page--I just wanted to make sure of that before diving in :) I'll start chipping away at this in a couple days. Does anyone have any thoughts about what to do with that reference section? --JayHenry (talk) 16:45, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

One other thought that should go under FA criterion 1b, I'm also concurrently trying to get a related biography to GA status, and one of the criticisms I've gotten recently for that article is that there is not enough on the individual's family. So I took a look at this article to see what types of things should be included, and saw that the "family" section in this article is barely a sentence long. If this is an issue that is preventing an article from reaching GA status, then I certainly think it is an issue that should be addressed here given what we have currently. (Morethan3words (talk) 04:35, 6 August 2008 (UTC))

Image The author is missing from Image:MarkFelt.jpg. How can we be sure that it is a work of the federal government? DrKiernan (talk) 13:51, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are factual accuracy (1c) and comprehensiveness (1b). Marskell (talk) 16:52, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

• Remove per 1b and 1c. The article has not improved since the FAR began. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 16:52, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
• Remove per 1b x 2 and 1c, same reasoning as above. (Morethan3words (talk) 06:54, 19 August 2008 (UTC))
• Remove - Significant referencing issues throughout. Agree with assessment by Nishkid64 (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 21:50, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.