Wikipedia:Featured article review/The Temptations/archive1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 14:34, 26 February 2007.
Review commentary
[edit]- Messages left at TUF-KAT, R&B and Soul Music, Bio and Musicians. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Informative article, but woefully lacking in refs, there are only 9 and their format is severely lacking. Left notice at Wikipedia:WikiProject R&B and Soul Music. Rlevse 20:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Besides the above concerns, weasly words are also rampant. LuciferMorgan 22:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The referencing (that is, the verifiability) is fine. When the article was first promoted, inline citations for every sentence were not required (in actual encyclopedias, these are not used. General references are). This article is based upon a sturdy and lengthy reference from one of the subjects in question, which I happen to own and have right by my desk. I can and will add a citation to the exact page of Otis Williams' Temptations autobiography for each place where it is deemed necessary. Just add {{fact}} tags, and I will take care of the rest. And there is no need to leave messages at R&B and Soul Music, since that project has been more or less inactive for years. --FuriousFreddy 07:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The referencing is not fine. Several older FAs have been FARC'd for not meeting modern standards. Footnotes come after punctuation with no space. The refs' format need work, see Gerald Ford for samples. Entire sections do not have a ref. A good rule of thumb is any paragraph over 1-2 sentences should have a ref. And as LuciferMorgan points out, the weasel words need cleaned up.Rlevse 11:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As I said, just add {{fact}} tags, and I will take care of the rest. And, like I said, the verifiability is fine; the article just lacks the (usually unhelpful and non-professional) glut of citations commonly expected out of Wiki articles nowadays. All of the citations are going to be from the references already listed. Please give examples of "weasel words" in the article. --FuriousFreddy 21:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The referencing is not fine. Several older FAs have been FARC'd for not meeting modern standards. Footnotes come after punctuation with no space. The refs' format need work, see Gerald Ford for samples. Entire sections do not have a ref. A good rule of thumb is any paragraph over 1-2 sentences should have a ref. And as LuciferMorgan points out, the weasel words need cleaned up.Rlevse 11:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments. Here is a list of weasle words to watch out for. Also, the section headings don't conform with WP:MSH, WP:MOS, particularly the use of "the" and capitalization. I corrected the footnotes per WP:FN, so take care with footnote placement as you continue to cite the article. It would be helpful if you would cite as much as possible, and then request reviewers have another look for anything missing. There are external jumps in the text which could be converted to references. Whether you agree or not, by today's standards this article is way under referenced. For example, History subsections 1-9 are totally devoid of refs.Rlevse 22:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This :
- Williams, Otis and Romanowski, Patricia (1988, updated 2002). Temptations. Pg. 170 - 171
- Williams, Otis and Romanowski, Patricia (1988, updated 2002). Temptations. Pg. 172
- Williams, Otis and Romanowski, Patricia (1988, updated 2002). Temptations. Pg. 249, 259
- Williams, Otis and Romanowski, Patricia (1988, updated 2002). Temptations. Pg. 177
- Williams, Otis and Romanowski, Patricia (1988, updated 2002). Temptations. Pg. 183
- can be abbreviated to:
- Williams and Romanowski (1988), pp. 170-171.
- Williams and Romanowski (1988), p. 172.
- Williams and Romanowski (1988), pp. 249, 259.
- Williams and Romanowski (1988), p. 177.
- Williams and Romanowski (1988), p. 183.
- Sections 1 through 9 are devoid of refs because I just started adding them, and I work during the week. I will finish the rest. --FuriousFreddy 19:51, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:07, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- CommentsTwo refs still have the URL displayed and this is not wiki style. The URL should be embedded underneath the title so you see and read the title but when you click it goes to the url. See Wikipedia:Citing sources. If you use the cite templates it does all the work for you, you just fill in the blanks. A 59K article should have way more than 19 refs. Reused refs should appear on same line, not as two separate footnotes, see WP:CITE. External jumps need to be removed from the Notes section.Rlevse 22:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- When I first wrote this article, there was no "Wiki style" for citations, so I used APA style. I will go back and reformat everything. There are currently no reused refs (when citing print work, you are required to list the exact pages used). --FuriousFreddy 19:52, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There remains no "wiki style" for citations. APA is 100% fine. Nor is it the case that reused refs need to appear on the same line; while this is permitted by the cite.php technology, there is no requirement to use that format -- indeed, quite a good case could be made for avoiding it, since when you print a version of an article that uses multiple refs, the citations are not comprehensible. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I've never encountered that problem; can you explain? Perhaps it's printer-dependent? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:29, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There remains no "wiki style" for citations. APA is 100% fine. Nor is it the case that reused refs need to appear on the same line; while this is permitted by the cite.php technology, there is no requirement to use that format -- indeed, quite a good case could be made for avoiding it, since when you print a version of an article that uses multiple refs, the citations are not comprehensible. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have decided I will not be continuing this process. Please de-list this article from featured status. --FuriousFreddy 01:48, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]- At great expense to my available time, I will try to do my best to add citation tags to this article. If someone could please first tag the article with "citation needed" templates, that would be greatly appreciated, as I apparently no longer have an innate understand of just how many in-line citations are now wanted in these articles. --FuriousFreddy 01:46, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Glad you're back - would you like for me to shorten those book references for you, as in the example above? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Would you like me to add these templates Freddy? If someone objects per 1c after my cite requests have been filled per 1c, then the person is mad - I get on Wikipedians nerves when it comes to cites. :) LuciferMorgan 09:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Any help would be much appreciated, thank you. --FuriousFreddy 03:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Would you like me to add these templates Freddy? If someone objects per 1c after my cite requests have been filled per 1c, then the person is mad - I get on Wikipedians nerves when it comes to cites. :) LuciferMorgan 09:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Glad you're back - would you like for me to shorten those book references for you, as in the example above? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- At great expense to my available time, I will try to do my best to add citation tags to this article. If someone could please first tag the article with "citation needed" templates, that would be greatly appreciated, as I apparently no longer have an innate understand of just how many in-line citations are now wanted in these articles. --FuriousFreddy 01:46, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- THere are also numerable instances of the same wiki article being linked more than once, you only need to link the fist instance. As for what to cite, you should have an inline cite per every section at an absolute minimum, preferably every paragraph. You can reuse cites if need be.Rlevse 11:03, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- When I first wrote this article, there was no "Wiki style" for citations, so I used APA style. I will go back and reformat everything. There are currently no reused refs (when citing print work, you are required to list the exact pages used). --FuriousFreddy 19:52, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FARC commentary
[edit]- Suggested FA criteria concern is insufficient references (1c).
Comment: This was left a couple of days extra in review because there was work going on. Keeping it moving now. Marskell 09:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There's still work going on. I'm sorry, but my job comes before this. --FuriousFreddy 04:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I've placed a few cite tags on statements I feel need citation, and will place more once they've been filled. LuciferMorgan 12:22, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment; looks like a lot of potential for keep here. — Deckiller 04:31, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Agreed Tyler, with a bit of ref work and prose work. Largely hangs on Freddy really, but it sounds as though he's busy. Shame really. LuciferMorgan 12:10, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Once Freddy gets a chance to work on it, it should proceed fairly smoothly thanks to the lessons learned with Sly and the Family Stone. — Deckiller 12:14, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- CommentImprovement has occurred, but there are still several sections about many paras without refs, so I put cite needed tags in.Rlevse 12:25, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove per 1c (unfortunately). LuciferMorgan 23:02, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove per 1c; unfortunately, work will be unable to be accomplished in time. — Deckiller 14:32, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If anyone is planning to finish this, pls let us know if a time extension is needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:03, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Freddy has disappeared? :( Marskell 18:54, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.