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.
Wikiproject and author notified.
Just a forewarning, this could become a battleground, but I personally don't think the storm meets the FA criteria. I don't believe there are enough reliable, independent sources of information for the article. All of the content from the article stems directly from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (parent of the National Hurricane Center NHC), which I personally think violates WP:N. The guideline says an article should have a significant number of independent, reliable sources, but seeing as the content is directly from the NHC, I don't think it should count as independent. As for those newspaper sources that did report on the storm, well, Wikipedia is not WP:NEWS, as I could find no newspaper sources on the storm after it dissipated, nor any newspaper sources that didn't get their info from the NHC.
The last FAC was pretty split, and I know exactly what the nominator will say - he believes that all named tropical cyclones are inherently notable, which the WPTC recently disagreed with (although it is fairly split for storms 2000 to present). To summarize, the purpose of this review is to determine whether significant independent sources is passed when all of the content comes from the same source. FWIW, I'm more interested in seeing the opinion of other users that don't frequent his private IRC/Skype channel. --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:27, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Quick note for clarification. I totally forgot it was Easter (I don't celebrate it), and I honestly did not pick to do this FARC now while the primary author is on Wikibreak. I informed him last night on IRC that I would be doing this. However, I'd imagine he would be back tomorrow. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:32, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Coming from an uninvolved user, I can't say I fully agree with the conclusion or Julian's opinion. The consult of a professional meteorologist or someone within the NOAA is necessary. Ceranllama chat post13:35, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We do have a professional meteorologist in the project, User:thegreatdr (real name David M. Roth, who works for NOAA. He voted in the straw poll and indicated that he does not believe all named tropical cyclones are notable. Would it be COI to ask him? ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:09, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there. I see the discussion has been heated on here, and will merely present to you all what I know about the input/output from the National Hurricane Center/National Weather Service concerning the creation and dissemination of tropical cyclone information. For systems where aircraft reconnaissance is not available (such as the eastern Pacific), satellite imagery is used to determine intensity, etcetera, using the Dvorak technique. That information is compiled with ATCF software into the invests and advisories that people within the TC wikiproject are familiar with. Those advisories are then picked up by the media (mainly wire services nowadays such as the Associated Press), which is occasionally carried by newspapers. It does seem false to declare an AP story concerning a tropical cyclone as a separate independent source, unless it contains additional quotes by people at the National Hurricane Center which are not contained within a tropical cyclone discussion; it's normally just a repetition of what comes from the original source, NHC. Indeed, National Weather Service offices must keep vigilant concerning media reports of damage during severe weather, since they normally just regurgitate our warnings, which can lead to the public calling the NWS giving us information which originated from....us! Hope this helps clarify the situation. Thegreatdr (talk) 16:24, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What argument is that? My explaining why I don't think that the 53 word Union-Tribune source isn't independent from the NHC when it says that it got its info from the NHC? Or my overall argument that none of the content from the article comes from somewhere other than the NHC? --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:45, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The storm was expected to move over cooler waters and become a remnant within the next few days, forecasters said. ?
Comment - Since Erick fails WP:N in the sense that the NHC are affiliated with the subject, and their are no independent sources (and theirs a dead link) i suggest that its FA star is taken away and the article is merged. Jason Rees (talk) 16:59, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The SMN website says that they work with the NHC to issue warnings. Given that the intensities, dates, and whatnot are exactly the same as the NHC (actually, it uses operational data, making it less reliable as a source), I don't think it counts as being a source for info outside of the NHC. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:06, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Independence is based on direct relationship with an individual or organization. A storm is a natural phenomena. There appears to be many sources, so Notability is not a concern. If more sources are needed, here are a few that can be found: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 (NASA satalites, not NOAA, mind you), 12, 13, 14, 15, 16. Can't find more because of the holiday. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:26, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yea? You found a bunch of sources that have exactly what the NHC has, meaning they either took it and didn't say where they got it from (which would be stealing, and thus unreliable), or several of them say they got it from the NHC. Some were blogs (#13 and #16 are identical), and a few didn't work for me. Aside from the NASA one (which is mainly just an image which we can't cite, and with info probably from the NHC), I don't think any of them have content that is actually independent of the NHC; that, as I said before, is why I don't think it has enough reliable sources. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:06, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just glancing through the sources, but it looks like the MSNBC source is good. THere are also sources from USA Today, CBS, and FEMA, which seems to be enough to indicate notability in my mind. NuclearWarfare(Talk)18:36, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The MSNBC is from a wire service, which gets its information from what the NHC released to the public. Unless it affects shipping lanes, it is doubtful that any of these sources aren't entirely based on NHC products. Potapych (talk) 19:28, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am much more conservative than Hurricanehink with what I consider notable. Articles like this are almost certain to have one author, and we have to assume the validity of their interpretation of the source since few people actually read enough of these to check the facts. Articles are also supposed to be readable to casual viewers, so regurgitating every detail from the NHC report is probably too confusing for them. I don't like articles that document every single change in state (so that doesn't single out this article) because that is like trying to identify every single particle on the ground. I could understand this thing in one or two paragraphs just as well. Potapych (talk) 19:49, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
End the Crap - Hurricanehink has used a claim that all data comes from the same source. Guess what? That is a fail argument. All poetry articles about a poem have commentary on the same source. Most evidence comes from the same source. Independent groups discuss it in various ways. Its that simple. Notability has nothing to do with "newness" of information, and data is data. Hink, your continue pursuit against Julian's pages with this claim is unfounded and if you continue, I will put up a section on ANI asking you to be banned from participating in any related functions because you are causing a major disruption and going against core ideas at Wikipedia which would only damage the encyclopedia if anyone listened to you. Enough is enough. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:59, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ottava, I'd like you to end the crap as well, as you wouldn't be here if it weren't for your relationship with JC. I said I didn't really care what people on JC's private channel say, since I know they will all unquestioningly back their leader. For a poem, there is published literature that analyzes the poem, how certain aspects can reflect the author's life, etc. For a notable living person, there are widespread stories that reveal different angles of their life. For this tropical cyclone, there is only one source (two if you count the NASA satellite image) where people can find info. All other links that people find on it stem from the same place, which IMO does not make it notable. At this point, I really don't care if you post on ANI; you're already wasting my time by having to respond to you, so why not waste others' when I am not a major disruption? In the mean time, I'm interested in what people have to say about this article, that is, people who are not members of JC's club. Cheers, ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:29, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relationship with Julian? No, this has nothing to do with him. It has everything to do with you continuously gaming the system and trying to wreck Julian's work because it gets in the way of you getting more stars. Not only have you proven that you don't understand notability, you proved that you don't understand how sources are used properly. It doesn't matter -who- did the research, what matters is -who- interprets it. As I have put forth, there are many interpretations by various people. That alone proves that your claims are absurd. If you keep it up I will make sure you are topic banned before you destroy this encyclopedia anymore with your petty revenge tactics. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:46, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, that is far from correct. It's not a private channel (Freenode staff idle there), and they won't back me up on-wiki. Now I'd appreciate if we could stop making false, off-topic assumptions. Thank you. –Juliancolton | Talk00:57, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then how come on two separate occasions, people from your channel (sorry, the channel named ##Juliancolton on IRC) have followed you into the WPTC merging page, where those editors have never posted before? --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:00, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am a prominent member of both the FAC and FAR community. You actions of late have been troubling. Julian and I are not friends. This is an issue about you being a deletionist when it can benefit you or when it can hurt someone who had articles that got in your way. Such tactics are highly inappropriate. Your attacks on JC right now only verify that this is part of a personal vendetta. I have requested that the FAR be immediately dismissed on such grounds, i.e. a Point Violation, as you are disrupting Wikipedia in order to grand stand against Julian's articles in general. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:04, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not so much. How is Erick not being an FA supposed to benefit me? I really don't think it meets the FA criteria, and I don't have any interest in the 2007 Pacific hurricane season. --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:09, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, FWIW, I've always been leery about lesser notable storms getting articles. Here is a link to a comment I made 3.5 years ago, before JC joined, and I feel pretty much the same way today. --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:12, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You can be leery all you want, but WP:Notability is clear, and having multiple reliable sources that are published and copyrighted by -different organizations- regardless of the source of their primary information, is notable. By pushing your views in such a way, you are soapboxing and making a point. Such actions are inappropriate, especially when you are targeting other valuable members of this community in the process while simultaneously benefiting in some way. Wikipedia is not a Battleground and your actions towards Julian need to stop now. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:20, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think WP:N is clear in this case, which is why I want some other viewpoints. Is it really that significant of coverage when all of info comes from the same place? I'll repeat what I said elsewhere, I would like to see some non-biased people say about this. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:53, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If I had to say, it would be 1c, as I personally don't think stemming from one source counts as significant, reliable sources, and possibly 1d (don't focus on that one too much, just that it could, but probably not to you, be perceived as being NPOV by proving more info than its notability suggests). Anyway, as I said before, I'm more interested in hearing others' viewpoints, to see how they interpret whether it counts as significant reliable sourcing. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:53, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Is it really that significant of coverage when all of info comes from the same place" Wrong. The base data may come from a satellite. However, the reporting, coverage, and use of that data is used in multiple sources. This is analogous to poetry. All works on the poem are using the poem, so that only have "info" that "comes from the same place". Notability is coverage. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:23, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
← Hi, I was asked privately to comment here. I idle in Julian's channel, and I can confirm that nothing untoward has happened in there regarding canvassing or requests for comment. For what it's worth, I am an operator in #wikipediaconnect, #wikipedia-enconnect and several other main Wikimedia channels. This means I'm trusted to take action against users who are not using the channels appropriately. If I had seen any of this, appropriate action would be taken. I must reiterate that any sort of canvassing done via IRC is dealt with quickly, and users who abuse their privilege of using the channel will be prevented from doing so. I cannot, of course, monitor what goes on in private, but in terms of the channel(s) themselves, there has been nothing like it. Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk)01:21, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do you ever talk to JC on Skype? He confirmed that he talked about the storms on there. I'm sorry if I assumed incorrectly about his channel, however. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:53, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have conferred with Julian on Skype, and he has spoken about storms, but as a hobby rather than a Wikipedia subject. I am not in Skype all the time, but I am confident that his participation re. storms is not canvassing in any way. Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk)23:06, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please shove this to WP:AFD. This circus over whether this storm is notable or not has been going on for too long, and it is simply becoming a major distraction to users who work on tropical cyclone articles. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff)01:34, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Would AFD be any better? We already have this page, and IMO the same biased people (myself included) would dominate it early on. Or, would an RFC be better? ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:53, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think soliciting input from people from the WikiProject on guidleines for notability might be needed. If that doesn't work, generalising to other natural disasters like floods and earthquakes might get more input. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 03:02, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist. The tropical cyclone Wikiproject is clearly undecided whether storms like this are inherently notable. It is rare, if ever, for a bunch of articles of a group to be inherently notable, and I do not believe Erick fits this example. The storm did nothing special, and as such, the article is rather lackluster, hardly one I would want to consider one of the best articles in Wikipedia, as the first line of WP:FA so clearly says. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:52, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist & Merge. Per Hurricanhink's comments. This seems to be as non-notable as a tropical storm can possibly be, so arguing that this storm is sufficiently notable for its own article is equivalent to arguing that ALL tropical storms are notable. cmadler (talk) 19:22, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tropical Storm Erick (2007) is also worth reading in the context of this discussion. It is unfortunate that parts of this above FAR discussion degraded into petty bickering back and forth and some dialogue that is not directly relevant to this FAR and this article, it appears this was not conducive to a positive and constructive dialogue. Cirt (talk) 01:19, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Since FA has no specific notability criteria other than WP:N and I believe this article already went to AFD and was declared Keep. Please inform me if I am wrong. —Mattisse (Talk) 01:30, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There are plenty of sources that show notability, and I have found even more which verify it. The argument is a philosophical dispute that would be best served if going through VPP to discuss changing the notability policy. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:05, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was kept by Joelr31 23:51, 27 April 2009 [2].
1(c) - currently all inlines are based on one web source. It maybe accurate but hard to verify reliability. (Background:It was promoted 4 years ago and has not been reviewed since.) Tom B (talk) 16:46, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really see anything objectionable about the prose, so I'm assuming that adding inline citations will be enough to save it from FARC. I've added a couple to the article so far and will try to secure the rest of the books in the bibliography section when I get the time. — east718 | talk | 06:10, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Creator comment. The article had one issue: it relied on a web source. Since it was nomianted for review, better sources were added - primarily thanks to East718 ([3]). As such, I think the article is still up to modern FA standards.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:08, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would prefer to see citations for:
Prior to trial, he was repeatedly tortured but revealed no sensitive information and sought to protect other prisoners.
and
He is thought to have been buried in a rubbish dump
What does "(not confirmed)" mean after "Józef Cyrankiewicz"? I presume this means not confirmed as prime minister, but it can be misread as not confirmed as the accuser, or not confirmed as an Auschwitz survivor.
At this point, with the website being offline anyway, and available only through the net archive, I don't recall the details. It was an extensive, but poorly referenced website about Poland in WWII. That said, the website usually had its facts right, and in the past years, as I've been replacing refs to it in various articles with better sources, they usually confirm what it said. It was a good source in the early days of Wikipedia, but is of course increasingly obsolete today. I fully support replacing all references to it with a more reliable, scholarly refs, where possible. I don't think that any controversial facts are referenced to it now? In any case, we have a better English online ref, the IPN scholarly website bio of Pilecki, so if somebody has a little time, it should be relatively easy to update the article to that better source. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:08, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Update: "whatfor" references have been mostly replaced with more reliable sources and as of this time they constitute only about 10% of total references. None of them have been shown to be controversial or contradictory to other sources.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 22:51, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist - Most of the references support for the article is to a dead website. The archive.org website does not show anything of its remains so no one knows what was the original content or author. There are several interesting sources listed in the References, but none are used except mainly Lewis which is a collection of war stories of which the Pilecki source is probably a chapter of around ten pages. This would certainly not pass FAC today, especially in light of the updated 1c criterion. --RelHistBuff (talk) 12:43, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment How reliable is ref #3? The author of the source is the "Institute of National Remembrance — Commission for the Prosecution of Crimes against the Polish Nation" – the name itself shows what side of the fence the institution walks on. I believe we need a more neutral source for this article. Nishkid64(Make articles, not wikidrama)02:34, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We have a decent article on it, right? In brief: despite the somewhat grandiose name, its a neutral, academic institution, who employs respected historians (many of them notable and with articles on Wikipeida: [6]), who publish normal, academic works. I am not aware of any criticism of the institute on the grounds of the lack of academic integrity in its research works. As the article indicates, the only real controversy regarding the institute concerned an attempt to use it in Polish politics some time ago, with little relation to historical research and publications. Its publications are often cited: [7] --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:31, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, there's still a fair amount of controversy about the IPN. [8] ("Donald Tusk added that the IPN exists to celebrate Poland’s public heroes, not to slander them"), [9], [10] (Special court cleared Lech Walesa in 2000, in 2009 an IPN historian republishes spying claims), "Former President Aleksander Kwasniewski has apologized to the 'honest researchers' and historians at the Institute of National Remembrance (IPN) for having called them an ‘Institute of Liars’." [11] Given the statement by the PM about its mission, I think some other sources would be good. Having said that, I'll also say that my 10 minutes of searching didn't turn up any major controversies about Pilecki's life and works. One cite request based on an assertion I found only in the whatfor.com website. Novickas (talk) 00:42, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All of those controversies revolve about recent Polish politics. Questioning IPN on those grounds is as logical as questioning USMHH because it was criticized in an interview by some Holocaust denier :) IPN is staffed with reliable, notable historians and is simply a normal historical institute (with somewhat of an amusing name). PS. I've added ref for the citation tag you left in the article. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:11, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. 38 citations based on a short, online biography with no author and no particular analysis? I laud the efforts for the article's upgrading, but I don't feel comfortable to support keeping it, when it hugely relies on the above source with the above characteristics.--Yannismarou (talk) 21:35, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comment: Sometimes background information could be better provided, in order to help the ignorant reader. E.g.: "As the relations between the Polish government in exile and the Polish-Soviet communist government worsened, in September 1945, Pilecki accepted orders from General Władysław Anders to return to Poland under a false identity and gather intelligence to be sent to the government in exile." What was the role of Anders? Who was he after all, and what was his position or influence in the Polish gie? Of course, this is for the article's improvement, and I do not argue that it constitutes an argument strong enough to lead to its delisting!--Yannismarou (talk) 22:07, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The article contains this strong statement: In 1944, the Russian army, despite being within attacking distance of the camp, showed no interest in a joint effort with the Home Army and the ZOW to free the camp. It's sourced to Jozef Garlinski, but it's pretty major to be in there with a single ref, and the Auschwitz article doesn't discuss it. If it's going to be in here, it should reach consensus at the Auschwitz article first. Novickas (talk) 01:01, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:The only thing that is needed to save this article from the reference gods is the backing up of this with other sources. ResMar14:59, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Now and again I see some users criticizing the Institute of National Rememberance. This institution employs a number of professional historians and is a main publisher of books on modern history of Poland. It closely cooperates with offices of this kind in Eastern Europe, and criticism expressed here by user Novickas has nothing to do with the Witold Pilecki and IPN's publications about him. It is a positive sign that IPN historians dispel myths of modern Polish history and are not afraid to write about even most touchy subjects, such as Lech Walesa's cooperation with Communist Secret Services. Here is English version of IPN's webpage. Those interested should visit it [12]. Tymek (talk) 21:42, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I've changed my mind about its academic independence. If the law may be changed so that its board and director can be fired midstream (Warsaw Voice,[13]), or the Prime Minister can close it at his discretion (Polskie Radio, [14]) - that gives me pause. Uncomfortably close to the government and government funding. The Warsaw Voice also states that the IPN-published book causing the latest flap is based on oral evidence from anonymous witnesses. That's SOP for news outlets, not historians, but they published it. The source is troubling on these counts. Novickas (talk) 21:29, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Novickas, it really seems like your first point supports the fact that IPN is an independent institution, not the other way around. IPN may be publicly funded but the law as it is right now is designed to prevent it from politicians' influence. The above articles merely show that sometimes professional historians come to conclusions which politicians don't like - but that's a problem with politicians not historians. Note also that 1) no law has been passed yet and even 2) no amendment has even been proposed (they're merely "working on it" - which could be just making noise for political reasons) - but even then, politicians will often propose a law which doesn't have much chance of passing simply to garner support with some particular electoral block. Your argument could MAYBE be valid if the amendment was actually proposed and passed - but so far, this really isn't anything except proof that IPN is willing to investigate uncomfortable facts even when this is opposed by politicians; it shows its independence, not vice versa. BTW, Witold Piilecki is far less controversial than Walesa.radek (talk) 22:00, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Novickas, but I do not really get it. What does criticism of a book on Walesa have to do with IPN's works on Pilecki? These are two completely unrelated subjects. Perhaps most people here have no idea that Walesa is regarded by members of Poland's ruling party as a kind of an immaculate hero, and books which contradict this opinion are mercilessly kicked. This is the kind of political infighting in which politicians of major Polish parties want to implicate the IPN and its historians. Let me repeat again. IPN is one of the biggest historical institutes of the XXth century history of Poland. It employs professional historians and it presents Polish history in a very unbiased way. It is the politicians that want to smear this institution. We all know that political parties have their agendas, and they are very willing to desribe modern history according to their likes and dislikes. Tymek (talk) 19:15, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not the criticism - it's the threats from the Prime Minister to close it or cut off its funding. I have no way of evaluating how realistic these are. Also the IPN Deputy Director's (Maria Dmochowska) statement [15] that the previous Walesa book didn't fit with the Institute's mission is troubling. Please realize that I'm not the first or only one to worry about this source. In fact, I suggested it as a replacement for whatfor.com. But as someone has said, Pilecki's life is much further back in the past than Walesa's, and the bio is probably based on solid material, so I would give them the benefit of the doubt here. (Disagreeing with Faulkner). Possibly those who brought IPN up won't come back here. And I have no intention of opposing this article any further, since my major objection, which was dozens of cites to a mystery website, has been answered. Novickas (talk) 20:32, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am disappointed in Tusk; I am a strong believer in I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.. I consider Wałęsa a hero, but I have no problems with others having a different opinion. It is understandable that a book criticizing him would cause much controversy in media - imagine what would happen in US if somebody published a book accusing Obama of being a KGB agent :) But I will repeat that all the criticism of IPN comes from popular media, and it is hardly reliable. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:00, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist - it is simply unacceptable, that article, which allegedly should be FA, almost exclusively relays on single web page.M.K. (talk) 08:05, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comments:I struck my comments referring to the dead website. However, there is still a heavy (although not a sole) reliance on a single website. An author is given for the website, but she provides no bibliography of primary sources as would be expected in a book or journal article. The new 1c criterion calls for a higher standard of referencing. So my original delist still stands. --RelHistBuff (talk) 08:56, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of the material in those footnotes (if not all of it) can be sourced to other books, for example Foot's "Six Faces of Courage" or other sources [16]. It's simply not controversial and that website was probably used for convenience. I can go through and add the refs to Foot if that would help. Please also note, that contra's MK's assertion there is a good number of other sources in the article as well.radek (talk) 14:56, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also please note that there is in fact both a list of primary sources, under the heading "From the Archives" [17], as well as a bibilography, under the heading "Publications" [18]. In both cases these might be missed because the site is so nicely organized/developed aesthetically, which is unusual.radek (talk) 17:55, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - oh yes. As noted above, the website is reliable and there's a substantial number of other sources. There are also additional sources which can be used to back up the IPN ones.radek (talk) 02:07, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Whilst this article may have fulfilled the FA criteria in 2006 when it was listed, I don't think it does anymore (compare to, for instance, Alcibiades). In fact, I don't think it even meets the current GA standards. Many paragraphs are completely unreferenced, and another editor has (at some point) highlighted some statements in clear need of a reference.
Further more, I feel there is considerable embellishment in the prose; the article starts by saying "Epaminondas is virtually unknown", and then presenting a description of him which is completely unequivocal: "Epaminondas received an excellent education; his musical teachers were among the best in their disciplines, as was his dance instructor." (no citation). If the literary sources are genuinely scarce, then these any statement such as this cannot be stated as a fact, but should be stated in the format "xxxx states that yyyy"
Guys, this is the first FA I ever read in Wikipedia (when I was still wondering what are these golden stars at the top right part of my screen!), and one of the articles which "seduced" me, and made me love this project. I'll do my best sourcing the article, mainly through googlebooking, but I can't do much about the prose, although I know that Robth was a prose perfectionist.--Yannismarou (talk) 14:32, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My main difficulty concerning referencing in particular is to find the books Robth used, without adding pages; something which seemed not to be necessary at the time. I will see what I can do, but it needs time and work. Unless Robth reappears like phoenix!--Yannismarou (talk) 00:43, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Just a procedural remark. I now saw that since the opening of the FAR neither Robth nor the related projects (e.g. WP:GREECE) had been notified about the FAR. The notifications would have probably changed nothing (Robth is inactive for centuries), but it is a standard procedure. Anyway ... I'll try to start working on the article during the wk. But I promise nothing!--Yannismarou (talk) 09:59, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Robth, altough retired, he will also do his best to add some page numbers, and work on the prose, as he stated in my talk page. Minister and Wandalstouring have already done a lot for the article. I expect to have finished most of my rewriting by Sunday (I go slooooooooowly!).--Yannismarou (talk) 13:08, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as proposer, since the article is now (pending finishing off) back up to standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MinisterForBadTimes (talk • contribs) 17:15, April 17, 2009 (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 Joelr31 16:00, 12 April 2009 [21].
This article was promoted over two years ago now and presumably is rather in need of improvement. I am hopeful of running it on the front page on 17 April, the putative 1400th anniversary [yeah, right!] of the subject's death, so rather than have an almighty rush to fix it up then, I'd be grateful for any and all comments now. I have my own ideas on what needs fixing, so I'll be working on it anyway, but please do comment! Many thanks in advance, Angus McLellan(Talk)19:23, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it certainly meets all the criteria! The only comment I have is that by the time I'd got to "Degsastan appears not to have...", I'd forgotten what Degsastan was and why it was important, since it was only mentioned briefly before in the lead. It's a sharp transition to that from the end of the last section. I'd add an introductory sentence or two to the "Degsastan and after" section just to set the scene. I'd also note the supposed year of the battle, 603, in the first sentence of the section. DrKiernan (talk) 11:26, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I am a bit uncomfortable on the reliance on Adomnán which is a primary source. The article should rely on modern secondary sources. Anderson is used but that one is from 1922. That leaves Bannerman 1974 which is lightly used. This one would probably fail FAC due to 1c. --RelHistBuff (talk) 12:59, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I will be addressing this as suggested by Ealdgyth at the article's talk page, by adding material from Fraser's Caledonia to Pictland. So I hope it will be resolved by next week. Many thanks! Angus McLellan(Talk)14:09, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was kept by Joelr31 22:40, 4 April 2009 [22].
(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;
Most of the article does not have inline citations. To those who are not British, this is not such "commonly known" information that it does not need references, as I was told on the article talk page.
Examples of large chunks of unreferenced material
"In 1531 Henry VIII acquired the Hospital of St James (later St. James's Palace) from Eton College, and in 1536 he took the Manor of Ebury from Westminster Abbey. These transfers brought the site of Buckingham Palace back into royal hands for the first time since William the Conqueror had given it away almost 500 years earlier."Y
"The improvident Goring defaulted on his rents; Henry Bennet, 1st Earl of Arlington obtained the mansion and was occupying it, now known as Goring House, when it burned down in 1674. Arlington House rose on the site — the southern wing of today's palace — the next year, and its freehold was bought in 1702."
"(Like his grandfather, George II, George III refused to sell the mulberry garden interest, so that Sheffield had been unable to purchase the full freehold of the site.) The house was originally intended as a private retreat for the royal family, and in particular for Queen Charlotte, and was known as The Queen's House. St. James's Palace remained the official and ceremonial royal residence; indeed, the tradition continues to the present time of foreign ambassadors being formally accredited to "the Court of St. James's", even though it is at Buckingham Palace that they present their credentials and staff to the Queen upon their appointment."
Specific attachment to Mulberry Gdns, needs ref.
1775 Act footnoted, and use ref'd to London Old and New. Somerset House was 'swapped'
"The principal rooms of the palace are contained on the piano nobile behind the west-facing garden facade at the rear of the palace. The centre of this ornate suite of state rooms is the Music Room, its large bow the dominant feature of the facade. Flanking the Music Room are the Blue and the White Drawing rooms. At the centre of the suite, serving as a corridor to link the state rooms, is the Picture Gallery, which is top-lit and 55 yards (50 m) long. The Gallery is hung with numerous works including some by Rembrandt, van Dyck, Rubens and Vermeer; other rooms leading from the Picture Gallery are the Throne Room and the Green Drawing Room. The Green Drawing room serves as a huge anteroom to the Throne Room, and is part of the ceremonial route to the throne from the Guard Room at the top of the Grand staircase. The Guard Room contains white marble statues of Queen Victoria and Prince Albert, in Roman costume, set in a tribune lined with tapestries. These very formal rooms are used only for ceremonial and official entertaining, but are open to the public every summer."
"Directly underneath the State Apartments is a suite of slightly less grand rooms known as the semi-state apartments. Opening from the Marble Hall, these rooms are used for less formal entertaining, such as luncheon parties and private audiences. Some of the rooms are named and decorated for particular visitors, such as the 1844 Room, which was decorated in that year for the State visit of Emperor Nicholas I of Russia, and, on the other side of the Bow Room, the 1855 Room. At the centre of this suite is the Bow Room, through which thousands of guests pass annually to the Queen's Garden Parties in the Gardens beyond. The Queen uses privately a smaller suite of rooms in the North wing."
and the greatest contemporary musicians entertained at Buckingham Palace. Felix Mendelssohn is known to have played there on three occasions. Johann Strauss II and his orchestra played there when in England. Strauss's "Alice Polka" was first performed at the palace in 1849 in honour of the Queen's daughter, Princess Alice. Under Victoria, Buckingham Palace was frequently the scene of lavish costume balls, in addition to the routine royal ceremonies, investitures and presentations."
"Between 1847 and 1850, when Blore was building the new east wing, the Brighton Pavilion was once again plundered of its fittings. As a result, many of the rooms in the new wing have a distinctly oriental atmosphere. The red and blue Chinese Luncheon Room is made up from parts of the Brighton banqueting and music rooms, but has a chimney piece, also from Brighton, in design more Indian than Chinese. The Yellow Drawing Room has 18th-century wall paper, which was supplied in 1817 for the Brighton Saloon, and the chimney piece in this room is a European vision of what the Chinese equivalent would look like, complete with nodding mandarins in niches and fearsome winged dragons."
"At the rear of the palace, large and park-like, is the garden. Which, together with its lake, is the largest private garden in London."Y
"Visiting heads of state today, when staying at the palace, occupy a suite of rooms known as the Belgian suite, which is on the ground floor of the North-facing garden front. These rooms, with corridors enhanced by saucer domes, were first decorated for Prince Albert's uncle Léopold I, first King of the Belgians. Edward VIII lived in these rooms during his short reign."Y - but it's almost verbatim!
"There has been a progressive relaxation of the dress code governing formal court uniform and dress. In previous reigns, men not wearing military uniform wore knee breeches of an 18th-century design. Women's evening dress included obligatory trains and tiaras or feathers in their hair (or both). After World War I, when Queen Mary wished to follow fashion by raising her skirts a few inches from the ground, she requested a Lady-in-Waiting to shorten her own skirt first to gauge the King's reaction. King George V was horrified and Queen Mary's hemline remained unfashionably low. Subsequently, King George VI and Queen Elizabeth allowed daytime skirts to rise."Y
Investitures, which include the conferring of knighthoods by dubbing with a sword, and other awards take place in the palace's Victorian Ballroom, built in 1854. At 123 by 60 feet (37 by 20 m), this is the largest room in the palace. It has replaced the throne room in importance and use. During investitures, the Queen stands on the throne dais beneath a giant, domed velvet canopy, which is known as a shamiana or a baldachin and was used at the coronation Durbar in Delhi in 1911. A military band plays in the musicians' gallery as the recipients of awards approach the Queen and receive their honours, watched by their families and friends.
State banquets also take place in the Ballroom. These formal dinners take place on the first evening of a state visit by a visiting Head of State. On these occasions, often over 150 guests in formal "white tie and decorations", including tiaras for women, dine off gold plate. The largest and most formal reception at Buckingham Palace takes place every November, when the Queen entertains members of the foreign diplomatic corps resident in London. On this occasion all the state rooms are in use, as the Royal Family proceed through them [21] beginning their procession through the great north doors of the Picture Gallery. As Nash had envisaged, all the large, double-mirrored doors stand open, reflecting the numerous crystal chandeliers and sconces, causing a deliberate optical illusion of space and light.
Smaller ceremonies such as the reception of new ambassadors take place in the "1844 Room". Here too the Queen holds small lunch parties, and often meetings of the Privy Council. Larger lunch parties often take place in the curved and domed Music Room, or the State Dining Room. On all formal occasions the ceremonies are attended by the Yeomen of the Guard in their historic uniforms, and other officers of the court such as the Lord Chamberlain.
"The last major building work took place during the reign of King George V when, in 1913, Sir Aston Webb redesigned Blore's 1850 East Front to resemble in part Giacomo Leoni's Lyme Park in Cheshire. This new, refaced principal facade (of Portland stone) was designed to be the backdrop to the Victoria Memorial, a large memorial statue of Queen Victoria, placed outside the main gates. George V, who had succeeded Edward VII in 1910, had a more serious personality than his father; greater emphasis was now placed on official entertaining and royal duties than on lavish parties. George V's wife Queen Mary was a connoisseur of the arts, and took a keen interest in the royal collection of furniture and art, both restoring and adding to it. Queen Mary also had many new fixtures and fittings installed, such as the pair of marble Empire-style chimneypieces by Benjamin Vulliamy, dating from 1810, which the Queen had installed in the ground floor Bow Room, the huge low room at the centre of the garden facade. Queen Mary was also responsible for the decoration of the Blue Drawing Room. This room, 69 feet (21 m) long, previously known as the South Drawing Room, has one of Nash's finest ceilings, coffered with huge gilt console brackets."
"While this may seem large, it is small when compared to the Russian imperial palaces in Saint Petersburg and at Tsarskoe Selo, the Papal Palace in Rome, the Royal Palace of Madrid, or indeed the former Palace of Whitehall, and tiny compared to the Forbidden City and Potala Palace. The relative smallness of the palace may be best appreciated from within, looking out over the inner quadrangle. A minor extension was made in 1938, in which the north-west pavilion, designed by Nash, was converted into a swimming pool."
On 15 September 1940 an RAF pilot, Ray Holmes, rammed a German plane attempting to bomb the palace.[28] Holmes had run out of ammunition and made the quick choice to ram it. Both planes crashed and their pilots survived. This incident was captured on film. The plane's engine was later exhibited at the Imperial War Museum in London. Following the war the British pilot became a King's Messenger. He died at the age of 90 in 2005.Y details already in BBC ref.
On VE Day—8 May 1945—the palace was the centre of British celebrations, with the King, Queen and the Princess Elizabeth, the future Queen, and Princess Margaret appearing on the balcony, with the palace's blacked-out windows behind them, to the cheers from a vast crowd in the Mall.Y</>
On two occasions a man, Michael Fagan, was able to break into the palace.Y
Today, Buckingham Palace is not only the weekday home of the Queen and Prince Philip but also the London residence of the Duke of York and the Earl and Countess of Wessex. The palace also houses the offices of the Royal Household and is the workplace of 450 people.
Every year some 50,000 invited guests are entertained at garden parties, receptions, audiences, and banquets. The Garden Parties, usually three, are held in the summer, usually in July. The Forecourt of Buckingham Palace is used for Changing of the Guard, a major ceremony and tourist attraction (daily during the summer months; every other day during the winter).
The palace is technically the monarch's property; both Windsor Castle and Buckingham Palace and their art collections are held in trust for her successors and the nation. Many of the contents from Buckingham Palace, Windsor Castle, Kensington Palace and St James' Palace are known collectively as the Royal Collection; owned by the nation, they can, on occasions, be viewed by the public. The Queen's Gallery near the Royal Mews is open all year and displays a changing selection of items from the collection. The rooms containing the Queen's Gallery are on the site of the former chapel, which was damaged by one of the seven bombs to fall on the palace during World War II. The palace's state rooms have been open to the public during August and September since 1993. The money raised in entry fees was originally put towards the rebuilding of Windsor Castle following the 1992 fire which destroyed many of its state rooms.
Some of the references that are there do not have page numbers. eg Ref 26, "Hedley, p."
1d neutral
Example
Use of unreferenced peacock words. For example, the word "famous", or "famously" is used three times without references.
2a
Does not have a concise lead that summarized the topic, per lead. Much of the lead is not mentioned in the article body. The body of the article is not summarized in the lead.
Example from lead that is not from article
The building is occasionally still referred to as "Buck House".
The original early 19th-century interior designs, many of which still survive, included widespread use of brightly coloured scagliola and blue and pink lapis, on the advice of Sir Charles Long. King Edward VII oversaw a partial redecoration in a Belle epoque cream and gold colour scheme. Many smaller reception rooms are furnished in the Chineseregency style with furniture and fittings brought from the Royal Pavilion at Brighton and from Carlton House following the death of King George IV. The Buckingham Palace Garden is the largest private garden in London, originally landscaped by Capability Brown, but redesigned by William Townsend Aiton of Kew Gardens and John Nash. The artificial lake was completed in 1828 and is supplied with water from the Serpentine, a river which runs through Hyde Park.
Hopefully, these problems will soon be remedied by those with the necessary references. Someone who is able to edit the article needs to remove/change the POV phrases. —Mattisse (Talk) 22:42, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ease of editing break
Oh for goodness sake. I went to the article intending to remove the "famous" adjectives. However, all are appropriate and somewhat understated. These things are certainly famous in the context. But Mattisse, if the "famous" adjective/adverbs annoy you, why didn't you simply remove them, rather than whine here? It would take you all of 2 minutes. Let me invoke that famous maxim "so fix it"!--Scott Mac (Doc)15:03, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A rather excellent article. No doubt it can be improved somewhat in the referening department (most things can). I encourage concerned people to keep working in that, but there is no real reason not to keep it as an FA.--Scott Mac (Doc)15:06, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can't make any sense of the nomination. 1c) The listed statements do not fall under WP:When to cite#When a source is needed, which is what criterion 1c links to. It does not strictly fall under WP:When to cite#When a source may not be needed, either. But so what? I have no doubt at all that most claims are easily verifiable by reading the books listed under References. Of course, if someone actually wants to go to the trouble of researching and writing all these inline citations, go ahead. 1d) It would be nice to know what the east wing balcony is famous for, but the other two uses of "famous" are justified by their context. I consider this a completely and utterly trivial matter. 2a) A lede can contain illustrative details that are not repeated in the body of the article, while still being a summary of the article under any reasonable interpretation of WP:LEDE.
Note: I don't appreciate it when comments that I have replied to are afterwards changed substantially and in such a way that it's hard to see what I did reply to. I am not sufficiently interested in the article to adjust my response to what seems to be a moving target. --Hans Adler (talk) 18:32, 1 February 2009 (UTC) PS: I am not sure if WP:REDACT applies on this kind of page, but I think it should. --18:35, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I did not change anything. I merely added more examples to the list. I did add the statement that those of us who are not British may not consider all of this information "common knowledge", the reason given on the article talk page as to why requests by me and others for additional references should be ignored. —Mattisse (Talk) 19:09, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't know what the hang up is about time stamps, especially as you are Unwatching this page, by the way. But I have tried to change time stamps all over the place to satisfy you. Plus I signed the notifications, since that seems to be a big deal to everyone—although the FAR directions do not require it. —Mattisse (Talk) 20:38, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Giano, who wrote the article, has replied briefly and cogently to Mattisse's notification on his page. I suspect he prefers not to get involved in any arguments on FAR, so I might as well link to his statement here. (The "do you have a name" business is in reference to the fact that Mattisse didn't sign the notifications.) Bishonen | talk18:31, 1 February 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Didn't sign as I was trying to avoid triggering the insults and page blanking directed to me personally (and others) that have accompanied my attempts to improve the page, e.g.[23][24][25][26][27] from cluttering up this FAR. His personal comments to me on his user page are for him. I do not watch his page and do not know what he said. I understand that it is "his" article, but I believe others can still suggest improvements, even if we are not allowed to edit the page itself. —Mattisse (Talk) 19:09, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mattisse, if you've got a "history" with Giano, don't you think that nominating an article that you say is "his" for FAR is provocative, and disruptive, if not in danger of looking like trolling? If the article does require review (and it looks like many people don't think it does) then it should be brought here by someone else. And if it is borderline, then perhaps it would be less disruptive to leave it alone. Yes, Giano can be blunt, aggressive and uncivil at times (don't I know it), but this is looking to be like one case where he's being poked by a stick. I move to close this debate, improvements can be discussed on the article's talk page, and unless anyone other than Mattisse objects I'll close it after a bit.--Scott Mac (Doc)20:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The only reason I have a "history" with Giano is because I tried to edit one of the articles that belongs to him so it is not a very long "history".[28] I spent a lot of time and effort trying to improve this article, offering suggestions on the talk page.
If you close this FAR without due process and a consideration of the merits of the problems I have listed, I will protest. You will be discouraging the maintenance of FA articles that no longer meet Wikipedia:Featured article criteria.
This is a FA article, open to everyone to edit. FA editors are encouraging reevaluation of articles no longer meeting Wikipedia:Featured article criteria.
You are not authorized to make a unilateral decision and close this FAR.
Aawwww, one way to look at it is the fixes might be minor and easy, and it will be a successful return to Featured Glory and we can all get a warm fuzzzy feeling in our stomachs, so let's spread the love around with the royal fambly and see what needs a-tweakin' (it's always nice to see some material stay featured from a review here :) )— Preceding unsigned comment added by Casliber (talk • contribs) 00:25, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the fixes are not hard for someone with access to the sources and hope that it is done, rather than wasting time protesting. It would be helpful, additionally, to have a greater breadth of referencing, since surely there must be much material on a subject so well known in Britain. —Mattisse (Talk) 00:39, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, Blaikie, Thomas (2002). You look awfully like the Queen: Wit and Wisdom from the House of Windsor. London: Harper Collins. ISBN0-00-714874-7 is "popular" collection of more or less trivia bits of information and not a scholarly work. —Mattisse (Talk) 20:38, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is an enormous wealth of material on the subject Mattisse, so I suggest you go to your local lending library and acquire it. Giano (talk) 07:03, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Giano, I don't have a "local lending library" available, but I will accept your suggestion and do what I can with the materials available to me. Thanks for letting me edit the article. —Mattisse (Talk) 20:38, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mattisse, this edit sumary is insulting [29] and you are transparent. You have edited nothing added by me, which doubtless will be a huge dissapointment for you. I shall say no more. Giano (talk) 21:04, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This nomination is tendentious, if not vexatious. No doubt this article can be improved, all can. But this isn't "articles for improvement" it is a page for nominating things that are "not fit to remain FAs unless fixed". It seems that no one (bar possibly the nominator) is suggesting this article should be demoted if not immediately improved. Hence, the nomination should be closed, and improvement work (which Mattise seems unwilling to help with) should continue on the article and its talk page. There is really nothing more to be said here. If the fixes are "minor and easy" then there's no need for a debate - either fix them or move on.--Scott Mac (Doc)09:35, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
User:Scott MacDonald, you apparently are new here and have mistaken notions about FAR. You have a misunderstanding of the FAR process. Perhaps it would help if you read the instructions. Here is a quotation. (Emphasis added in mine)
Featured article review (FAR)
In this step, possible improvements are discussed without declarations of "keep" or "remove". The aim is to improve articles rather than to demote them. Nominators must specify the featured article criteria that are at issue and should propose remedies. The ideal review would address the issues raised and close with no change in status.
Reviews can improve articles in various ways: Articles may need updating, formatting, and general copyediting. More complex issues, such as a failure to meet current standards of prose, comprehensiveness, factual accuracy, and neutrality, may also be addressed.
The featured article director, Raul654, or his delegates Marskell and Joelr31, determine either that there is consensus to close during this first stage, or that there is insufficient consensus to do so and, thus, that the nomination should be moved to the second stage.
I suggest that if you want to be a helpful reviewer, that you follow the instructions for FAR. Since you have an interest in Buckingham Palace, why not use the energy you use to complain on the improvement of the article instead. That way you would be contributing rather than obstructing. Is your stand that you think the article needs no improvement? —Mattisse (Talk) 16:05, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All feature articles can be improved. But, yes, it is my stance that this article needs no improvement to remain at featured status - and currently you are the only one saying otherwise.--Scott Mac (Doc)16:40, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
courtesy break
I do not find that the items highlighted here substantially take away from the idea that this is a featured article, identifing en.wikipedia's best work to date. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 18:29, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed the inconsistencies in the formatting of the references to the degree that I could. I cannot find missing page numbers nor missing references, except by referencing the Buckingham Palace official web site, which maybe I will do. Most of the info does seem to be at the official web site. I did a search on Google Scholar and there was only some pop books referenced: collections of anecdotes and such. I would think an article like this would have many good references at least comparable to the White House (which isn't even a FA) where a scholar can find more good references for indepth information. —Mattisse (Talk) 18:54, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I did some quick referencing; there's probably more that could be ref'd to some of those refs - because they were not the source of the text in the article, there are some ommissions - and I've marked them here. All in all, I think this remains an FA article; like anything it could do with some tightening of the referencing - but I've seen a lot of FAs that are in much worse condition. HTH Kbthompson (talk) 12:06, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good work Kb. I will fix some minor MOS issues, and yes, there could be a few more inline citations, but all in all, seems that the brunt of the work has already been done and that any minor tweaks can be discussed on the talk page. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:13, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article's a bit peacocky and chatty in places, but it's engaging, accurate and well-written so I think it should stay an FA. One thing that I am concerned with is the direct quote "like everybody's idea of a palace" at the very end of the article. Where is this from? A search of Google Books and Google itself doesn't turn up a source, and indeed slight variations on the quote give results which say that it isn't their idea of a palace (personally Neuschwanstein would be my idea of one). Please reference this! Throwawayhack (talk) 10:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My 1c: does anyone really think that sentences like "Goring defaulted on his rents; Henry Bennet, 1st Earl of Arlington obtained the mansion and was occupying it, now known as Goring House, when it burned down in 1674. Arlington House rose on the site—the southern wing of today's palace—the next year, and its freehold was bought in 1702." are common knowledge and do not need references? Xasodfuih (talk) 03:16, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist - per concerns of Xasodfuih, Throwawayhack and my own concerns. I am surprised that no one rushed in to reference this article, and that an important and historical building is mostly referenced to its own website. Large swaths still remain completely unreferenced. Peacocky issues and a certain POV conversational tone characterizes the article. It is unclear if the material represents WP:UNDUE, as the article does not seem to give a complete history of the building, but rather to favor certain topics. —Mattisse (Talk) 03:13, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist. The presumed primary author says that the page is unstable[30]. This supports the view that the page has problems, since there should be no need for the page to be edited heavily once it is FA-status, and yet evidently editors still think the page can be improved. Mattisse says "I am surprised that no one rushed in to reference this article". Ordinarily, I would have done so, but as this FAR rapidly degenerated into a dispute, I did not nor will do. DrKiernan (talk) 15:01, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I provided online citations for a little under 50% of the material questioned (above, in the delisting proposal). I could not do more, as I do not have the source material for the article to hand and am not a prior author of the text. The discussion (above) spent far too long on issues relating to process; and too little on actually fixing the article. It should not be beyond the wit of (wo)man to improve this article to meet the criteria. As to too many references being to the palace website; this is an arm of UK government, does this mean Office for National Statistics figures are also unacceptable? Thanks Kbthompson (talk) 17:04, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep FA status. I can't see any reason to remove it. It's well-written and comprehensive, and not everything needs to be referenced — just material that is challenged or likely to be, and quotes. If someone wants to add refs, by all means do. And the thing about the lead — not everything in the lead has to be mentioned in the body. SlimVirgintalk|contribs07:32, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Prose is a funny thing - I think the fact that it is Buckingham Palace of all places can be an indicator straying into peacocky-ness is not such a bad thing. I am worried about instability, but have too much else on my plate to review fully. If I can make some time I will try and help out, it would be a shame to see this one slip off the FA radar. Casliber (talk·contribs) 22:58, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist (Keep: references have now been added by User:Risker 16:54, 20 March 2009 (UTC)). Relatively obscure historical facts that happened 300 years ago are still given without references. Xasodfuih (talk) 17:57, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There's too much bad history and bile from old Giano adversaries in this FAR/FARC. Please don't take the opportunity to rush in and get some revenge, guys; you know who you are. (For my part I'm "recusing" from !voting, because I also have history—good history–with Giano.) Is it any wonder that Giano abandoned the whole discussion in disgust after snide and insulting comments like "Thanks for letting me edit the article, Giano" and "I understand that it is his article"? And please, everybody, don't let's be overly bureaucratic about the distinction between FAR and FARC. It's surely obvious that the people who have commented haven't taken much account of which section they're in, however much the rules tell them to do so. See Scott MacDonald's well-argued "Keep" case in the FAR section, for instance, and note that Scott hasn't commented in the FARC section at all. Please read the whole thing and ask yourselves: do you see a consensus for delisting this article? On which side do you see the most cogent arguments? Bishonen | talk16:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Giano has the uncanny ability to make anyone an adversary in one edit. Just click the link I gave above. Surely after that the opposition can be dismissed for "bad bile"; nice strategy for poisoning the well. As for the unreferenced stuff in the article itself, this isn't a science article where general info can be given without references. I'm okay with no references for Paracetamol#Structure_and_reactivity, since that info can be judged correctly by someone with two years of chemistry education. However, historical information, even in science articles needs referencing. I don't see how historical information is okay without references in an architecture article. Xasodfuih (talk) 00:29, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant Keep: I have removed the uncited quote from the end of the article and, although there are not enough citations for some of the history (see Xasodfuih's concerns above) I am certain that the facts given are correct. This is most certainly not an endorsement of the behaviour of any other participant in this or other debates on Buckingham Palace. Throwawayhack (talk) 02:48, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hold the fort the divided opinion and nature of some objections (i.e. getting references) suggests this might not be far off saving. I feel that these type of articles, i.e. broad, popular and probably something alot of schoolkids look at, are good ones to try and keep featured if at all possible. I will see what I can do in terms of referencing at least and broker some median path with prose issues. Hopefully these can be done in the next 10 days or so. Casliber (talk·contribs) 03:30, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do something! - Casliber, the article still is mostly unreferenced or referenced to the palace website; the few books chosen as references are not scholarly history or architecture books. Large areas of conversational, POV, and idiosyncratic text is unsourced. The article reads like an opinion piece or essay. There are page numbers missing. Most of the lead is not in the article. Do something to help the article. As many have said, this poorly sourced article, with no consistent history of the building, is the one that school children from around the world will see. No one appears to be editing it except vandals. Surely, you must have access to scholarly architectural and historical books. Do something to help the article. Do you not care enough to spend a little time improving it? —Mattisse (Talk) 23:56, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Casliber, this was nomination January 31, 2009. This is March 16, 2009. Closing in on two months on the FARC. And you are just now thinking of getting to the library this week? I hope that all articles are given two months on this list, with little indication of change. I will note to you that someone just nominated Restoration comedy for FARC and the same disdainful attitude is being exhibited toward that nomination as toward this one.[31] This is the behavior you want to support, Casliber? —Mattisse (Talk) 03:50, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, I wan't to support keeping this a Featured Article (I think central/notable articles such as this which I highly suspect are read by alot of schoolchildren are very important to keep featured. I am alot less qualified and familiar with the subject matter than many others, and I did think some other people may take this one by the scruff of the neck before now (which is why I didn't get involved until this point), but I am prepared to give it a go and I think the importance (to me) suggests the wait may be worthwhile. Casliber (talk·contribs) 06:10, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Taking the risk of posting to a discussion where good faith is in short supply. Let's remember our shared goal of providing a useful encyclopedia. This article received 67,000 page views last month. Hardly any of those readers know or care which editors wrote it, much less what our internal disagreements might be, but a part of that readership uses the article as a first stop in research and is not allowed to cite Wikipedia. Casliber has made a reasonable request that would serve those readers better. Thank you, Casliber, and wishing you success. DurovaCharge!04:35, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is true that good faith is in short supply, since an RFC was opened on me, in part because of my nomination of this article, Buckingham Palace for RFAC. The RFC was back in January by Casliber. (In fact, you User:Durova, defended me in that RFC, saying that the charges were mere editorial disagreements.) That is why I am surprised that finally in March Casliber is just now getting to the library, having made this one of the premises of the RFC against me. But I join you in the expectation that Casliber will complete the references for this article, since in the meantime he has started numerous other articles and received many DYKs. Hence it is not for lack of time that this article has been neglected by Casliber. Please note the RFAC on Restoration comedy just now opened, and the disrespectful way the nominating editor is being treated there. —Mattisse (Talk) 04:47, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yes those other things are going on. But are any of them pertinent factors to this FARC? The discussion here is in service to the article's readers. Let's remember that foremost. DurovaCharge!05:21, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mattisse, didn't you say you would avoid editing in featured article review so that the RFC would be closed? Quoting you from here, "I believe it is best that I desist completely from any involvement at FAC or FACR. In an effort to close this RFC, I will resolve not edit at FAC and FARC again, nor post on the FAC talk page." This page doesn't look like you have "desist(ed) completely", nor does a look at you contributions. For someone who isn't editing in FAR anymore, you sure are editing here a lot. Tex (talk) 15:41, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you come back almost a day later and add to your reply to me above without making a note of your addition? Besides the fact that what you just added actually took place on January 23, some 14 days before you promised to stop editing FAR, you really should not go back and change your comments after it has been sitting there for a while, as Risker just got through telling you. Seriously, just stop disrupting this FAR. Tex (talk) 19:25, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing wrong with adding a comment with time stamp, just as you added your comment above my comment below. Risker was referring to changing a comment which I now know that an editor cannot copy edit a comment. I did not know that copy editing a comment was wrong. Now I do. That has nothing to do with adding a comment, in the manner you did also. You are disrupting this FARC by constantly criticizing me. I suggest that we all stick to the subject of improving the article. —Mattisse (Talk) 19:56, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Now you're just being dense. Look at your response to my first edit to this page. The timestamp clearly says 19:58, 16 March 2009 (UTC). And yet, if we take a look at the page history, you added the part about Sandy "inviting" you to edit here at 15:40, March 17, 2009. You did not put a new timestamp on your addition. That is the problem. You should not change your comments almost a day later by saying Sandy "invited" you to edit here. Tex (talk) 20:15, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have written this page to FA standard once - some time ago I re-wrote because it was here on FARC and it retained its status accordingly. So I have written the page twice to FA standard. I have no intention of jumping through hoops every time the FA standards change or some little troll-on-the-make is bored. If anyone wants thinks I made the facts up, then they can read (in their in own time and at their own expense Harris, John; de Bellaigue, Geoffrey; & Miller, Oliver (1968). Buckingham Palace. London:Nelson. ISBN0-17-141011-4. Which was the principal reference used, and yes, it is actually very scholarly, so matter what some verbally incontinent little troll chooses to imagine or say. It was not the only reference, but it contains all there is to know and is the definitive book on the subject. If Wikipedia is incapable of having an FA on one of the world's most famous buildings, a page that it has approved to its own FA standards at least twice then God help it because I cannot and I won't. I have frequently reverted the rubbish that has been added, as do many others on an almost thrice daily basis. This is one of the most vetoed and watched pages on wikipedia - is probably the most reliable. If you people are too stupid to see that, then demote it and go and play with pages on animes or whatever else it is that grabs your attention. If this page is demoted it will sink into the shit - that I guarantee. That should at east keep the trolls happy. Giano (talk) 21:23, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Casliber's promiseCasliber (talk·contribs) promised one week ago to fix up the article. I am sure he will fulfill his promise, so you need not worry, Giano, and get so upset, just because he has not yet edited the article. I'm sure the article can remain here until he gets around to it, even if it is several months from now. I do not think an admin can pass it in good conscience in its current state. However, there is every sign that admins will leave it here for as long as it takes. I might try editing it again, since you suggested it. I could move most of the lead, which is never mentioned in the article body, into the article. —Mattisse (Talk) 12:11, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mattisse, I and many others are finding your persistant trolling and baiting tiresome and disruptive. If you are hoping to provoke me to anger you are wasting your time, you are so obvious it is not even worth making a crusade out of your edits and behaviour. I suggest you go am play elsewhere, pick on some other unfortunate. Giano (talk) 18:32, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (FAR closer) Nothing more needs to be said on the FAR at this moment. The cards have already been laid on the table. The only part of the landscape that is changeable at the moment in the contents of the article page. If/until that happens, extra comments won't change the future status of the article. I'm not on the AC anymore, but I doubt their opinion will be improved by anything they read here, so there's no point carrying on any more as it won't have any effect on the status of the article. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 01:01, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've been to the reference library tonight, surrounded by books (a truly wonderful way to spend an evening), and have now added references to almost all of the areas identified as having issues. The exception is in the final section, where I believe most can be referenced to multiple sources, many online. There's still a bit of tidying to be done with the added refs, but I will try to get to them tomorrow or Thursday. Risker (talk) 05:16, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Update: All material from lead is now also in body of text; referencing much improved and I am happy with the flow and tone of the prose. A few more refs would be good, and I will seek to find these (Risker beat me to the library :))Casliber (talk·contribs) 23:42, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Revisiting:
Lead
Material in footnote 1 is repeated in section "First houses on the site".
"royal entertaining": I prefer "royal/official hospitality" as "entertaining" can be misread as a verb
"The original early 19th-century interior designs... Sir Charles Long": convoluted, as the phrase "on the advice..." relates to "use" rather than "pink lapis".
Visitor numbers can be confused with tourists; both could be given.
History
"14 of their 15 children were born here." We're not there.
"even though it is at Buckingham Palace that they present their credentials and staff to the Queen upon their appointment." Convoluted.
Perhaps mention that William IV didn't want it, and suggested it as a home for Parliament after the Palace of Westminster was destroyed by fire?
Home of the monarch
"annually following Trooping the Colour." prefer "annually after Trooping the Colour." (The two verbs together is confusing)
"Before Prince Albert's demise, Queen Victoria was known to openly enjoy music and dancing," as I believe I said before during the last FAR, she enjoyed them afterwards as well.
"musicians entertained at Buckingham Palace." they were entertained as well as entertaining.
please check "has 18th-century wall paper, which was supplied in 1817" (1817 is 19th-century)
Paragraph "The original early 19th-century ... cream and gold colour scheme." is exactly repeated in the lead. I don't want to read the same thing twice.
1844 room's redecoration for Nicholas I is repeated.
Debs were presented in the gardens latterly rather than the throne room. Edward VIII, for example, called off the presentation of debutantes in 1936 because it was raining.
Modern history
Placing this section below the rest creates a structural problem, as the bombing of the palace chapel is mentioned before the main paragraphs on the war.
The paragraph on George V's "enforced abstinence" is bias. He is also reported to have been abstemious and frugal anyway, and not drinking was of little consequence to his lifestyle. He is also reported to have been happy to have done his duty, and is not known to have complained about it. It is unfair to just give one opinion out of several. "The King's children were photographed at this time serving tea to wounded officers" is trivial.
I have been asked to provide sources for opposing viewpoints:
Colin Matthew in 'George V (1865–1936)', Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, 2004: "The king normally wore uniform during the war and resided in Buckingham Palace, his lifestyle, never extravagant, being even more frugal than usual." and the Royal Librarian, Sir Owen Morshead, quoted in Matthew: "Moderate in diet, he drank hardly at all"
Mike Ashley in The Mammoth Book of Kings & Queens, Robinson, London, 1998, p. 698: "The King did what he could to keep morale high. He shared in the rationing, not wishing to be shown special treatment."
The Story of Buckingham Palace by Marguerite D. Peacocke (Odhams Press: London, 1951): "...king and queen shared in their country's privations and were not content with mere token economies...The royal cellars were much depleted during the First World War, for the King distributed hundreds of bottles of wine to hospitals for wounded soldiers, while smaller quantities of rarer wines were sent to those wine sales held at Christie's in aid of the Red Cross." [so, the wine cellars couldn't have been locked]
James Pope-HennessyQueen Mary p.495 "Buckingham Palace was put upon an austerity footing"; p. 508 "By 1917...the King and Queen took the lead, still further reducing the already austere wartime standard of the Royal table by adopting rationing." DrKiernan (talk) 15:35, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
When I have time I shall dig out the references I am looking for, either the official bio of Queen Mary or George V, whichever it was, I recall it was written with the full co-operation of their children who recalled both their parents cheating on the no alcohol ban, I implictly recall a quote of the King drinking port privatly in his study after dinner each evening and the Queen champagne. Furthermore the King was furious over the ban and felt he had been duped into it, by I forget who (a Government Minister), but I will add it as soon a I re-find the book. Giano (talk) 16:00, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I do not question the verifiability of the material currently in the article; I am questioning its neutrality. (I do not know of a source for the material not in the article about the king's secret port and the queen's champagne.) DrKiernan (talk) 08:27, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see it as "un neutral) if it is what happened. Your "Marguerite D. Peacocke" writing in 1950 soundls a little sycophantic and gushing don't you think? Anything written about the British Royal Familywill never please all the people all of the time - so what is the answer - have no pages on them at all - or pages that just give basic factual details of their hatches, matches and dispatches? Giano (talk) 08:39, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't favour sycophancy any more than I favour opprobrium.
I have struck my remove. I may or may not try to edit the paragraph myself. If not, we can always argue about this again when the article is renominated for FAR again next year. DrKiernan (talk) 09:09, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"it had been deliberately targeted by the Nazis": this is disputed. People in the palace thought it was deliberately targeted, but there is no evidence whatever.
"On two occasions a man, Michael Fagan, was able to break into the palace" Looks awkward placed in a single, out-of-context paragraph by itself.
I'd move this now expanded bit down into "public access".
It is of course a very strong article, but I would only consider striking my remove "vote!" if the issues around neutrality and reliability are resolved. The prose, structural and comprehensiveness issues are less concerning (given the strength of the rest of the article), and are given here more in the way of a "peer review" rather than a comment on FA-status. DrKiernan (talk) 11:33, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think the article is near enough now to be kept. It is not the subject of an edit war any more, all material from lead is duplicated within the body of the article, and the referencing is vastly improved. The prose looks fine to me. Casliber (talk·contribs) 09:30, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep From only a scan of the density of citations and their quality, which seems to have been the main issues. I've read this (with Irish gritted teeath) a few times in the past and it always struck me as skilfully writen. Good save, I believe, Casliber. Ceoil (talk) 19:48, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(shuffles feet and looks at floor) 'twas Risker who actually did the gruntwork and got the books from the library, and Giano pointed us in the right direction, an' DrK raised some points, so a good effort all round... Casliber (talk·contribs) 04:22, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was kept by Joelr31 22:29, 4 April 2009 [33].
A few parts of the article is lacking some sources for verifiability, which is quite evident, so I think that needs to be worked on the most, but overall I think the article is well written, stable and consistent. Mohsin (talk) 14:29, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question to Bl/YellowMonkey: Why is the "lack of an etymology section" a ground for FAR? Can you please cite the Featured article criteria related to this? As far as I can see, the etymology of the name Dhaka is already present in the 3rd sentence of the "History" section. --Ragib (talk) 19:41, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
File:Bayt al Mukarram.jpg Claim that OneGuy is the author is not substantiated by the file history. OneGuy claimed that the image was public domain, but did not provide a source or author.
File:Pohela boishakh 2.jpg Copyright holder is "Niloy" but the uploader ("Ragib") says "I, the copyright holder..."
File:Bayt al Mukarram.jpg - OneGuy says he has released it as follows "OneGuy grants anyone the right to use this work for any purpose, without any conditions, unless such conditions are required by law". I think from this statement, it is apparent that he is the author of the image.
I'm sorry but I'm still not convinced that the images are fixed. There's no proof that the owners of the images have released them. For example, OneGuy doesn't say that he has released Bayt al Mukarram.jpg. Someone else wrote that [34] after it was pointed out that there was no source given [35]. DrKiernan (talk) 08:22, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can't speak for the other uploaders, but among the above, I had uploaded File:Pohela boishakh 2.jpg, after obtaining written permission from the photo author (Niloy). If you want, I can forward you his email where he gave me permission to upload the photos under CC-by-sa. As for the rest of the photos, I will replace them later today with GFDL licensed (and OTRS checked) photos from commons. Thanks. --Ragib (talk) 10:38, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have replaced File:Riksha.jpg and File:Bmbdu.jpg with two images with no confusion about licensing. I am looking for replacements for the Mosque image. As for the Pohela Boishakh image, I once again would state that the photographer has donated the photo to Wikipedia, and I have his emailed statement about that, which I can share with anyone on request. Or you can contact the photographer (email address listed at the photo page) directly. Thanks. --Ragib (talk) 23:19, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I emailed the author of the Pohela Boishakh photo, and he has sent me an email explicitly releasing it under CC-by-sa. I've forwarded it to OTRS, so they'll be updating the page soon. --Ragib (talk) 20:14, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
After further review of the photos File:Bayt al Mukarram.jpg , I do not see any problem with the photo's licensing. Oneguy uploaded it to en wiki in 2004 with the PD tag (see file history). So, I do not really see any basis for your objection. The link you provided [36] is due to the botched "move to commons", when the person doing the move failed to copy the PD tag from the en wiki version of the image. I request you to look into the history of the file's deleted page in en wiki, which clearly shows Oneguy uploaded it there with a PD tag. --Ragib (talk) 02:16, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I already did. That was the first thing I looked at! The PD tag just says that OneGuy claimed it was public domain (either because it was released by the copyright holder, the copyright had expired or it was ineligible for copyright), but there is no proof that it is. I do not see anywhere that OneGuy has explicitly said: "I took this image, and it is mine." DrKiernan (talk) 11:52, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I still think the article fails criterion 3 because the file history of File:Bayt al Mukarram.jpg does not support the contention that the original uploader was the copyright holder. That is an assumption at best. There is no proof that the image is public domain. DrKiernan (talk) 12:41, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Remove Firstly, the article contains statements which are not verifiable. For example, in the lead it says Dhaka has the highest literacy rate, but the source given does not confirm this, and a source given elsewhere in the article [37] shows other places in Bangladesh with higher rates. Besides which the lead originally gave a figure which did not appear in the source cited, which I have corrected. All figures and statements in the article need to be checked against the source, and corrected if necessary. Secondly, the prose needs work; examples in the lead included "spelled" (now changed to "spelt"), and include "it is nonetheless a fighting metropolitan city", where the use of "fighting" is idiosyncratic. DrKiernan (talk) 15:12, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the claim about the literacy rate at the beginning. The other example is already fixed by someone else. What other references are needed? If you can point them out either here or at the article with cn tags, I can fix those. Thanks. --Ragib (talk) 00:40, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please point out the referencing issue you are referring to? If you point them out, we can fix it, but just saying there are issues does not help. Please point out the particular pieces that need references. --Ragib (talk) 00:40, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, Nishkid64, can you please point to the exact referencing and prose issues? We can fix it if you point it out. Thanks. --Ragib (talk) 21:34, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've started adding {{fact}} tags. I request that you use high-quality sources, as per FA criterion 1(c). Some of these sources do not seem entirely appropriate: e.g. ref. 14 " The Feminist Review Collective" (by the way, this is a journal article, not a book). Nishkid64(Make articles, not wikidrama)07:22, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Would you please be specific about which citation you are talking about and what prose you found odd? Things can be fixed if you tell us what to fix. --Ragib (talk) 18:39, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, YellowMonkey, can you please point to the exact citation and prose issues? We can fix it if you point it out. Thanks. --Ragib (talk) 21:34, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Would you please be specific about which citation you are talking about? Almost all CN tags have been fixed with citations, so what/where do you find incomplete sourcing?Things can be fixed if you tell us what to fix. --Ragib (talk) 18:39, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, Cirt, can you please point to the exact citation issues you found poor/incomplete? We can fix it if you point it out. Thanks. --Ragib (talk) 21:34, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unless editors above can provide specific examples of poor prose or sourcing, I'm probably going to be a keep. I don't think the one remaining fact tag is particularly concerning, as the article on the 1970 Bhola cyclone seems to agree with what is claimed and lists reliable sources. Any concerns over the formatting of citations is very minor, and not worth demoting over in my opinion. DrKiernan (talk) 15:38, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, please, be a little more specific. Fixing is a way better option than lazily delisting an article. The article is being worked on, and every specific problem identified has been fixed. Is that so bad? Aditya(talk • contribs)16:23, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with DrKiernan and Aditya Kabir. All fly-by comments will not be accepted. "Votes" must be supported with evidence. Joelito (talk) 02:56, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cleanup needed; there are inconsistent date formats throughout. The article text uses Month day, year, but the citations have a mix of ISO dates and day month year. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Throughout the 1950s and '60s, Dhaka remained a hotbed of political activity, and the demands for autonomy for the Bengali population gradually gained momentum. Uncited assertion at the end of a paragraph. In fact, the entire paragraph has only one citation at the previous sentence. Looked it up because the source was online and unfamiliar. The bnet.com about page begins with the slogan "The Go-to Place for Management" and continues At BNET, managers find practical, trusted resources for the business challenges they face every day and effective techniques for moving their companies and careers forward.[38] Perhaps not unreliable, but a bit thin to be using as a sole reference for that much information.
The 1970 Bhola cyclone devastated much of the region, killing an estimated 500,000 people. More than half the city of Dhaka was flooded and millions of people marooned. Was tagged with a request for citation when I encountered it.
The annual per capita income of Dhaka is estimated at $500, with 48% of households living below the poverty line,[38] including a large segment of the population coming from the villages in search of employment,[34] with many surviving on less than $10 a day. It might not come as a surprise that a substantial portion of the population is very poor, but one normally finds a citation for an amount as specific as "less than $10 a day."
The problems that you have reported have been fixed. The BNET article [39] that you have mentioned is highly reliable because BNET posted a scholarly article that was published by Inroads Journal (Issue: 11 Page: 87) on January 1, 2002. Here some other other sites (that you may consider reliable) that have the same article. [40], [41] and [42]. You do not need multiple sources for one paragraph if one reliable source covers the whole paragrapgh. The death toll of 1970 Bhola cyclone has been cited but the Bhola cyclone's effect on Dhaka was removed because Bhola cyclone's effect was not out of the ordinary. Almost every two years, half of Dhaka get flooded and millions of people get marooned. The statement "less than $10 a day" was removed because it was not necessary due to the fact the article mentions the avaerge annual income of Dhaka residents and percentage of households living under poverty. Please let me know if you find anything else wrong with the article. I believe the article is well written and does deserve the FA status. Thank YouTarikur (talk) 01:18, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Placement of a citation before the end of a paragraph strongly implies that the following sentences are not cited. What some of our most prolific FA writers have been doing the last year or so is to cite every sentence individually. Although it looks overdone from a wiki perspective, it does help to stabilize an article by eliminating ambiguity about sourcing. DurovaCharge!15:30, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree to Tarikur's argument either, and therefore have tried to provide appropriate sources for all three claims challenged. If there are more, please, post here, and there is a possibility that further problems will be mitigated as well. Aditya(talk • contribs)16:11, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep the article is very well written compared to many other FA status articles that are about cities. As one can see, nearly every sentence is cited. I went through all the the citations, all of them are from highly reliable sources (all of them are either primary or secondary sources) and correctly reflect the cited material. Tarikur (talk) 04:24, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tarikur and I have put appropriate sources to the latest round of citation requests. Is there anything left to do? Please refer to specifics, as opposed to fly-by general comments that can't worked on. Aditya(talk • contribs)00:56, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there still may be an issue regarding the quality of sources. I noticed a recent change to FA criterion 1(c), which now states that "claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources". I'll have to read up on what "high-quality" actually means in this context and then check if Dhaka meets the criterion. Nishkid64(Make articles, not wikidrama)20:42, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: In my opinion, 1c is violated. The history of Dhaka section uses a newspaper article (!) as a source. In fact a history book is not even used. There is a heavy use of tertiary sources (i.e., other encyclopedias); secondary sources are higher-quality. --RelHistBuff (talk) 10:35, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A fresh line of review
Delist - the article just doesn't have the structural element or looks of a FA article if compared to other FA article such as Mumbai or Ahmedabad. A close up map of the city is definitely needed other than just a dot on a map, and a better quality picture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.211.56.49 (talk) 11:36, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since this is not a vote, can you please be specific in your comments, and mention which of the FA criteria are not satisfied? "just doesn't have the structural element or looks of a FA article if compared to other FA article such as Mumbai or Ahmedabad" --- this just doesn't make sense ... what is the "structural element or looks of a FA article"? Which criteria mentions the "looks of a FA article"? Unless you be specific, this comment is not very helpful in improving the article. --Ragib (talk) 15:33, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
May be it's more like - "this article doesn't look like the article on Mumbai or Ahmedabad, therefore it can't be of good quality". Good reasoning there, since those two articles have been chosen by the community as the appex of city arty articles. Aditya(talk • contribs)03:39, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And, since we are discussing two great articles, lemme just pick a few gems from one of them - the Ahmedabad article:
"A military cantonment was established in 1824 and a municipal government in 1858. In 1864, a railway link between Ahmedabad and Mumbai (then Bombay) was established by the Bombay, Baroda, and Central India Railway (BB&CI), making Ahmedabad an important junction in the traffic and trade between northern and southern India. Large numbers of people migrated from rural areas to work in textile mills, establishing a robust industry." - Strong use of peacock words without any citation.
The city administration and economic institutions were rendered functionless by the large masses of people who took to the streets in peaceful protests in the early 1930s, and again in 1942 during the Quit India movement. Following independence and the partition of India in 1947, the city was scarred by intense communal violence that broke out between Hindus and Muslims. - Strong presence of controversial material without any citation.
Ahmedabad is divided by the Sabarmati into two physically distinct eastern and western regions. The eastern bank of the river houses the old city, which includes the central town of Bhadra. This part of Ahmedabad is characterised by packed bazaars, the clustered and barricaded pol system of close clustered buildings, and numerous places of worship. - Detailed technical information without any citation.
Which particular point are you referring to? Can you be more specific than this? I have addressed all your fact tags, so what is the basis of your "delist" opinion? Things can be fixed if you point them out. Thanks. --Ragib (talk) 07:09, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, let me repeat this, *Which* of the several comments made in this FAR by Nishkid are you referring to? Won't hurt to be specific rather than just saying "I agree with points raised by Nishkid64". Referencing issues raised by Nishkid have been addressed by adding references. Nishkid is yet to clarify what his understanding of a high-quality source is (does Wikipedia even define a "high-quality" source?). So, please help us by clarifying what you mean by "I agree with Nishkid64", rather than repeating yourself. Thanks. --Ragib (talk) 07:30, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, don't you yourself know which of Nishkid's issues you are referring to? It is very frustrating when you make a vague comment, and then refuse to be specific. Is it that hard for you to say specifically what you refer to? As for "some cites are lacking in information for WP:V", please point them out rather than saying "some cites". We are all writing an encyclopedia here, so I am very patiently fixing all the issues raised by the editors here. Please help us by making to the point comments and suggestions rather than vague remarks ("some", "many" etc.). Waiting for your specific comment pointing out the issues. Thanks in advance. --Ragib (talk) 07:45, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not make me repeat myself. I suggested using WP:CIT to flesh out the citations that are missing info, fields, author, date, publisher, work, etc. Cirt (talk) 22:14, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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.
FA from 2006, referencing/1c issues, and some additional concerns had been raised on the talk page. There is a section that has been tagged with neutrality concerns for a few months. Cirt (talk) 04:50, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was removed by Gimmetrow 22:44, 2 May 2009 [45].
I agree that the Firefox article needs a feature article review (I was going to suggest one after 3.1 was released, but now is a good a time as any), and that it should remain a featured article. Could someone provide links to the guidelines that the article does not meet (1d and 2a), and provide more explanation of how the article does not meet those guidelines? Thanks. -- Schapel (talk) 16:39, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The second point, 1b, should also be taken into account, especially for the section mentioned in the first point. Under the standards noticed, it would be removed in its current state. Furthermore, it's obviously pointless to waste words with a character like Pmlinediter, based on the reasoning made in that reply.WhatisFeelings? (talk) 18:41, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Could you be more specific about what you think are the problems with the article and how you would suggest fixing them? I do not agree that the Critical reaction section should be removed according to the featured article review guidelines. Could you explain your reasoning in detail? -- Schapel (talk) 19:11, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"I do not agree that the Critical reaction section should be removed according to the featured article review guidelines." - Who said it should be removed?
I'm just going to list a few problems:
2a is an issue, and that still isn't taken care of.
"They believed the commercial.." is referenced to citation #12. citation #12 doesn't even mention Blake Ross for example, which is what the "They" is referring to.
suggestion: get a new source, or mutiple sources.
"as an experimental branch of the Mozilla project" - mozilla project should have an internal link
why doesn't it? the reader would not know was this thing call the "mozilla project"
"To combat what they saw.." - more towards neutral
"Mozilla trunk (mozilla-central)" - why is it written like the reader knows what "mozilla-central" is?
suggestion: clarify it, or remove if unimportant
"Mozilla developer Mike Shaver has indicated.." - other citations don't typically attribute the name, so why is it attributed this time? does the name have an article?
suggestion: remove
"integrated search system that uses the user's desired search engine." - so you're saying that you can use any search engine, just because you desire it!?! not neutral.
"The developers of Firefox aimed to produce a browser that "just surfs the web"[59] and delivers the "best possible browsing experience to the widest possible set of people."" - remove; one citation is false, while the other is to Wikipedia.... that counts as 1c
I generally agree with what you enumerated above (I also mentioned Google in the lead, in the place about search engines), however all mentioned examples are outside of "Critical reaction" section... BartłomiejB (talk) 15:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Re: "The developers of Firefox aimed to produce a browser that "just surfs the web"[59] and delivers the "best possible browsing experience to the widest possible set of people."" - remove; one citation is false, while the other is to Wikipedia.... that counts as 1c -- huh? [59] is http://www.blakeross.com/index.php?p=9 (dead link to me now) and [60] is http://www.mozilla.org/projects/firefox/charter.html (so it is not Wikipedia, but official site of the producer of the browser). The problem with these sentences is that this is a typical marketing babble, so I'm not sure there is a place for them in (allegedly) neutral encyclopedic article... BartłomiejB (talk) 15:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I changed this sentence because it was worbly: Firefox also implements[66] an open source[67] protocol[68] from Google called "safebrowsing" (used to exchange data related with "phishing and malware protection"), which is not an open standard.
I changed a sentence around to be easier to read but it could be inaccurate now. I haven't followed the citations to see what is actually written. The Wurdalak (talk) 17:09, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The citations are bad. One guy says on April 6 2009: At the moment, Wikipedia states that the use of the safebrowse protocol is incompatible with the Mozilla Manifesto b/c safebrowse is not open source (it says at the beginning "This specification is not yet for general use. Do not use this protocol without explicit written permission from Google."). On the other hand, the Google code page for safebrowse states that safebrowse is available under a new BSD license. Which is correct?
Update - i'm not exactly sure but i'm assuming that if the FAR noticer is inactive, then the FAR in question is removed/canceled. in any event, there was very low activity from those i notified.WhatisFeelings? (talk) 23:48, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Being or not already in the main page is one issue. The fact that the article definitely has many visitors is another issue. Therefore, I think it would be great if you could help with the article!--Yannismarou (talk) 07:47, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Remove; there is a factual accuracy tag, external jumps throughout the text (see WP:EL, external sites belong in external links), and numerous raw and unformattted citations. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:18, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Close paraphrasing from website: [53]. Copyrighted.
The Wayback Machine version dates to 2003. [54]
Close paraphrasing examples:
Website: Only days later the Soviets paid dearly for that mistake.
Article: A few days later, the Soviets paid dearly for this mistake.
Website: That offensive would separate the Western Front from its reserves and disorganize its movements.
Article: This would separate the Soviet Western Front from its reserves and disorganize its movements.
Website: Eventually, the gap between Gen. Sikorski's 5th Army and the advancing Assault Group would close near the East Prussian border, leaving the Soviet offensive "trapped in a sack."
Article: Eventually, the gap between Gen. Sikorski's army and the Strike Force lead offensive would close near the East Prussian border, and result in the destruction of the "trapped in a sack" Soviet offensive.
Website: when a copy of it fell accidentally into Soviet hands it was considered to be a deception attempt and... ignored.
Article: Ironically, when a copy of the plan accidentally fell into Soviet hands it was considered to be a poor deception attempt and ignored.[1]
Website: The most important role, however, was assigned to a relatively small (20 000), newly assembled Strike Force composed of battle hardened and most determined army units drawn from the southern front.
Article: The most important role, however, was assigned to a relatively small (some 20,000-man), newly assembled "Reserve Army" (also called the "Assault Group" [Grupa Uderzeniowa]), commanded personally by Józef Piłsudski, comprising the most battle-hardened and determined Polish units drawn from the southern front.
Website: His units supported by tanks, armoured cars and artillery of two armoured trains advanced at the speed of thirty kilometers a day shredding literally within few days the Soviet "enveloping" manoeuvre in the north.
Article: Sikorski's units, supported by the majority of the small number of Polish tanks, armoured cars, and artillery of the two armoured trains, advanced at the speed of 30 kilometres a day, soon destroying any Soviet hopes for completing their "enveloping" manoeuvre in the north.[1]
Two of these have inline cites to ref #1. Please post the portions of ref#1 that support those cites, and an English translation.
Even if the paraphrasing were fixed, the source problem would remain. The website author, Bozenna Kirkpatrick, has no presence in Google books [55] or Google scholar [56]. .ca is not a reliable source: see [57] - Electronic Museum is supported entirely by donations from Sponsors and Visitors - like You !
Another sourcing issue: 17 refs go to this website: [58] by this author. He's a chemist and an amateur historian. Hetmanusa.org is the website of the Polish Militaria Collectors Association. I don't think this is an FA-quality source.
Stats: The Russian troop numbers in the ref don't match the ones in the article. The article states 104,000–140,000[1], but Ref #1 gives 104-114 tys. żołnierzy Armii Czerwonej. Novickas (talk) 16:50, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Close paraphrasing rewritten; feel free to do it yourself if you find any in the future. I don't see any references to "Bozenna Kirkpatrick", nor to "Electronicmuseum" (btw, Wikipedia is also supported by donations ;p). As for Larynowicz, you complained about him on RSN once already (here) and I cited reasons there why he is reliable; nobody has challenged them there. The 140/114 error seems like a typo and has been corrected. PS. Please notify WikiProject Military History as well. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:51, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's good you have fixed the paraphrasing. No, the electronicmuseum site was not referenced, but that's where the material came from. You have quickly inserted refs to a book in their stead - under the circumstances, I ask that you provide quotations and translations from that book. As for Witold L. - this FAR will serve as a broader venue for his status as a reliable source. His results in Google books - 2; 1 is a biological abstract, the other a footnoting snippet [59]. Google Scholar - [60] (chemical except for one to Wikipedia) or [61] - no history-related articles. I submit that his historical works are not reliable sources "published in reputable peer-reviewed sources and/or by well-regarded academic presses." Novickas (talk) 18:36, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Could someone run thru this with a plagiarism tool? Here's a couple more:
Website: During the offensive the 1st Division of the Legion, in order to cut enemies retreat, did a remarkable march from Lubartow to Bialystok - 163 miles in 6 days. Soldiers fought two battles, slept only few hours and marched for up to 21 hours a day. Their sacrifice and endurance was rewarded by cutting of the entire 16th Soviet Army at Bialystok and taking most of its troops prisoner [62]
Article: The Polish 1st Division of the Legion, in order to cut the enemy's retreat, made a remarkable march from Lubartów to Białystok - 163 miles (262 km) in 6 days. The soldiers fought in two battles, slept only a few hours, and marched for up to 21 hours a day. Their sacrifice and endurance was rewarded when the entire 16th Soviet Army was cut off at Białystok with most of its troops taken prisoner.
Website: Four Soviet armies begun march toward Warsaw on July 4th in the framework of the North-Western Front. By the end of August the 4th and 15th Armies were defeated in the field, their remnants crossed Prussian border and were disarmed. Nevertheless, these troops were soon released and fought against Poland again.[63]
Article: Four Soviet armies began to march toward Warsaw on July 4 in the framework of the North-Western Front. By the end of August, the 4th and 15th Armies were defeated in the field; their remnants crossed the Prussian border and were disarmed. Nevertheless, these troops were soon released and fought against Poland again. Novickas (talk) 12:57, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So back to referencing. More opinions please, on whether the article uses high-quality sources representing a comprehensive survey of the topic. Twenty inline cites to this [64] website by Witold L. Here's his bio. [65]. Surely there are many more scholarly references out there.
If it were a comprehensive survey of all the literature, it would contain, for instance, an alternative to L's "Stalin, in search of personal glory, wanted to capture the besieged, important industrial center of Lwów." Richard Pipes et al. are convinced that Stalin, in not moving towards Warsaw, was acting on Lenin's orders [66]. Another contradiction here, I think: this book states the Soviets accidentally destroyed their own communications center [67]. The article, ref'd to L., says the 203rd Uhlan Regiment destroyed it. I'm not an expert on the topic, but a little digging has convinced me that its review suffered from a lack of knowledgeable editors. The reviewers didn't catch the plagiarism, for starters. Novickas (talk) 16:36, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist There are inconsistencies in the format of the references (pp. vs. p, referencing style, etc.), issues with sourcing (ref 7 does not appear to be a reliable source; I recommend you verify the article on the sources cited in that reference). Nishkid64(Make articles, not wikidrama)02:22, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Article exclusively relies on two unspecified web pages. WP is mature enough, to have its bets articles written based on published materials. The whole "order of battle" is not sourced as I see, the bullets should be converted to table as well. M.K. (talk) 12:28, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was removed by Joelr31 00:53, 22 April 2009 [68].
1c) Large parts of the article are unsourced, sources are not formatted.
2a) lead doesn't summarise article properly, skewed towards the international memberships
2b/d) Bias through lack of negative information - large % of madrasa education, Islamic fundamentalism, honour killings, tribalism, sectarianism between Sunni/Shia, religious restrictions against non-Muslims, sponsoring terrorism. Society and culture section is horrendously hagiographic especially with respect to religious diversity and tolerance
Article does not speak of terrorism activities within Pakistan, suggestions from users on the talk page pointing to this very deficiency are for some reason conveniently ignored. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mozdeh (talk • contribs) 08:00, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, there is a host of national symbols (e.g., national juice :-), if that is all correct than it should be mentioned as is done. However, further down I read that "Muhammad Iqbal, [is] the national poet of Pakistan". This certainly needs to be rewritten.
fixed. Didn't need the table and it was in wrong section. Added more info to national poet. --→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk)
It's said that Urdu is the national language while English is the official language. This is awkward. If correct, it and needs to be explained further and sourced. (Or does national mean something like the sugar cane juice here).
fixed. I linked the individual words instead of telling the difference between the two there. Looked ahead, and if it was still confusing, I added more info. --→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk)
Same token. Urdu is the national language, but only native to 7.6%. There could be some elaboration about this. How many percent speak it as a second language. The same info could be given for English.
fixed. Different ethnic languages are spoken. Clarified this in article.--→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk)
Flora and Fauna: The last line is completely formatted bold. Is that because (once again) it is about national symbols (i.e., national animal and national bird). This formatting is not appropriate. BTW, isn't a bird an animal?
fixed. Someone already removed the bold font, prob vandalism. Yes, a bird is an animal but then whats use of the National Birds list if the logical applies ;) --→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk)
Between the sections Economy and Society and culture there is an ugly picture pile up. The layout may be enhanced.
Fail. Work in progress is exactly not happening. See my list above. Many of these issues are so easy to address, but they haven't. Since this article has been nominated for re-assessment no substantial edits have been made. Tomeasy T C07:42, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are at least five dead external links; these should ideally be replaced with good ones. The references are not uniformally formatted; while this is a very minor point, I find that you can identify unreliable sources or broken links, which can then be removed, by going through the references carefully and editing them to a uniform format. DrKiernan (talk) 12:33, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The tourism section needs some serious copy-editing. It sounds like a travel agents brochure with pretty bad English. More material should included that reflects present condition, in general, of the industy. Sumanch (talk) 23:48, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Economy section needs proper citation. Also, para 1 talks about strong economy and rapid economic growth in present tense; para 2 states Pakistan requested $100 B aid to avoid bankruptcy. These statements are inconsistant. Sumanch (talk) 08:03, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article has no useful information about Pakistan being a nuclear state, which is not a trifling detal to breeze over in an encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.12.220.124 (talk) 00:18, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do whatever
I have tried to address the concerns of several editors however my edits have been reverted several times. I am one person and even though I have tried getting help, I cannot fix this article on my own. So whatever. --→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 02:52, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Article has displaying image of Pakistan map before 1971. showing Indian held Kashmir as India's part. Which is not true as Kashmir is a disputed territory. So this image should be changed or edited.
see for reference
RESOLUTION 47 (1948) ON THE INDIA-PAKISTAN QUESTION SUBMITTED JOINTLY BY THE REPRESENTATIVES FOR BELGIUM, CANADA, CHINA, COLUMBIA, THE UNITED KINGDOM AND UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND ADOPTED BY THE SECURITY COUNCIL AT ITS 286TH MEETING HELD ON 21 APRIL, 1948. (DOCUMENT NO. S/726, DATED THE 21ST APRIL, 1948). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sattar82 (talk • contribs) 03:59, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see no issues arising with the NPOV or MoS. If there are specifics are given, then I shall deal with them. The current terrorist events itself is against MOS because they are recent. I am currently working on the lead and if some ideas are provided then it would be great. --→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 22:21, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Vote stacking doesn't help an article and is frowned upon, Nishkid64. I do hope your personal bias isn't effecting your judgment. --→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk)
Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with the FA criteria instead of asking editors to point out the perfectly visible flaws with the article. What happened to a little AGF? I shouldn't expect baseless accusations of vote stacking or biases from anyone, especially from an experience editor. Nishkid64(Make articles, not wikidrama)00:21, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Err, you do realize the purpose of this review is to find the flaws in the article? How are they baseless, when you just come in and repeat a previous comment without specifically pointing out the issues with the article? And it seems you are still refusing to do so. --→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk)
I quite clearly underlined the flaws with this article. It's not my fault if you didn't bother spending 5 minutes going through the article to notice how there are entire paragraphs (e.g. second paragraph of "Government and politics", second paragraph of "Geography and climate", etc.) or at least a few sentences that are not associated with any reference. Nishkid64(Make articles, not wikidrama)01:34, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for adding the facts tags. Really helps the article which is the purpose of this debate unlike other editors who don't realize this. --→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 20:13, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:Some of the sources are outdated and therefore, the article fails to give an accurate picture in some cases. For example, for the sentence Pakistan is a rapidly developing country, the sources given date back to Jan 2007, September 2007 and June 2006. Things have changed a lot since then and apart from the last source, none of the sources meet WP:Reliability. Also, the history section needs a couple of sentences more to mention the recent insurgencies in FATA, NWFP and Swat Valley. --128.211.201.161 (talk) 03:49, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thats a lot of large claims. Pakistan is still a rapidly developing country unless you show me a source that says so otherwise, I will not add a recent event. I updated some of the figures to show an accurate picture. Adding recent events in such a board topic as this article is against MOS. If you want information on them go look at their respective articles. --→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 18:01, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the current events argument, the government of Pakistan losing control over 5,337 km² of land in Swat needs to be mentioned in the main article. If not that, the imposition of Sharia law in the valley deserves to be mentioned. --128.211.201.161 (talk) 06:53, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, lets put everything you say into the article. Putting recent events in this article is against MOS. Feel free to read that. Putting "projected" figures into this article is also against MOS. And since when did Swat become independent? Did they declare Independence? And for the last time putting recent events is against MOS. Just as easily it was to impose Sharia, it can be undone the next day. However, I shall try to address the "rapid" concerns. --→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 19:26, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Another fascinating observation - Read this sentence from the article:
GDP growth was steady during the mid 2000s at a rate of 7%[74][75]; however, slowed down during the Economic crisis of 2008 to 4.7%. The source given is CIA Factbook which says the figure is a 2008 estimate. From Pakistani government sources, it becomes clear that these figures were based on data before October 2008 (see date of the article). I find it hard to understand how come the global financial crisis of 2008–2009, which started in September 2008, spread all the way from United States to Pakistan within a month and had such a drastic effect? The point is, the economic growth of Pakistan was declining before the onset of the financial crisis. Here is a article mentioning Pakistan's economic woes published in March 2008, much before the financial crisis caught steam [69]. --128.211.201.161 (talk) 07:18, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your reading the statement in a wrong manner. :::GDP growth was steady during the mid 2000s at a rate of 7%[74][75]; however, slowed down DURING the Economic crisis of 2008 to 4.7%. It wasn't the cause of the economic slowdown. Editors are still arguing what year the crises started. And again this is what happens when you put in recent events. --→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 19:26, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, I never said Swat achieved independence. According to the deal, Pakistani government has practically given militant forces the right to maintain Sharia law in the region. I was suggesting a brief mention of the deal but on second thoughts, I'm willing to rest my case. Regarding the economy section, if you would read the concerned sentence again, it gives the impression that the slowdown in the Pakistani economy is directly related to the global economic crisis. However, there were other factors too which adversely affected the economy. I suggest a revision of the wording of the sentence. Since the direct correlation between the global financial crisis and the slowdown in Pakistani economy is not yet established, I suggest that it would appropriate to just mention that there was a slowdown. Besides, the Pakistani slowdown began in early 2008 and the severe effects of the global financial crisis were only felt in September 2008. Therefore, the word during is inaccurate and there is no source to back this claim. This is a clear case of original research in my opinion. Lastly, I'm waiting for you to address concerns related to the word rapid. Thanks --128.211.201.161 (talk) 05:30, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You seem like an expert on Pakistan's economy. "Several other factors which adversely affected the economy", really? What are they and do you have sources to back them up? There no original research allowed on Wikipedia and I'm not going to add it based solely on your opinion. --→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 21:03, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I deleted the mention of rapid because I couldn't find the proper mention of Pakistan in the source and moved the other statement down. The sources for the later are either two or one year(s) old so I do not think they justify deletion. --→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 21:45, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still waiting for an appropriate response. Until the concerns mentioned are not resolved, I'm inclined to support the proposal to delist this article. --128.211.201.161 (talk) 20:08, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delist —
2a) lead doesn't summarise article properly, skewed towards the international memberships
This is a persistent problem. It should summarize the whole article and really doesn't need to have references in it if the points are also in the text and referenced there. Everything in the lead should also be in the text; my rule is that every section title should be at least mentioned in some way in the lead. And, yes, it is skewed largely towards the international club memberships.
2b/d) Bias through lack of negative information - large % of madrasa education, Islamic fundamentalism, honour killings, tribalism, sectarianism between Sunni/Shia, religious restrictions against non-Muslims, sponsoring terrorism. Society and culture section is horrendously hagiographic especially with respect to religious diversity and tolerance
In the country Template —
Too much clutter
Inconsistent data "Land Area" — The link shows Pakistans rank as 36th and area. 796,095km2 in NPOV area and 881,912km2 Pakistani POV. And this data does not match displayed info.
History section clutter — Most of the material is verbatim copy from co. cc/?action=history this website. The section is poorly writen. Inclusion of pseudo-academic terms.
Long paras in History section with unsourced claims, one line mention of coups and assasinations. The last para has only one source and states Musharraf was elected President in 2002. This is violetion of NPOV without mentining both sides of the dispute.
This section starts by stating when the constitution was suspended; Then reminds it is the "most important document" in Pakistan.
Economy —
I doubt Pakistani Economic situation has anything to do with 2008 economic crisis. KSE fell from 15000 to below 1000 from Jan 2008 and May 2008 steadily. KSE was shutdown frequently. BBC, Business Week, Fonzation and many more.
Geography — Eurasian landplate is not a proper term
A good example of a well writen articles Bangladesh, Japan. Sumanch (talk) 01:21, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply] contd.—
In Government and politics section, there is fair amount of info on Pakistani military but the Military section lacks it. I will suggest combining both.
There is an image of Malam Jabba Ski Resort in the Economy section. Malam Jabba Ski Resort was burnt down by the Taliban 2007. So the image does not reflect the text in the section.
The education section contains exactly two sentences on Islamic(madrassa) schools. There is enough evidence to suggest that the madrassa form a parallel education system in rural Pakistan, if not entire Pakistan.
Please verify the authenticy of the Holidays section and provide citation because some people have suggested 1 January is not an official holiday.Sumanch (talk) 17:18, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
General comment and remarks about the article. First the general comment: I see no action here after March 24. No response to the last opposer's raised issues. No comments in the meantime by Raul's delegates. If there is nobody to work on the article (which is not the best I've ever read, but neither the worse), then this discussion should close, and the article should be delisted.
In case there is somebody to work on Pakistan, these are my remarks (after a quick read):
The lead is overwikified, and the prose is not compelling: "Pakistan is the sixth most populous country in the world and has the second largest Muslim population in the world after Indonesia and considered a frontline state in the War on Terro." Just an example of mediocre prose.
"Economy" is overlinked; the same citation sometimes used within the same sentence. And the data need some checking so that they are up-to-date. CIA Factbook already provides us with the 2008 economic data.
"Education" is full of stubby paragraphs. And indeed the issue of religious education (maybe the issue of religious law now applied in near-Afghanistan areas also) should be properly treated.
I am but since I am the nominator I can't close it... Joelito usually takes it very slow....My position hasn't changed as far as the POV by omission is concerned, unformatted references etc. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 00:31, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG DELIST
Article does not even so much as mention the growing militant insurgency in pakistan and the numerous terrorist outfits training camps etc that operate from there.--128.62.162.238 (talk) 01:37, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This article has changed hardly at all since it was on the front page two years ago - it was a great article then - and it's a great article still. After the usual excruciatingly detailed review - it passed with flying colors. If it is no longer considered adequately referenced then this is a solid case of standards creep - which I strongly oppose. The article references LITERALLY every single book that has ever been written about the Moke (I know - I worked with experts on the car - I tracked down and purchased every single book). One of those books is a summary of every single magazine article about the car assembled by enthusiasts. It is simply not possible to refer to more material because in a very real sense - there is no more material. If this article is seriously considered to be underreferenced then an article about this car cannot be allowed to exist. You are arguing for article deletion - not merely de-listing - and that's ridiculous.
The popular culture section has 'crept' a bit since the original FA. If you feel it's too much then you REALLY should simply fix the article rather than trying to get it de-listed. It really pisses me off when editors would rather contribute by destroying than by improving.
I don't understand this perpetual witch-hunt against past featured articles. It's not helpful - and it's exceedingly demoralising to authors.
I don't believe the standards of March 2007 were inadequate - passing it into FA was a good decision - it's still a good decision.
Question Could the nominator expand on what "not adequately referenced" means? Looking at the article, it is not obvious what you are referring to. --maclean05:03, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry you feel this way but standards are standards. FA articles must be kept in-line with new standards. Unlike what you are saying, I do not believe this article should be deleted because of unsourced claims. No article should. That who mean deleting 90% + of all WP content. However, articles with more than three small unreferenced claims need to be re-evaluated if at FA status. Let me give you some examples:
"Early promotional material made much of the lightness of the vehicle, showing four soldiers riding in the Moke off-road, then picking it up by its tubular bumpers and carrying it when (inevitably) its low ground clearance proved inadequate to the task.", This information must have come from somewhere. If you own every single book on the Moke, it should be in one of them if it is true. I know it is a tedious task, but I have had to do it before. You would probably have some idea of where it may be, so look there first.
"Mokes continued to be made in Britain until 1968." Ditto, however, the lead does say, "14,500 Mokes were produced in the UK between 1964 and 1968, 26,000 in Australia between 1966 and 1981, and 10,000 in Portugal between 1980 and 1993 when production of the Moke ended.[4]" I would steer clear of using references in the lead. The lead should be nothing but a summary of what the article body says.
"As Australian Moke production wound down, manufacturing was transferred to British Leyland's subsidiary in Portugal, which made 8,500 of the 'Californian' Mokes in their Vendas Novas plant between 1980 and 1990. Initially these Mokes were identical to late model Australian Mokes; very soon, however, they were altered to use then-current British production Mini saloon components, including the standard-length Mini rear trailing arms and the 12 in wheels with modern low-profile tyres, which the sedan had acquired during the Moke's absence from Europe." This one explains itself really.
"The Moke gained much popularity as a beach buggy and was often rented to tourists in tropical island resorts such as Mauritius and Barbados." Popularity. Who says so? A source is needed.
"Mini Mokes can still be seen zooming around the town of Victoria, Seychelles as it is still a popular mode of transport for tourists and can seat 4 people in relative comfort from island point to island point." If the article has hardly changed in two years this may no longer be true. If you can find a source from e.g. 2004, say, "As of 2004, Mini Mokes are still in use around the town of Victoria, Seychelles...". "Zooming around" is probably not the best choice of words either.
These are just some of the unsourced statements at the end of each paragraph. This does not account for the many more probable hidden unreferenced statements within paragraphs with a single citation at the end.
"I don't understand this perpetual witch-hunt against past featured articles. It's not helpful - and it's exceedingly demoralising to authors." I am sorry, but if you manage to get and article to FA status, you must keep it current standards. The FA Holden VE Commodore article that mainly User:VectorD and myself managed to get to FA has changed immensely since April 2007. Compare it to then and now. Had this article not been revamped since, I would not even rate it GA, so it shows really how much standards change.
"I don't believe the standards of March 2007 were inadequate - passing it into FA was a good decision - it's still a good decision." Without trying to be rude, please read Wikipedia:Featured article criteria.
"If you feel it's too much then you REALLY should simply fix the article rather than trying to get it de-listed. It really pisses me off when editors would rather contribute by destroying than by improving." No, if you would like to retain the article's status, I am sorry that is a burden on you. OSX (talk • contributions) 05:06, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The guy who donated the photo was under the misapprehension that it could not subsequently be edited to remove the advertising watermark he'd put on there. SteveBaker (talk) 02:23, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The 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.
Unstable, as the location of numerous disputes. The disagreements are intractable enough to have spurred a recent request for arbitration. The disputes have affected the quality of article presentation and writing. Many of the disagreements center on neutrality and related concerns. Large sections of the article are lacking citations and sources. (Noah's Ark#The Ark in later traditions is a prime culprit.) At minimum, this situation leads to the article failing to meet FA criteria 1(c), 1(d) and 1(e). --Vassyana (talk) 15:20, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The Rfar is about the word "myth" which spans several articles. Has not yet been utterly rejected (although it will be, as a content dispute) and still exists here. Basically involved several users concerned that the standard scholarly use of the word "myth" will be misinterpreted by the common reader as meaning a vulgar variant. KillerChihuahua?!?15:43, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) "In Rabbinic tradition" has three references, to three articles in the Jewish Encyclopedia. It is not clear what information is supported by the references and not all of the information in the section is supported by the source. Additionally, it is presented as a 2002 publication, but it is a public domain text published in portions between 1901 and 1906.
"In Christian tradition" is spordically cited and littered with OR/editorial observations. Additionally, it provides some decent illustrative examples of historical Christian interpretations, but makes fails to establish much context or explain how it fits into Christian theology and tradition.
"In Islamic tradition" is severely lacking in sources and full of original research. Some of the sources provided are blatantly deficient. One such notable error is using a century-old Jewish encyclopedia to describe modern Islamic beliefs.
"In other traditions" completely lacks references except for about the Bahai (in the last paragraph), cited exclusively to primary material (which leaves the weighting of the material in serious question).
I am the editor who instigated the rfar. I must state that the issue which ultimately led to the rfar was specifically over the lead. However, that dispute has had an unfortunate effect on the rest of the article. Whilst a number of editors (including myself) have expressed a desire to improve it, the dispute over the lead has dominated discussion and led to the involved parties agreeing to suspend the improvements until that dispute was settled. That said, I believe that there is a general feeling that the dispute over the lead should, for the time being, be left alone (if for no other reason, to give those involved the chance to cool off). There are also some tentative efforts being made by some of the editors involved to try to find ways to work together on that issue. Most of the editors are working in good faith and have plenty to contribute. If those editors can come to a more "formal" agreement to levae the lead issue alone for a time, then I believe that the rest of the article can be worked on relatively quickly to restore it to the desired quality. The will to do that is certainly there - we just need to (at least temporarily) set aside the lead question. On that basis, I believe the FA status can remain.--FimusTauri (talk) 16:31, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On top of the unresolved issue about the use of the term "myth", there's some major POV problems. The search for the Ark section, for example, says finding the ark would prove certain literalist's beliefs, whereas non Fundamentalis Christian says the Ark will never be found because it would have rotted -- so there are only two sides, and both sides agree that it was a real historical event and the Ark really existed at some point?? Whoa. The deluge mythology section is also wholly inadequate for mentioning similar myths out there, with the claim of some remarkable discovery and only one other myth mentioned. I realize that there is a whole other article about that, but the summary is inadequate and given such a minor section that the weight of the article, along with phrasing in various places, seems to overwhelmingly support the overall existence and historicity of the event in a literal sense. My understanding is that among biblical scholars, prominent Jewish leaders and a sizable portion of the Christian community -- not to mention believers of other faiths and nonbelievers -- is that it should not be taken literally. The slant on the current article is pretty overwhelming, and I can't see how anything but a substantial rewrite could address that problem. DreamGuy (talk) 16:40, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Edited to add: I just now noticed that this was an article that already was a Featured Article instead of one being nominated. A quick look at the article as it existed when it became a Featured Article shows a much, MUCH better version focusing on a wide range of topics and views and not just the fundamentalist Christians' side of things. I think anyone comparing the two differences will see a dramatic difference. I would support reverting back to the old version and then allowing editors to discuss what, if anything, of the current version could be salvaged. I don't know whether the current editor would support such an action. It looks like over time that the editors most active on the article all shared a similar POV and let it influence the article unduly. Again, without some major overhaul this clearly no longer meets FA standards. DreamGuy (talk) 16:49, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The previous version to which you refer was under referenced, contained links to non-reliable sources, was weighted heavily towards a discussion of Fundamentalist Christian interpretations of the Ark, contained no references to non-Fundamentalist Christian interpretations, had an entire section on 'Biblical literalism and the Ark' without any corresponding sections covering other views, and contained a lengthy WP:COAT digression on the flood story and its relationship to the Mesopotamian flood narratives. It was hardly Featured Article material. --Taiwan boi (talk) 04:03, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So the article that actually earned the Featured Article status is, in your mind, somehow not suitable for Featured Article status? The claim that it had no references to non-Fundamentalist Christian interpretations is simply false, as anyone who looks at it can clearly see. From that logic and your comments on the talk page it's e clear you have no idea what a Featured Article is supposed to look like. Hint: not a religious tract endorsing your POV. DreamGuy (talk) 16:31, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On the article talk page, an editor has suggested a draft article. IMO, your suggestion - to regress, then discuss the differences and either implement; implement with better sourcing, copyediting, etc; or reject - has merit, but its doubtful ut would meet with wide acceptance. Suggest you repeat your suggestion on the article talk page. KillerChihuahua?!?17:54, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see no reason to un-rfa this. The "myth dispute" is a non-issue. Of course "Noah's Ark" is a topic that will always have a few biblical literalists prancing around on the talkpage. That's not a reason to revoke rfa status, or there would never be any stable rfas on Biblical topics. --dab(𒁳)17:25, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that the Biblical literalists aren't just "prancing around the talkpage," they have completely changed the article so it's no longer at all comparable to the one that got FA status. DreamGuy (talk) 18:18, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
When last I looked at the NA article it bore no resemblance to the article PiCo and I wrote and shepherded to FA status. In fact, it had been degraded by so many bible thumpers and others on the lunatic fringe that it looked like a Conservapedia article. In the interim it has only gotten worse. It is disjointed, inaccurate and crappy. I have no time for it. Bah. •Jim62sch•dissera!22:10, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As •Jim62sch•dissera! (and others) says, the article as it stands bears no resemblance to the article whch passed FA. This is entirely because of the efforts of those whom Jim unkindly, but accurately, calls bible-thumpers - strongly motivated individuals with an agenda and an unwillingness to compromise in any meaningful sense. As a result it now consists in large part of an earnest discussion of the capacity, size, logistics etc of a fictional vessel. Having this drivel as a featured article does damage to the credibility of Wikipedia. (Plus, as Vassyana says, it's unstable as well). PiCo (talk) 04:05, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ever since I first looked at the article I have felt it needed some improvement. I have, until now, taken the FA status for granted - i.e. assuming that meant the article was already in pretty good shape (despite what I thought). For this reason I have been circumspect in suggesting changes. It is clear from the above that I should have been a lot bolder. On the other hand, I stick by what I wrote above - there are a lot of editors with good ideas for this article. It would not take too long to get this article "back into shape". I would suggest keeping the status for a short while; give those editors involved the chance to sort it out and then take another look.--FimusTauri (talk) 09:17, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist verifiability, neutrality, comprehensiveness and focus. Actual facts should be clearly distinguished from story, traditions and beliefs. The potential origins of the text and comparisons with other deluge myths could be expanded. There's very little analysis of allegory. DrKiernan (talk) 12:54, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The 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.
A big Pink Floyd fan myself, it pains me to do this but I don't feel the article represents the best of Wikipedia. It was promoted in 2006, and things have moved along since that time.
Reasons not to be cheerful:
Poor standard of writing
"Roger Waters left Cambridge in 1962 to take architecture courses at the Regent Street Polytechnic in London" - what is Cambridge, and where was he taking these courses to?
"There he met his fellow student Nick Mason." - why did Mason belong to Waters?
"blues and folk guitarist and vocalist Syd Barrett joined the band. Waters then moved to bass and Wright to full time keyboards."
"When The Tea Set found themselves on the same bill as another band with the same name, Barrett came up with the alternative name The Pink Floyd Sound," - shouldn't those names be italicised?
There are more examples throughout the article - it would take far too long to list them here.
Linking problems
"joined the existing group, Sigma 6.[9] Sigma 6 was also" - overlinking
"The Sound was dropped fairly quickly, but the definite article was still used regularly until 1970" - 'the definite article' goes to a wiki grammar page.
Citations - a lack of citations on various paragraphs and sentences. Also, there are a great many sources that may not satisfy wp:reliable in the reference section. Many citations are incorrectly formatted.
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 Gimmetrow 03:01, 23 April 2009 [95].
Several portions of this article, quite frankly look in an absolute mess, this section should be reworked completely: a) it lacks ref; and b) Wikipedia is not a guide for things. Other sections contain no references and some of it appears to be a point of view. D.M.N. (talk) 19:07, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's been neglected by editors, and left to the devices of individuals who don't understand or follow the policy of not writing unreferenced nonsense. Just delisting it now is the wrong approach - there are just a couple of problem areas. Remove the unreferenced sections on social engineering and identifying legitimate websites (I tried, Cluebot reverted my edits), or rewrite those sections and reference them. Simples. --82.33.50.145 (talk) 16:34, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Sadly, this article no longer meets the FA criteria as far as I am concerned, largely due to the inclusion of unreferenced material. The statistics section and part of the culture section are particularly notable in this regard. Also, the rugby subsection of the sports section is just a list of names, not even prose. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:19, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure the lead comprehensively summarizes that article. 1/3 of the lead is about terminology, which could well be a separate section in the main body of the article. Besides the fact that I got more confused than enlightened reading this term's analysis!
In citation 5 the source is Yahoo Travel?!!!
In "Statistics" only a sentence is uncided. Is this enough to argue that the section faces referencing problems?
"Sadly, African-Caribbean Muslims partly have a bad reputation ... " Ehmmmmm ... And citation 37 is obviously the work of somebody working on the article after its main editor left Wikipedia, and subsequently ceased to maintain it.
"Sadly, after being bought by PLC( which owns pop station Capital Radio) and more recently Global taking the ownership of the station, many feel that Choice FM has sold out and no longer reflects the community." More sadness! Weasel, POV etc.
Well, I liked the article, and I don't see major referencing issues! Some sections look like a compilation of names or short biographies, but sometimes this is inevitable: the goal of these sections is to describe the most prominent members of the Community in the x or z sector. In "History" more printed sources and specialized works could be used, but, in general I liked the article, and I regard it as adequately cited.
What it needs is some cleaning, and an editor to update it. For instance, I doubt whether the Sports section in enriched with possible recent achievement of the Community's members (e.g. during the 2008 Olympics). This is the article's main problem, and this is the reason I can't vote to keep the article. I am afraid that, even if it is now kept (and it could be; it is a nice article, and its minor problems are easily fixed), it will not be properly maintained in the foreseeable future. Thus, and unless somebody comes it, and updates the article declaring his willingness to keep a close eye on it, I reluctantly ask for the removal of the article.--Yannismarou (talk) 23:20, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist It's 18 months to 2 years since the primary author left wikipedia. Unfortunately, this article is bound to attract trivia and become outdated without regular maintenance by a dedicated editor. DrKiernan (talk) 13:35, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Apart from the pictures of the tomb, all the images were created more than fifty years ago. However, in Pakistan images become public domain fifty years after publication, not creation, so ideally we need details of when they were first published, or at least some proof that they were published more than fifty years ago. DrKiernan (talk) 14:28, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This article was promoted to FA status in July 2006. I believe it needs to be re-evaluated based on the current FA criteria. The primary issue here is 1c (referencing) – overall, the entire article needs additional inline citations and needs to be evaluated for its verifiability. Nishkid64(Make articles, not wikidrama)02:13, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.
While this article's content is probably fine, it contains no inline citations, only a list of references at the end. The article was promoted to FA status in 2004, when standards on referencing were much lower, and it would not pass muster today. Inline citations are necessary because the reader cannot be sure that all the information in the article really is supported by the books listed at the end. The article should not remain an FA unless this problem is rectified by knowledgeable editors. talk) 19:32, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If is "probably fine", then I suggest you take yourself off and find one that is probably not! Wikipedia has a 10,001 and more pages that are abysmal - have you some objection to criticising them, or if this page upsets you so, getting a few books and sourcing the cites yourself? If not, assume good faith, and trust that an editor of long standing such as Bishonen may just possibly be telling the truth and using the references that she has listed. If you don't want to do the hard work yourself don't ask others too. Giano (talk) 21:43, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Whoah, what an extraordinary response! All I'm asking is whether it would be sensible to remove the FA status given that the criteria have changed and "probably fine" is no longer acceptable. Even if it was perfect in 2004, the article may have changed since then; maybe stuff has crept in that isn't supported by the texts at the end? I'm just suggesting that people who know the subject well (as opposed to me) have another look at it, that's all. Blimey. Downstage right (talk) 00:58, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I humbly strike the above comment and apologize to all concerned. I regret saying that any of the editors that posted in defence of the other article would post in mistaken defence of this one. I wish User talk:Downstage right) good fortune in improving this article along the lines he is suggesting. &mdagiesh;Mattisse (Talk) 15:48, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Erm... you wish Downstage what? S/he just mentioned that s/he doesn't have the knowledge to improve the article. If you're apologizing in all seriousness, this would be the place for it, btw. Bishonen | talk19:03, 17 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]
They "are predicted." Wow. That's the kind of intellect we need assessing articles. Someone who can manage such prose surely out to be sovereign. Utgard Loki (talk) 13:21, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article is fine. It has "inline citations." It lacks footnotes, and these are not the same thing. As for greater precision in the citation, it's not necessary. All things have their sources. Utgard Loki (talk) 13:21, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, it doesn't have inline citations. You seem to be mistaken. Having said that, an editor has now added footnotes to the first half of the article, so it looks better now than it did yesterday. Downstage right (talk) 15:11, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Downstage, could you please list, at the top of the nomination, the editors you have alerted to this FAR? (That would be me.) Please see the FAR instructions, and compare the way it's done with other articles on the list. The anonymity you shroud me in ("an editor") seems a little pointless. Regards, Bishonen | talk19:03, 17 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Problems - Reads more like an essay/term paper than an encyclopedic entry (lines like - "wrote Robert D. Hume as late as 1976"). Tone needs to be changed. The literary criticism is far too short. There is very little academic opinion. Too much plot summary. Things like "Example. John Vanbrugh, The Provoked Wife (1697):" have problems with Undue and Original Research. The Actors section starting with "first actresses" is POV and undue. The lead serves to introduce information not found within the article and contains an explanation for the name not found, which goes against WP:LEAD. Sources used are not current nor reflect the majority thought. Even the Hume citation does not reflect the majority of his work. Article needs a major overhaul to be brought to standard. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:53, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist mostly per comprehensiveness. Sources could be argued as not needing inline, but the sources do not adequately represent current criticism, the majority of criticism, the history or criticism, or anything that could be considered "comprehensive". Ottava Rima (talk) 04:15, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wake up & keep How much longer are such pages as this to be listed by people who have not the foggiest ideas concerning the subject. There are squeals from those who have such yawning gaps in their education that they cannot recognize an obvious fact if it punched them in the face or more worryingly prefer to assume bad faith of the respected editor who wrote the fact in the first place and has looked after the page continuously ever since. Just as we had to endure Mattisse's time wasting trolling at the FARC of Buckingham Palace so it seems is a great article being denigrated here. No wonder so many of those who know their facts and history can no longer be bothered to waste their time writing FAs, when the ultimate result is to be dragged to this lowly page for the insults of the opinionated and semi-illiterate questions of of the ignorant. The simple truth is (and I hope those that take such pride in being in charge of such a sewer of a Wikipedia section as this are noting): pages such as this are far too good for Wikipedia. This page belongs in a a text book out of the price reach of those who rely on and need Wikipedia, so think on that before you delist it. If authors decide to take and re-focus their future high standard works away from Wikipedia towards other publications, then I blame this page and those who permit ignorant ill-informed comments, such as some of those above, entirely. Giano (talk) 08:09, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think my recent work with Henry Fielding's early plays and the 15 related pages shows that I understand the theatrical criticism of Hume, no? So, if your comments apply to some, it doesn't apply to all. The article needs to be critically updated as it is lacking a lot of information on the topic. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:26, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note to YellowMonkey - I will not be nominating, nor commenting or voting on any more FARs, as I am tired of Giano and his group making personal attacks on my entries. I can't go running to an admin each time to try to get personal attacks noted and moved. There is no civility maintained here. User:Lar has pretty much said that User:Giano II, despite arbcom rulings, is just to be ignored as a pest. I am not willing to do that. The atmosphere is too unpleasant. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:22, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This article became an FA in 2006 and has not been reviewed since. The article is not comprehensive as per requirement 1 (b) of FA guidelines. It excludes an appropriately sized mention of the part played out in Ladakh in major conflicts such as the Sino-Indian War, Kargil War and Siachen conflict. The article itself has no mention of Siachen glacier or Saltoro ridge, significant geographical features which are a major point of contention today between two nuclear states, India and Pakistan. The Siachen conflict is the highest fought conflict in the history of the world. A person reading the article will not get any idea that Ladakh is a militarily active area albeit the fact that it does not impact daily life on a day to day basis.
Deeptrivia's Comment: These are very valid points that should be addressed, and could easily be addressed. Unfortunately, I won't get a chance to work on this any time soon, but it would be a pity if this otherwise great article is defeatured for the lack of fulfilling some of the guidelines. I hope someone would take this up and improve the article. Regards, deeptrivia (talk) 00:24, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This deficiency has been addressed by me. I recommend that it may now be considered by another reviewer whether it should be FA or not. AshLin (talk) 08:09, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Notified WikiProject Comedy [103] and WikiProject Television [104]
Criterion 1(c) issues: 7 citations (sometimes used multiple times) to IMDb, a user-generated content site. Reference 1 is a self-published site and doesn't seem to make the necessary attribution, ref 3 is a blog, ref 14 and 20 have dubious reliability, ref 15 is a wiki-like website, and refs 23/24 are another personal website according to its FAQ and its reliability seems uncertain to me. There may be other problems with other references, but I haven't had time to check them all.
I think this needs review, possibly with a view to finding replacement citations or rewriting the text when new citations are unavailable. Not sure who to contact, as this was promoted in 2006. Will have a gander though. Fritzpoll (talk) 13:07, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, besides the many bad references, there are insane amounts of completely unsourced text in the article, particularly in the second half, and what amounts to WP:OR and editor opinion analysizing character motivations, symbolism, etc. Very clearly fails 1c. I'd also say it fails 1a and 1d, as I see some fairly non-neutral language in places. Also fails 1b. The reception section is, frankly, appalling for an eleven season series. 2 paragraphs? That's it? Heck, I found more for Meerkat Manor at four seasons. Only three paragraphs of production on a series that has had at least books written about solely it and is a major portion of many other sitcom series books (of which only one of the main books is used, as a minor cast reference - seemingly a pretty glaring omission). And the section really doesn't give any actual critical reception beyond a few broad positive strokes. Its mostly ratings and sounds almost like promo material.
It fails criteria 2 in that is doing a poor job of following WP:MOSTV (with no discernible reason found for "breaking the mold"), failing WP:LEAD (again, without any valid reason), and the citations are clearly not consistently formatted. Some are templated, some are just a url and a title, and one is just a weird non-inline one at the top of the list. I'd also say it fails criteria 4 regarding length. Some sections are too short, while I see no actual value in the "post Cheers" section at all. The actors moved on...they have articles and people interested in their history will go to those. No need to for this indiscriminate attempt and summarizing the "good bits." Finally, it fails criteria 4. Several of the images are unnecessary, some have very sketchy FURs, like File:Cheers bar.JPG which also has no source nor real license and I suspect is probably a book scan. File:Cheers sam diane kiss.jpg seems unnecessary all together, and comes from a website instead of the actual episode so its fairly low quality. File:Cheers cast photo.jpg is an unnecessary non-free image of living actors and I'm pretty sure such images have generally been frowned on by WP:NONFREE. They don't look remarkable different in real life, so replaceable as well. Also, again, low quality. File:Cheers intro logo.jpg is too large for valid FUR and needs resizing. Long made short: it does not meet FAC at this time and a large amount of work is needed to have any hope of bringing it back up to standards. -- Collectonian (talk·contribs) 13:47, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, it's interesting to see how little the article changed in 3 years, and how much FA standards have been raised. The article would hardly pass GA at this moment I think, even though it is probably a better article now than the original FA version. BTW, i doubt MOSTV even effectively existed 3 years ago :D --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 13:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(EC) Side note: you'd be correct :) It officially became a style guide in June 2008, with the unofficial predecessor being created in 07 as a split from the project page. :-) -- Collectonian (talk·contribs) 14:02, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - There are a lot of dead links in the article, as well as an over abundance of IMDb sources (I agree) that are not considered reliable in today's standards. As I "glance" at the page I noticed that it does not appear to be well organized (by that I mean the actual prose and not the headings. Everything appears broken, and almost bulleted in some sections where there aren't any bullets) (DJ, WP:MOSTV wasn't even a guideline 3 years ago, let alone effective..lol). I haven't sat down and read the article word for word, but something like this--(The first location outside the bar ever seen was Diane's apartment.)--should not be happening. I'm not sure where in the English language you would find a rule saying that you should put an entire sentence, all by itself, inside of parentheses. That's just something that caught my immediate eye. If I sit down, which I don't have the time to do this very second, I'd probably find more serious issues with the prose. BIGNOLE (Contact me)14:11, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since Collectonian has already given a detailed overview for the article's many failings, I shall keep my noted issues short. The four issues that absolutely need to be addressed to have the article survive this FAR are: The "Production" section needs to be significantly expanded. The "Other recurring themes" desperately needs sources, or should be removed entirely as original research. The majority of the "Post-Cheers" section should best be removed for irrelevance. The sources should be reviewed for non-reliability and need to be properly formatted in the same style. Even fixing these issues will likely take more time and effort than this first part of the review allows. – sgeurekat•c14:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist - I have not seen any real attempt to fix this article. Lots of information still unsourced. Sentence structure, basic grammar still a problem (my example above is still in the same place it was, unchanged). Lots of dead links still present. BIGNOLE (Contact me)16:51, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was removed by Joelr31 16:06, 12 April 2009 [105].
Fails a lot of criteria
1c) Citations missing or unformatted
POV) Recentism, especially on VN War bombing. Sanitised presentation of politics section, Cambodia while officially a parliamentary democracy really is not, and the fact that the Prime Minister was installed by a Vietnamese army is also not mentioned at all. foreign relations is undue weight on populist riots rather than the big picture
I've been cleaning and updating refs on the article and I'm happy to do more. Last time I checked all links were live and formatted. I'm happy to work to improve the article further. I've seen the possibility of WP:FAR looming since 2007, see article talk for my recent posts on this. Strangely enough the things I would say need fixing with the article are not the same as yours. A bit more detail on what you think needs to be fixed would be helpful. You say it fails a lot of criteria, but give only 2? I'm probably a bit dense but your recentism comment is particularly puzzling for me. Do you think there is too much emphasis on the US bombing or not enough? Should it have less weight because it's (relatively) recent? The comment about the P.M. is not actually correct. When the Vietnamese army came to town to kick out the K.R. (and installed a government) Heng Samrin was the President (not the P.M.) and Chea Sim was his deputy. Hun Sen, the current P.M. of Cambodia, was a lowly foreign minister at the time. The next leader was Pen Sovann in 1981. Various anti-Hun Sen, rabble rousing blogs around the net like to gloss over this part of history, but it's still true. Cheers, Paxse (talk) 10:55, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In the "History" section:
"The region was bombarded by European explorers": What does "bombarded" mean here? - new addition, not accurate - gone
"Later, failed attempts would be made by Sihanouk and the Khmer Rogue to recapture the Mekong delta." comes before the introduction of the Sihanouk–Khmer Rouge alliance. If included, it should come after. - new addition, not accurate - gone
When the Vietnam war is first introduced in the text, there should be a brief outline of who was fighting on which side.
There is some repetition of points, such as the casualty figures from the genocide.
The comment "Cambodia's natural resources, particularly its valuable timber, are still being exploited by interests from Thailand, Vietnam, Malaysia, Singapore, and Australia." apparently contradicts and becomes confused with "the Khmer Rouge were still active in some areas, often supporting illegal timber operations". Are foreigners running illegal timber operations, backed by the Khmer Rouge? DrKiernan (talk) 16:25, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for those very thoughtful comments and for your own excellent edits to the article. I've been off wiki for a week so haven't been checking my watchlist for a while. I think some of those chunks have been added very recently. I'll try to clean them up today. Cheers, Paxse (talk) 02:06, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sihanouk made attempts to recapture the Mekong delta before his alliance with the Khmer Rogue. It lists attempts of Cambodian figure(s) attempting to recapture the Mekong Delta not necessary their combined effort to recapture the Mekong delta. Pwordisony (talk) 06:33, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist I've been expecting this nomination for ages. Terribly undersourced, not Wikipedia's best work. (As much as I hate to see it stripped of its star... *tear*) Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:13, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thanks for all the comments above. I'm willing to spend some serious time referencing the unreferenced and removing more of the inaccurate. I have plenty of good source documents. I posed a couple of unanswered questions about the 'recentism' critique at FAR - it would still be helpful to me if those were answered now. However, this will have to wait until Sunday when I have more time. I'm keen to save this article from delisting, so I really appreciate your specific suggestions to improve the article to meet the current FA criteria. Cheers, Paxse (talk) 09:24, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, for one thing, Cambodia has a long and treasured history. The "History" section of this article covers two millenia in about two paragraphs, while the period from the beginning of Sihanouk's reign to the present is covered in several paragraphs. Nishkid64(Make articles, not wikidrama)22:05, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.
When this article passed FA, several reviewers said it was the perfect FA. The article has been messed about with quite a bit since then and I agree that it could be said to have fallen a little below that standard. I'm inclined to simply revert it to where it was when it passed FA - then go carefully through the subsequent changes and add back only those things that were corrections to clear factual errors or tweaks to things like the way we represent dimensions and such. One or two of the image changes (removing a fair-use image and replacing it with a free-use equivelent) are very much worth keeping - but a lot of the other changes seem ill-considered. I would appeal for time to fix these problems - if the article is de-listed I will certainly not have the time and energy to go through all of the FA approval processes again - and if that happens, the article will surely deteriorate again. SteveBaker (talk) 04:59, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Many of my comments made at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Mini Moke apply here, so I am not going to re-list what has been said. I don't know how an article with only 27 references at the time could be considered "perfect", but maybe I am being anachronistic. Nor do I believe a very lengthy article today with 62 refs is FA material today either.
Three references in the "Design and development" section? You must have got this information from somewhere; again it will need to be cited. The Holden VE Commodore article is almost 100% referenced, except for a couple of statements that I know are true, but need the sources for (e.g. I need a copy of the original sales brochure). In saying that, only one book has been published on the VE, although admittedly the web has been an invaluable tool as well. The problem with what you have done is to write an article without citing the source when doing so. This has got to be one of the biggest mistakes an editor could make. Unless you are adding some small changes from the top of your head to an already crap article, this is a really bad move.
Stylistically, avoid bolding of names outside the lead. “Timeline” sections written in point form are not really acceptable in most cases either.
Sadly, I believe that there is very little chance in getting this article fixed in less than two weeks. There is unfortunately, too much that needs doing. I would think that the other FAR candidate, Mini Moke would pass the current standards with the changes needed implemented. So good luck. OSX (talk • contributions) 05:28, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist (sadly) As it stands it doesn't meet the referencing criteria, and as far as I know we have no Grandfather clause. Specifically, WP:REF says "If you are quoting from, paraphrasing, or referring to a specific passage of a book or article, you should if possible also cite the page number(s) of that passage." Most of the citations unfortunately don't have page numbers. More citations are also needed, not for the sake of having more, but because I can see some perhaps surprising or contentious statements (the stuff on '9X', the derivation of the Mini name, original Mini fan's dislike of the new MINI etc.) I could mark these up if that would be useful. 4u1e (talk) 08:38, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.
I am nominating this article for a Featured Article Review because the article at present does not meet the Featured Article Critiera, specifically 1c and 2c. There are complete sections that lack any in-line citations, and there are only a total of only 17 in-line cites in the entire article although a plentiful references section is provided. This article's FAC was in August 2005, and as much as I like ships, it does not compare with modern FAs on ships. -MBK00402:31, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by Mjroots
OK, not sure if this is the correct procedure, but the GRT varies throughout the article. Infobox states 29,083 GRT, article states 29,100 GRT. I suspect 29,083 GRT is the correct figure, but I'll not alter the article myself as I can't be sure of this as fact. Maybe someone will have the proof and be able to sort this one. Mjroots (talk) 20:14, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Remove If I were to reassess this article to the current Ships criteria it would only make a C-class. I placed the refimprove tag last October so there has been plenty of time to resolve this. The lack of inline citations are what is killing this article. --Brad (talk) 01:40, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the fair-use rationales for the images are a little weak given that the article contains free-use images of the sinking. DrKiernan (talk) 12:41, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist, the citation issues alone are enough let alone any image copyright concerns. I must say that I am saddened that removing FA is necessary since I am active at WP:SHIPS, but I don't have the reference material to save the article. -MBK00404:58, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Many sections are not referenced. Therefore 1(c) and 2(c) per Featured article criteria. Many more problems may be there too? --33rogers (talk) 01:54, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.
![[34]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Bayt_al_Mukarram.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=5326127){kind=link}
![[35]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Bayt_al_Mukarram.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=5326094){kind=link}
