Wikipedia:Featured article review/archive/February 2009

Kept status

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

The article was kept by Joelr31 00:29, 25 February 2009 [1].

---

Radiohead

Review commentary

User:WesleyDodds, User:Pomte, User:Faithlessthewonderboy, User:Giggy, User:Mad Hatter, WP:ALTROCK notified.

One year ago our article was promoted to featured. Late last year the text took a sharp turn with several contentious editors making large changes and attempting to delete or spin off major portions of the article. They were ultimately overruled on the largest changes, but through creeping edits the text today is beginning to diverge significantly from what it was one year ago. I just submitted this again for FAR, with the hope that the article will be removed from featured status until it can be sufficiently improved to again merit the distinction. Following are the criteria for featured articles, along with my personal highlighting of areas where I feel this article now falls short.

(a) well-written: its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard;

(b) comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context;

(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;

(d) neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias; and

(e) stable: it is not subject to ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process.

Images. It has images and other media where appropriate, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status. Non-free images or media must satisfy the criteria for inclusion of non-free content and be labeled accordingly. 70.21.58.96 (talk) 04:27, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

(edit) Thanks for the suggestion. I have done that.

comment: Featured articles can't be delisted until they have gone through a review. You may want to consider listing the article at WP:FARC and briefly summarise the issues there. I guess your concern seems to be that it no longer meets criteria 1a (well-written) 1b (comprehensive) or 1e (stable). I agree that it has changed dramatically since we pushed it to FA, and it could probably use some more sets of eyes. Papa November (talk) 02:02, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I honestly don't think the article has changed that much. WesleyDodds (talk) 13:53, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Note to nominator: you need to notify the article's primary editors and the relevant WikiProjects. WesleyDodds (talk) 14:11, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I see a list of users notified, but they haven't been contacted on their talk pages yet, and neither have ay WikiProjects. Why don't we start the nomination all over (especially since it should be the editor who wants the article to undergo review who should nominate it)? It's really the nominator's responsibility to handle these things. WesleyDodds (talk) 14:22, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Here's a diff between the version which passed as a FA and the current version. Actually, Wesley I think you're right - I've struck out my previous comment about the dramatic changes. I guess there has been a large number of edits recently, but I'm not sure that anything major has changed here. The nominator should really state (briefly) why the article now fails the criteria rather than just highlighting them. Are there any specific examples? The only substantial changes seem to be in the Style and influence section, but I don't think the cuts have been significant enough for the article to fail WP:FACR#1b. Papa November (talk) 14:27, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I prefer the status quo as it is. I support the changes which I made through the Style and Influences section as it was superfluous, overlong and ridiculous overkill. I don't think the article fails to meet the criteria for featured article, just because I cut some of the information, mentioned above. The article now is leaner, morce concise and stripped down than before. I support the article as it is and wouldn't want to see the all the superfluous information back on the article, because it just doesn't look good at all. Regards: The Mad Hatter (talk) 14:58, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to go out and say that I prefer the old version. What we have now is their history and a short section on their influence. For a band of their prominence I find that a bit weak. However, I would suggest the best option would be to return the old, longer version as an separate article. Zazaban (talk) 22:13, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

That's fine with me, but it didn't pass out. I and number of other users including NSR77 and A Chain Of Flowers support this cut version. I also supported the bold edits I personally made when moving it into a seperate article, but it didn't pass out. I also think the best option is to move it to a seperate article, but it is up to the users, not only to me. I can make it right away. Just whistle :). Regards: The Mad Hatter (talk) 19:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the main objection at the time was having NOTHING in that section on the main article. Now there is something, so I don't think there would be any objection anymore. Zazaban (talk) 19:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think a separate article is justified, but if you've seen other articles SUCCESSFULLY spun out this way and newly spun out section not being either rapidly filled with genuinely superflous fancruft material, or else rapidly deleted...or... both, in that case it might be a good option. It just seems that when this happens in Wikipedia it's always a prelude to that material being removed altogether, or else an invitation to edit and add way too freely to a pretty decent text which rapidly turns into an atrocity that would never be let back into the main article, or even allowed to stay in Wiki. It's also a dodge of the necessary edits which Mad Hatter talks about- which are necessary to ensure that a page remains concise- but which are also hard edits, something Mad Hatter does not seem to admit, because it's necessary also to make sure a page retains context and that EVEN if a decision is made that entire sections were "superfluous", the work of previous editors in choosing what to cover and finding good sources for it, is not carelessly discarded. To take one example, the influence (on Radiohead) section as it was before, went through and described the band's musical influences in each period of their career. If an editor found the section useless, he could cut the entire section, and if he found the section overlong he could cut down on the number of groups mentioned as influences for each period of their career. In contrast, one example of very bad, careless edits would be an editor who thought the section could be "leaner", and as a result simply chopped off one paragraph without paying too much attention to what was in it. In fact, this is what did happen with this section. It now describes, even in the same detail as always, the band's original influences, their influences in the mid '90s, and their influences on Hail to the Thief and on In Rainbows. Yet it conspicuously lacks ANY mention of their influences during KidA/Amnesiac- easily the most publicized musical influences the band has ever had (which are not mentioned in the history text either) and the real justification to even have that section on Radiohead's musical influences in the first place, since they kept mentioning the influences on those records since then, and their music since then sounds a lot different, doesn't it? At least, writers appear to think so. Anyway I say this not to say anything specific about what form I want the text of that section to take but to point out the careless edits that are infesting this page since late last year and which will go on infesting it unless changes in the article are brought to more people's notice than have been editing it lately. i.e. to the Wiki community which collectively designates a featured article as the best work possible. Re-evaluating the article is the best way to do that. I contacted all the main editors for this article who had done any edits in the past eight months. I attempted to follow the instructions to make a new FAR entry, but there was some complication and it seemed as if I would have to install some software or perhaps I wouldn't be able to do it anyway from an IP address. I understand if this is not the appropriate way to go about this, however, I really suggest the editors here take a closer look at WHAT changes have gone on in the article rather than how many changes, and see if you feel the level of quality has remained constant from September 2008 or more relevantly, from January of last year, when a big push was made to get the article up to featured quality.

I am not trying to single out any one editor such as Mad Hatter here for making bad edits. In fact my guess is Mad Hatter did not make the edit I mentioned, as it was extremely careless and was probably made by someone not familiar with the subject at all. Mad Hatter did however open the page up to "be bold" sort of edits, which frankly appear, sometimes, to be for their own sake, because people can't leave well enough alone. Mad Hatter's user page identifies him as a Darwikinist, and I agree that, over time, Wikipedia is supposed to evolve, and I don't believe that overall things necessarily get worse over time, time can improve many articles in the long run, and bad edits will be corrected, etc. etc. However, articles are always fluctuating in quality, and if you hit them at any moment and demand they justify their recent course of evolution, many of the articles are not changing for the better, and this I believe is one of them. There is no overall plan to the reductions in information, as there have been in some other pages where an allpowerful editor is exerting their vision and it takes a while for to play out in real improvements. I am just seeing information cut, not a lot so far, but in stupid ways. Why have even things like a PNG of Abingdon school (small, and free image, pretty sure) been removed, which gave character to that section of the text? Is it a good idea to cut large swathes of material without making sure citations in the other parts are not broken (as has happened here sometimes)? Is MORE context not actually required of this article than LESS context, even if the article could have said more with fewer words? Shouldn't this article maybe include the sorts of summarizing quotes from print sources that are found in individual album articles in under "response", as a way to characterize the band's musical style, themes, influence, etc.?

Disagree or skim all the above text, the #1 reason this needs to be up for a FAR is this: "does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process." Even the relatively small (compared to initial demanded cut) edits by the exclusionists are already in violation of this principle. Even if this article truly was completely "superfluous", "overlong", "ridiculous", "overkill", and needed to be "leaner", "stripped down" (realize that all that is just RHETORIC? not examples!! the section cutters never justified themselves properly in the first place), the thing to do about it would have been to put the article up for FAR... except, see, it had just been up eight months prior, and the parts of it which these recent editors took offense to where actually the parts of the article that had changed the LEAST in 2008 and most resembled the sections at the time the article was resoundingly promoted to featured. But there was always the chance a different group of FAR reviewers would have seen the article differently and agreed that it needed massive cuts. In any case, the way to cut whole sections (however minor) out of a featured article is not just to "be bold" in doing it w/out consulting the featured article process. It would be to "be bold" in advocating a FAR review. IT IS NOT IN ANYONE'S INTEREST EXCEPT MAYBE A GLEEFUL EDITOR FOR ARTICLES THAT HAVE BEEN PROMOTED TO FEATURED, TO BE CHANGED IN STRUCTURE AND FOCUS WITHOUT WIDE KNOWLEDGE AND APPROVAL OF THE CHANGES BY A SIMILARLY REPRESENTATIVE GROUP AS THOSE WHO ORIGINALLY PROMOTED TO FEATURED.

Can anyone seriously say the article is "stable" today, even lacking any major edit wars? Whether or not I demand an FAR now no one here seems to agree on exactly what structure the article should be in, & there's no consensus on either the '08 text before the change in structure, or the current version. Anyone can see the article is in a state of flux and can go any way, up or down, very soon. And few people seem to have paid attention to the edits or commented on them. Personally I feel that, even with no knowledge of the subject I would not see the article as well written today; it's no longer at featured quality.

70.21.58.96 (talk) 09:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Whew... OK, I'll try to address some of these points:

• Mad Hatter has now restored the style/influences text about Kid A/Amnesiac and I have replaced the lost images. Hopefully this addresses your concerns about criteria 1(b) and 2.
• I still don't see the issue you have with criterion 1(a). As you can see from the difference between the featured and current versions, little has changed between then and now in most of the article. The sections that have altered still seem to be well written. It seems that you are arguing that the quality of the text might degrade over time, but that's an issue common to all featured articles and I don't think it's happened here yet. If there are any specific sections that you see as being poorly written, (i.e. poor quality of prose, not poor content) then we can address those issues very easily.
• Finally, I agree that the stability criterion 1e is possibly an issue. However, I think the current version of the style/influences section is a nice compromise between the two camps and I hope that's the end of this saga! If people really aren't happy with it, then I guess we could temporarily delist the article while we sort it out, but that would be a great shame and hopefully it won't be necessary. Papa November (talk) 11:30, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks, yeah I was being unnecessarily ranty there, and thanks very much to you and Mad Hatter for fixing those areas, especially the Kid A issue (with the images, maybe there is some legitimate reason they had to be removed, I guess we will find out soon enough. seems there are just certain people in Wikipedia who hate the presence of images, sometimes). I could have fixed it myself but I thought it might turn into another edit war. I've been re-reading the history section (and I made a couple of improvements- I hope- to the intro in particular). I guess I do think in general the article probably IS better than it was a year ago- overall. So I suppose item 1(a) isn't an issue at all- in fact I thought some of the sections removed lately could have been better written, even if I do feel some of that information should be in here, so in a way that did fix the writing, if we can prevent more lazy deletions. I still have a problem with the "places it in context" part of 1(b), plus the stability, 1(e). If you look at Brandt Luke Zorn's massive recent work in the OK Computer article as well as creating the new Radiohead tours article, you see where we might go with "context" in order to pack more kaleidoscopic information in less space. It's good that the influences part has stayed, this is VERY important for this band, as their wide range of influences is what's seen to set them apart stylistically, and it's good to have the brief description of band roles even if it's now reduced so one gets less sense of the stress the Kid A sessions put on the band members who played guitar, drums, etc. anyway that IS still hinted. What is absolutely missing is any larger discussion of the band's influence or indeed their aesthetic & STYLE and SONGWRITING, which is the subject of countless books and articles. We need no more than a paragraph on it yet right now we have a single sentence which makes a generalization about their influence on British rock music, neglecting to give an idea even of the specific British bands they have influenced or what about their music exactly was considered influential let alone the acts from other genres and nationalities who have mentioned their interest in the band, or covered their work. Text of this influence section has always been dated, though, focusing on early 2000s. So in a way it's good to have a clean slate to work with on that, and I will withdraw the FAR nomination if possible, but hopefully someone has some ideas on how to make this section better, even if those ideas require us adding back the same number of words we had before... so long as they are better ones, I hope there would be people who would argue those words were worth keeping and argue against "stripped down" as the guiding principle for every article (talk page comments operate on different principles, or don't require the same degree of care, of course, or I wouldn't dare to do anything on Wikipedia), if it means readers, who don't ALREADY know what we know as editors of the topic, get shortchanged. 70.21.58.96 (talk) 12:49, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Given the comments so far, I don't see any problems that couldn't have just been discussed and settled on the article talk page, and thus I feel the FAR should probably be closed. WesleyDodds (talk) 16:56, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I suggested the FAR because I wanted to get some more distant opinions, people who haven't been directly involved in editing the article, nor even in watching it, and get their take on the changes it has undergone, particularly on the change in structure advocated by some editors, and whether they feel this would improve or worsen a featured article such as this. So maybe I misunderstood how FAR works, cause so far you're right, this is just a discussion of the same people who have been discussing these issues on the Radiohead article's talk page. If we can't get other opinions, I vote to stop the FAR. 70.21.58.96 (talk) 10:38, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

If all you wanted was further opinions, you should've asked uninvolved editors. FAR should be the final resort. WesleyDodds (talk) 15:27, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

As far as I know, it's up to the featured article director to close these discussions. However, hopefully he'll agree that there's no need to discuss delisting the article and will draw the matter to a close fairly soon. Papa November (talk) 16:07, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I know, I was just offering a rationale for closing/withdrawing it. WesleyDodds (talk) 01:27, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I think a simple peer review would have made more sense, you're right, but I didn't realize that was possible while the article was featured.

I still say that my point about the correct process for rewriting the article stands. Major rewrites and reorganization which involves removing sections has to take into account the featured article process somehow, and being "bold" doesn't say that editors advocating change can totally ignore that article text already went through a semirigorous review. This is true regardless of how self-evident the need for revisions is among the editors advocating them. In particular, taking out things needs some wider consensus. Rules are not hard & fast, but it confuses collective standards when the process is ignored. 70.21.58.96 (talk) 04:48, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't hang around the article's talk page very often, but from what I saw, most every major change has been discussed before being implemented in the article. While the rewrite of the Musical style section was bold, it did gain consensus after it had been implemented. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:45, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

My point is that relatively few people have participated in the Radiohead talk page lately, so we were not getting the same range of opinions as the ones that originally judged the article fit to be featured in the first place. Even though there was a certain consensus that the changes initiated by Mad Hatter could stay, even on the talk page several commentators seemed unconvinced they were necessary, and it was more a lack of support for the current lengthy version that prompted the agreement than consensus over which changes should be made (note, even on this FAR page, some are advocating splitting the sections off completely, while others want to reduce them and keep them within the article and others still are saying the older version was better, or asking that the contextual sections remain yet be rewritten if possible- my personal preference). With this amount of uncertainty among the regular article editors, I think it would be helpful to get other opinions on those sections of the article and how they could best be improved either to meet, or meet more effectively, the featured article criteria.70.21.58.96 (talk) 04:34, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Once again, FAR is not intended to settle edit disputes. WesleyDodds (talk) 04:12, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Since me and my glorious edits are the spur of such a discussion I would love very much to say that I did what I consider best for the article with taking a criteria of my own: one of good, solid, referenced information that takes a stripped down approach. Approach of not going over-the-top of what is needed to conjure and enchant the usual reader of Wikipedia. So I did what I do the best. Taking down unnecessary information that isn't evidently needed in order to give the reader the best possible downview of the selected topic. So, this stripped version had to go, because we need some sort of resolution. Let's fucking face it: it is overkill for God's sake. It is unnecessary from journalistic point of view. We need bare stripped down approach to articles, otherwise Wikipedia is far from perfection. That's why I supported a stripped down approach to Britney Spears, but notability was against me and I had to back down. Nevertheless, the battle is far from over on other articles that need to space into different dimension of existence. It is necessary to keep unnecessary information away from them, i. e. in order to keep future direction into minimising the damage of the up and coming new info of the article. This info generally is fast enlargement and we need to keep it updated and minimal in order to efectively end the overkill. That's what I think of the entire situation. With all my regards: The Mad Hatter (talk) 19:26, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are comprehensiveness and stability. Joelito (talk) 15:50, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

• Keep The article hasn't changed much and still adheres to FA criteria. Really the only reason we're here is because the IP disagreed with discussions on the talk page. This was never really an issue to bring to FAR. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:26, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
• Keep A compromise version of the disputed section has been written and the article appears to have stabilised again. Comparing the current and featured version shows that little has changed with respect to comprehensiveness. Papa November (talk) 09:01, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
• Comment The article is heavly linked, and the first thing a sea of blue indicates to me is that the article might be listy and construced in a fact, fact & fact manner, with little overview or context. That seems to be the case in the current version, it reads like a CV. Ceoil (talk) 23:12, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Re the above cmt: "we need to keep it...minimal in order to efectively end the overkill". I couldn't agree less and I would suggestion giving this minority openion the attention it deserves, ignore it. Asking for a "stripped down approach" is just a total misunderstanding of what the encylopedia is capable of and why we are here. Ceoil (talk) 23:20, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Please address the deadlinks: [2]. One of the deadlinks (therestisnoise) does not seem to match the details of the reference (New Yorker). DrKiernan (talk) 09:18, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

• Keep The article looks good to me; just some minor points:
  • In the lead, I would rephrase "2000's..." so as to avoid a number at the start of a sentence.
  • I was expecting the section "Influence on others" to be about their influence on other musicians, but it doesn't seem to be. I would probably merge this section with the section above it by simply removing the section heading.
  • I find the sentences "Since their formation Radiohead have, lyrically and musically, been spearheaded by Yorke. An exception to this dynamic is songwriting. Although Yorke is responsible for writing nearly all the lyrics, songwriting is a collaborative effort." contradictory. I would probably just remove "An exception to this dynamic is songwriting."
  • According to the Manual of Style, punctuation should be outside quotation marks if not part of the quote and ellipses should be preceded by a non-breaking space. DrKiernan (talk) 11:25, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

• Comment As a former contributor, I can see that the article has really devolved, especially in the intro and the presentation of info in the In Rainbows section. Particularly, I'd single out Mad Hatter's edits as the primary cause of this. Monitor his edits more closely! 71.97.74.50 (talk) 23:14, 16 February 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 17:08, 21 February 2009 [3].

---

Scouting

Review commentary

former FAR

Relevant parties notified of this FAR: WP:WikiProject Scouting (diff), User:Rlevse - "Lead Coordinator" of WP Scouting (diff)

My rationale for this FAR is the following:

• Wikipedia:WIAFA #1a: A couple sentences begin with numbers (e.g., 367) when they should be written out ("three-hundred and sixty-seven")
• Wikipedia:WIAFA #1a:Membership section is an inappropriate embedded list, with little prose introduction and elaboration
  • Fixed. Could still be elaborated. --Eustress (talk) 19:25, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
• Wikipedia:WIAFA #1a: Under Scouting#Scout method, there is a list with only one bullet
  • Section has been significantly expanded. --Eustress (talk) 18:42, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
• Wikipedia:WIAFA #1b: The Controversy and conflict and In film and the arts sections are quite anemic despite having their links to their own articles
• Wikipedia:WIAFA #1c: Seven of the sources appear to be dead (Checklinks) --Eustress (talk) 17:08, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
• Wikipedia:WIAFA #1c: Article is lacking a plethora of citations, as indicated by the 23 "citation needed" tags added --Eustress (talk) 17:08, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
• Wikipedia:WIAFA #1d: POV: "It is the use of the Scout method that binds Scouts together, worldwide."
  • Fixed. --Eustress (talk) 19:27, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
• Wikipedia:WIAFA #3: Several images are not appropriately placed in the article next to a section with corresponding text—some perhaps even bordering irrelevancy to the article
• Wikipedia:WIAFA #3: Images need more elaborate captions to explain relevancy to article/section
  • Fixed.

I hope these issues can be addressed to get this back up to FA standards, but I feel that some of these issues will take time to resolve and that the best course of action might be to demote the article. Best regards --Eustress (talk) 01:38, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

A lot of this is very subjective and the last one is counter to WIAFA guidelines, which calls for "succinct" captions, not elaborate ones. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:59, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:CAP says that a good caption "establishes the picture's relevance to the article." A caption should be succinct, but "succinctness is not the same as brevity," and my concern was that the current captions do not establish relevancy. I see you've started to make some changes on the article to this effect. --Eustress (talk) 02:53, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment by doncram Nice article. But I notice that the article does not develop the division/distinctions between Girl Guides vs. Girl Scouts which are discussed in some detail in Marti Gerdes, Robert W. Blythe, and Patty Henry (March 21, 2005), National Register of Historic Places Inventory-Nomination: Juliette Gordon Low Historic District. See p. 20 especially. Link to the full PDF at Juliette Gordon Low Historic District. It is a reliable source providing great detail on Juliette Gordon Low who should be discussed in this Scouting article. Also it describes that Campfire Girls was pre-existing and did not choose to join the U.S. Girl Guide movement. There is, basically, a lot there which I think should be woven into this Scouting article. I am peer reviewing a related article on scouting in South Africa, by the way. doncram (talk) 02:32, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Keep in mind this article is international in scope, it is not US specific. It should not delve too far into country/organization specifics. Low was almost exclusively an American Girl Scout leader. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:39, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Point taken, but the source is eloquent on interesting stuff, like how Baden-Powell and others did not envision girls as "Scouts", consistent with wider views that women should be men's "helpmeets" instead, hence Guides not Scouts, while Low and others came to view that girls deserved more and/or there was interesting U.S. vs. British tension. Also the Campfire Girls organization is/was very large and i think it is not mentioned in the article. Anyhow, just read the source i suggest and i think you'll find it interestingly complementary to what's in the article, too. doncram (talk) 07:07, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I just brought this up here because this was open; I have no opinion about whether the article needs to be under review. Will copy this to talk page instead, given others' comments below. I am done here. doncram (talk) 21:07, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

• Many of the "nominator's" points are the type of arbitrary fault-finding that can be done with any article, including any featured one. The case is not particularly convincing. The nominator fails to mention that he or she added the "citation needed" and "original research" templates him/herself. I reviewed some of the statements so-tagged, and most of the tags seem arbitrary, unnecessary, and lacking in rigor. Sure, the article can be improved, but we don't need big guns. As long as the templates stay in place, of course—whether there is any justification for them or not—we get the cheap appearance of an FA that belongs at FAR. That's not thoughtful analysis of an article, it's a game played on wikipedia. –Outriggr § 03:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
• Most of the nominator's points are unclear or without connection to the context of the article, nearly all of his excessive set {{fact}}-tags are unnecessary or referenced in neighbouring sentences. Including an {{or}}-tag on the usage of long trousers as a potential part of the Scout uniform ([4], line 99) is very close to disruptive behaviour.
  However, I added some of the demanded references, which were - with one exception - all used earlier in paragraphs close to the demanded reference. --jergen (talk) 10:50, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
• Comment The outdates refs and legit cite tags are all fixed. Many of the cite tags were mere Wikipedia:Tag_bombing. As Outriggr alludes to, most of the rest of this is rather WP:POINTy. It should also be noted that moments prior to this FAR being filed these threads occurred with the nom and myself directly related to this article: Talk:Scouting#Pics and captions, User_talk:Rlevse#FAR, Talk:Boy_Scouts_of_America#MIA Scouts. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:52, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

→It's nice to see progress on this article. The hope is that FAs can be rescued through FAR if possible. I've put a strike through the citation concerns, which have all been addressed. --Eustress (talk) 17:08, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Preferably, these issues should be taken up on the talk page first. Anyway, since we are here, I will take advantage and see if there are any prose/MOS tweaks to be made. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:05, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with Outriggr, Rlevse, and Dabomb87. The legit issues here are already fixed and given the links Rlevse has provided, this FAR certainly looks retaliatory but I hope it's not. The proper place for the very minor issues that remain is, as Dabomb87 says, the talk page. This FAR should be dismissed and the remain discussion picked up on Talk:ScoutingSumoeagle179 (talk) 20:53, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to pile on, but I completely agree with Dabomb and Rlevse. Most of the concerns raised are minor issues, and should have been addressed via talk page discussion. However, the article has made quite a bit of progress, so I think this FAR can be closed. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 15:30, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are citations, MoS, and prose. Joelito (talk) 15:41, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

• Keep The only real issue here was refs and the nominator has already said that's fixed. As other commentators have pointed out, the rest of this is minor differences in style and preference and could be brought up of any FA, and that does not warrant losing FA status. Any remaining issues should be brought up at Talk:Scouting. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:21, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
• Keep per Outriggr. --evrik ^(talk) 04:33, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
• Keep/Withdraw FAR I appreciate everyone's comments and now realize that most of these issues are minor, as I have been able to easily resolve some of them. Please withdraw this FAR. I will instigate such inquiries on talk pages in the future. Thank you! --Eustress (talk) 19:32, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. The remaining issues are not really issues. Rationale #1 about sentences starting with numbers like 367 seems just silly to me. Small numbers should be spelled out but larger numbers should be numeric. Rationale #4 on the "Controversy and conflict" and "In film and the arts" sections seems to have little weight as the main material is in the links at the top of each section. Perhaps they could be improved and I am sure they will be, but they are not a FA issue. All the other issues have been dealt with. This review has improved the article, but it should now be closed as "keep FA status". --Bduke (Discussion) 00:08, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. Not only should this not have been filed, the nom has withdrawn. Trivial issues are left. No reason to delist this. Sumoeagle179 (talk) 11:03, 20 February 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 15:33, 17 February 2009 [5].

---

Lazare Ponticelli

Review commentary

Notified: WP BIO, WP World's Oldest People, WP MILHIST, Bart Versieck, Editorofthewiki, Canadian Paul.

I'm unsure why this was promoted earlier in the year. IMO, it fails Criteria 1a (poor prose throughout) and 2 (MoS breaches, such as the range-hyphens in the infobox and the linked date at the opening, still not satisfactorily justified on the talk page), with a question mark over Criterion 1b (it's hard to believe that it's comprehensive—a person's whole life and, specifically, his role in the war and symbolic meaning as the last survivor). The repetition and density of the inline citations unnecessarily affects the appearance and readability of the text (cf. the requirement for a professional standard of formatting). Tony (talk) 11:36, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

• "The repetition and density of the inline citations unnecessarily affects the appearance and readability of the text." Give me a break. I have cited everthing challengeable, as per WP:V. "Poor prose throughout" - You only provided one example of supposed poor prose on the talk page, which I didn't see was a problem but was fixed nonetheless. Please provide more examples to back this up. I have no clue about hyphens, so I'd like someone else to fix that. The linked date at the opening clearly passes WP:MOSNUM as there is a clear reason do do so, as explained on the talk page, and bringing this here because you don't like that may be a bit pointy. I will search for new sources, though last time I checked we covered about everything. I'm having technical difficulty on my computer over the last couple of days so I don't know if I can add much until it's fixed. Oh, and Ponticelli was not the last French veteran, just the last poilu. ~the editorofthewiki ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 16:18, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

• I see no reason to demote the article, the citations don't seem to be a problem to me; I prefer multiple citations for contentious points, in fact. Support Retention as Featured Article Skinny87 (talk) 17:04, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Declarations of "Keep"/"Remove" (or other related comments) are not made at this stage. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:25, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - At the request of EOTW I will look through this article. I will try and c-e all points that are a little messy, but I don't think there are as many problems as needed to go to FAR. —Ceran^{»^«} 20:04, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment Certainly not "brilliant, engaging prose throughout", which would make it a 1a failure. Sorry. Some examples include:

• "was the last official French veteran of the First World War and poilu, or foot soldier, of its trenches" I have difficulty making sense of this in its current form. Perhaps simply "was the last official French veteran of the First World War" and explain poilu later on in the article? It's difficult to try and work it into a compact sentence in the lead and, I would guess, it is not key to the topic.
  • Couldn't do much for this. I reworded it somewhat to "was the last official French veteran of the First World War and poilu, or foot soldier, of its trenches." I hope this satisfies your concern. ~the editorofthewiki ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 01:28, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
    • 'Fraid not - still a very awkward sentence. I really do suggest dropping the attempt to explain poilu until the body of the article. 4u1e (talk) 17:41, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
      • Okay, I fixed that into the notes. ~the editorofthewiki ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 21:27, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
        • Well, the footnote means that at least when someone is confused they can find out what is meant, but it really should be possible to create wording here that is clear in the first place. Can I start again with a simple question: why is it necessary to mention poilu in the lead? 4u1e (talk) 08:18, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
• "At the time of his death, Ponticelli was both the oldest living man born in Italy and the oldest man living in France" Bit tricky - there's got to be a neater way of putting it that doesn't involve the obvious contradiction of Ponticelli being the oldest living person at his death. Possibly, "Before his death in March 2008, Ponticelli was the oldest living man born in Italy and the oldest man living in France." (Specifying "both" is redundant.)
  • Basically done exactly as you said. Mentioning "March 2008" would be equally as redundant, since I already said that earlier in the lead. ~the editorofthewiki ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 01:25, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Fine (but I would say that, wouldn't I? ;-)) 4u1e (talk) 17:41, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
• "He described the event in an undated interview as "blood running through [his] eyes", but he "continued firing despite [his] wound."" This really doesn't make any sense. The quote is also inaccurately transcribed from its source. Looking at the reference, I suggest: "In an undated interview, he described being shot by Austrian troops: "Blood was running into my eyes ... I continued firing despite my wound."
  • Sory about that. Done. ~the editorofthewiki ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 01:56, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
• These are examples only. In general I would say that the text is rather clunky, with the linkages between ideas not clearly drawn out. I suggest getting a really good copyeditor to go over it.
  • I contacted Dabomb87. ~the editorofthewiki ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 01:56, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
    • I left a couple of inline queries you may want to address. I'll try to go through the text more closely tomorrow. Anyway, we have plenty of time. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:43, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
      • I agree and fixed most of them. However, I purposely used "first World War" and "World War I" for variety. If I just stuck to one or the other, the text IMO would be blander. ~the editorofthewiki ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 02:03, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
        • I suggest that in this case it is better to be consistent with terminology. There is also the question of WP:ENGVAR. IIRC, World War I is mainly American usage and First World War mainly UK usage. The article seems to be written in American English, so I suggest standardising on World War I. 4u1e (talk) 08:26, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
          • FYI, not that this should influence anyone, but I'm from the U.S. and I use both terms interchangably. ~the editorofthewiki ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 01:43, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Having read a couple of the sources, I am now also concerned about criterion 1c (factual accuracy). For example:

• The article links the quote given above about being shot to Ponticelli's injury during an attack on an Austrian position. However, there is nothing in the two sources used to link these two events. In fact, they suggest they are separate events, since in the first case the Austrians surrendered, and in the second the attack was "futile". Article needs to be checked throughout for similar examples of WP:SYNTHESIS, and for accuracy of facts and quotes.
  • I don't see where you're coming from when you say the source doesn't link the events. Quote THe Times: "There he was serving as a machinegunner when he was seriously wounded by a shell burst during one of the many futile Italian assaults on welldefended Austrian mountain positions." ~the editorofthewiki ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 01:58, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
    • That's because the wording has been changed since I made the point. The version I reviewed explicitly linked the wounding and the quote: "Ponticelli was seriously wounded by a shell during an assault on an Austrian mountain position.[1] He described the event in an undated interview...[2]" The undated interview describes a different event. The current wording in this case is OK now, but you need to check for similar unwarranted synthesis throughout the article - this is just one example that leapt out at me after a glance at two of the refs. 4u1e (talk) 08:02, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm also a little worried about potential plagiarism, compare:

• "With the entry of Italy into the First World War in 1915, Ponticelli was told he had to join the Italian Army and was discharged. At first refusing to leave, Ponticelli was escorted by two gendarmes to Torino, where he joined 3 Alpini Regiment for service against the Austrians" from the article with
• "But in 1915, with the entry of Italy into the war on the Allied side he was told he must join the Italian Army and was discharged. Refusing at first to be parted from his French uniform, he was firmly escorted by two gendarmes to Turin, where he joined a regiment of Alpinieri for service on the Austrian front." from ref 2, the Times article.

That's a very close paraphrase - could other editors comment on whether this is a problem? I haven't checked for other examples. Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 00:37, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

• • That doesn't seem terribly close to me, so it shouldn't be a problem. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 14:25, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Really? The second first one seems clearly derived from the first second with only minimal changes. I doubt it would stand up to a legal challenge...but if no-one else agrees with me, I'll let it go. 4u1e (talk) 17:38, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
      • I would call it clear plagiarism as well. So a little rework should be necessary.--HJensen, talk 18:38, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't think this is a problem, though I can rework it a bit if you wish. ~the editorofthewiki ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 00:43, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
    • No worries, I changed it to "With the entry of Italy into the First World War in 1915, Ponticelli was forced to join the Italian Army and was summararily discharged. At first refusing to leave, Ponticelli was led by two gendarmes to Torino to enlist in the 3 Alpini Regiment, where he served against the Austrian Army." ~the editorofthewiki ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 01:49, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
      • That's probably enough of a change to get away with it. You're still directly paraphrasing the original though: you introduce the same ideas in the same order with the same sentence structure. You need to check throughout the article for similar cases. Can I suggest that if in doing so you find other examples, you try and throw away the original text and write from scratch? I strongly suspect that in this case at least the original text was cut and pasted from the newspaper article (not necessarily by you, I hasten to add!) and then modified. When this is done, it's inevitable that the article ends up with the appearance of plagiarism. 4u1e (talk) 08:18, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
        • That's a common practise of mione: I copy text directly from the source and then reword it. Apparently in this case I didn't reword it enough, tough I never thought that the entire practice was inherantly wrong. ~the editorofthewiki ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 21:43, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
          • Like all things, it depends. In my opinion (which you are free to ignore!) it's a very bad habit, because it leads to the situation we have here in which the text has been only very lightly modified - which is plagiarism, or theft, if you're feeling righteous about it. A much better approach (imho) is to read all the relevant sources, write up the article, or chunks thereof, from memory or notes of key facts and then check what you have written against the sources. 4u1e (talk) 16:55, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
        • I restored the word "escorted", because that is really the best word, if not the only word that conveys what happened. I also changed "Torino" to "Turin" as this is the English Wikipedia, and besides, the redirect is to Turin.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:21, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
          • I've got no problem with either of those points, but it takes the wording closer to the original again. Can the information be more fundamentally restructured? 4u1e (talk) 08:28, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I played with it considerably. See what you think.

• I've had a go as well and produced a version I'm happy with (natch!). See below for another example, though. This really does need sorting out throughout. 4u1e (talk) 19:12, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Another direct lift from one of the sources: Compare "His Italian Alpine regiment had once stopped firing for three weeks on the Austrians, whose language many of them spoke; they had swapped loaves of bread for tobacco and taken pictures of each other." (from The Economist) with "His regiment once stopped firing for three weeks on the Austrians, whose language many of them spoke, swapping loaves of bread for tobacco, with the opposing soldiers taking pictures of each other" in the article. Looks like a systematic problem. This needs rooting out throughout the article. 4u1e (talk) 18:38, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

• Changed to "Once, his regiment stopped fighting the Austrians for three weeks. The armies, who mostly spoke the same tongue, swapped loaves of bread for tobacco and photographed each other." ~the editorofthewiki ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 23:07, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

• The toolbox indicates dabs that need repair and dead links. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:58, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Fixed. ~the editorofthewiki ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 22:47, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

• I had a go at copy-editing the lead and found lots of issues. See inline queries. One instance where I'm unsure of my edit (see talk). Tony (talk) 13:46, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Now that I think about it, it is kinda odd to refer to the language of the Austrians, which was a rather polyglot empire ...--Wehwalt (talk) 22:56, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
    • I fixed many of them, athough the last I was unable to resolve. The sources didn't say how he accepted the funeral, and anyway, that would be trivial. ~the editorofthewiki ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 23:12, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm starting to wonder about the comprehensiveness of this article. Did the man marry? We don't know, though he left a daughter, so odds are. Were there other children? I realize these things may not be in the newspaper articles, but I see in the biblio a French language book by Lazare, which probably has some details of his life (published in 2005). It may not be easy to obtain, and the translation may be an issue, isn't a Featured Article intended to comprehensively cover the subject matter? And if we can't say for sure the man married, or how many times if so, then is the article comprehensive? I'm just not sure, so having exhausted my own wisdom (matter of microseconds), I'm wondering what others think on this.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:20, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

The article doesn't have to give every detail to be comprehensive - if those details are not available. However, I skimmed through the French language news sources last night and was left with the impression that the article doesn't even cover everything from those. For example, according to l'Express.fr, Ponticelli re-discovered his brother Celeste by chance when he joined the Foreign Legion, and the recruiting sergeant noticed that there was another Ponticelli on the register ("«Ponticelli? Il y en a déjà un inscrit sur le registre», s'interroge le sergent recruteur. C'est ainsi que Lazare retrouve son frère aîné, Céleste..") Much more interesting than the bald statement that they were both in the same unit. The book may have more on Ponticelli, probably focussed more on the company, which might make an interesting addition. Does anyone on fr.wiki have access to it, I wonder? 4u1e (talk) 16:46, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. Don't see it on Google books, is there a French equivalent of same? But by running a google books search, I see four French language books that mention him. A couple look fairly interesting, if I spoke French, which I don't.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:46, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

See here. Not sure it's much help though. 4u1e (talk) 14:53, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I speak a wee bit of French, though I need a translator for the book. I guess I'll go through the French sources, though there is really nothing more I can find in english. ~the editorofthewiki ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 21:10, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I can read French pretty well still (just don't ask me to speak it!). If you have anything in the French sources you want to confirm your understanding of, or you want translated, let me know. 4u1e (talk) 10:56, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Probably your best shot is to find someone French who has access to the books (at fr.wiki?) - if you do that, there's a fair chance that they'll speak good enough English to work with you on this article. 4u1e (talk) 10:59, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

It would be pretty hard to find anyone with the books except perhaps members of the Ponticelli family, and anyway, where would I look. The same problem arose at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1964 Gabon coup d'état - it seems impossible to find anyone who can help. Nonetheless, I'll try to obtain the books so perhaps you can help with problematic phrases. FYI I'm currently going through the Google News Archive for Ponticelli - I'm not really finding much new, just a bunch of repeated information. ~the editorofthewiki ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 15:07, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Um, email the company and explain the situation and see if they can get you a copy?--Wehwalt (talk) 11:32, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not willing to pay money for a book I can barely read. I'll try to pick it up on interlibrary loan, though, so please don't start the FARC until then. ~the editorofthewiki ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 15:10, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)Well, I meant for free. After all, you are giving them and Their Founder good publicity, least they can do is help out with a copy from the boxes that are probably choking the dusty back room anyway! And if they say non, at least you tried.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:14, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Don't mean to chime in here at the tail-end of the conversation. But, EoTW: the company may actually be willing to provide you with a copy of the book. Wehwalt makes a good point. Something to think about; plus, there is no cost outside of the postage necessary for the letter (or you could try emailing!) Lazulilasher (talk) 00:09, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

No need: I'm having it sent in from out of state, may take 10-12 days. Besides, I'm kind of uncomfortable with giving my address out to strangers, if you know what I mean... ~the editorofthewiki ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 01:09, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Coming in March or April. It is clearly a book a scholar would have trouble finding, considering there are 0 copies in the U.S. of A. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 00:07, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are prose and comprehensiveness. Joelito (talk) 18:09, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

As I said above, could we not start the FARC until I get the books? I admit it's taking time, although that's the fault of my stupid library. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 23:17, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

(tl;dr on the above discussion, so sorry if this was already discussed) Is it possible to access the books through Google Books? –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 23:22, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I felt that too much time without no activity had elapsed waiting for the books. I will allow extra time in FARC if necessary. Joelito (talk) 23:26, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Juliancolton: No, it is not possible to view on Google Books. I'm not even sure if it is on Google Books. In fact, I'm not even sure where I discovered its existance in the first place. But it exists, and I'm having it cone to my library via interlibrary loan. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 00:58, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Update: The book is being shipped from Germany. It's going to take two months. I don't know how to proceed. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 19:51, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Either hold or dismiss with permission for restarting in March. It's not clear to me whether there are any current prose issues anyway, so a restart would be helpful. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:57, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I have asked Tony to revisit to review the prose again. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:51, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

• Spot-check: first sentence I landed on was:
  • "Although he could not speak French, he found work as a chimney sweep in Nogent-sur-Marne and later as a paper boy in Paris." Um ... are these jobs that would require the incumbent to speak? Query the logic of "Although".
    • Well, I imagine that it would be pretty tough to find a job in a country whose language you do not speak. Nonetheless, I changed the sentence to "He could not speak French, though he found work as a chimney sweep in Nogent-sur-Marne and later as a paper boy in Paris." ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 00:49, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Then:

• • "Despite the amount of labor produced by the Ponticelli family"—Very odd.
    • "The Ponticelli family's hard work"? ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 00:51, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
  • "Austria–Italy" border: en dash.
    • Done. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 00:54, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Blood quote: space before ellipsis dots.
    • Done. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 00:54, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Look, I haven't the energy to object further at the moment. It's certainly improved, given this process. But it's quirky to say the least, and not an FA we'd want to hold up as "our best work". I don't mind if it stays, I suppose. Tony (talk) 14:15, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

• The jobs are not unparallelled by any means, but it is noteworthy to be able to hold a job without a common language with the boss; there is no suggestion that the chimney-sweepers of Nogent are the Italian colony in France. Certainly there is an opposition here, which is all although requires. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Neutral Regarding the question of sources, I guess we should put this review on hold in some way until the potentially higher quality source is available. Can anyone advise on a process for doing so? Other than that, the writing is better by far than it was at the start of the this exercise. I wouldn't say it was brilliant prose, but it's serviceable. I've got a query at the reference desk on one of the translations and will pick that up when I get an answer. I'm still a little concerned about potentially rather casual use of sources - in my recent trawl through I found one case where the words in the article were not supported by the source. 4u1e (talk) 18:58, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I haven't read the discussion above. The article is still phrased idiosyncratically, which makes it difficult to read in places. For example, "At the time of his death, Ponticelli was both the oldest man living born in Italy and the oldest man living in France." Well, no one is living at the time of their death. Of greater concern though, is that this sentence is not supported by the reference given [6]. The reference says he is the last surviving poilu, but does not say he is the oldest living man in France, or the oldest living man born in Italy. DrKiernan (talk) 17:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Fixed the first problem. I'll fix the second when my damn computer will stop being broken all the time. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 22:49, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

What is the status on the book? Dabomb87 (talk) 04:54, 11 February 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 21:49, 7 February 2009 [7].

---

Zion National Park

Review commentary

Notified: Mav, Tylas, Ratagonia, Vsmith, WikiProject Protected areas, WikiProject Utah, WikiProject Earthquakes. Cirt (talk) 04:01, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Primarily 1 (c) issues throughout. Most of the images are probably okay, but the article could use a comprehensive image review to make sure all the requisite info is on the image pages, and some images could also be moved to Commons. Was promoted to FA back in 2004. Cirt (talk) 03:53, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

• Mav (talk · contribs) is usually good with fixing up FARs. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 04:00, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
• Hm. For some reason I thought this had inline cites. Adding them shouldn't be a problem. --mav (talk) 04:20, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
• Mav, would you like to ask to postpone this until the below FAR is done? I'm sure Marskell, Sandy, or Joel wouldn't mind. Or Raul for that matter. —Ceran^thor 02:55, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

• The other Mav FAR has been up for three weeks already, so he can probably handle both. Joelito will allow all the time needed: Mav has never let a FAR fail. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:22, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

• Sounds like Mav is quite capable with these, I don't mind if it takes some time. Cirt (talk) 03:33, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

First ref pass done. More later. --mav (talk) 03:17, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Nice work so far. Cirt (talk) 03:34, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Second ref pass done. Getting closer. --mav (talk) 00:53, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Third and final ref pass complete. Final copyedit and MOS pass still needed. --mav (talk) 01:07, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Mav, will take care of the copyedit yourself? This article might not require FARC. Joelito (talk) 02:06, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I plan to work more on this article this weekend. --mav (talk) 04:00, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

 Done Copyedit, image and MOS fixes now complete (I hope). I think we are done now. --mav (talk) 18:45, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

How does everyone feel about this one? Is FARC needed? Joelito (talk) 22:24, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think FARC is necessary at this point, although I would prefer if some of the bullet point lists within the article were incorporated into the prose. Aside from that, the article is very close to, if not at, the current FA standards. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 22:28, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: The article looks much, much better. However, there are still a few uncited sentences in spots - I added {{fact}} tags to these to denote where some work still needs to be done. Cirt (talk) 09:22, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

• I removed a couple {{facts}} from uncontroversial info that don't require a source and are purely descriptive. Cheers, –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 14:21, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

• [8] and [9]. Please restore these two {{fact}} tags. This information at present is uncited - so who is making these assertions? Wikipedians? Cirt (talk) 14:29, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, actually. That information can be obtained by anyone at anytime. Furthermore, WP:CITE states that information that is likely to be challenged needs a citation, and saying a road closes in the winter is sufficiently uncontroversial. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 14:39, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

• Perhaps for the road being closed in the winter. But you also removed a {{fact}} tag after the information: Winter storms can last several days and make roads icy. Zion roads are plowed, except the Kolob Terrace Road and the Kolob Canyons Road, which are closed when covered with snow. Winter driving conditions persist from November through March. = says who? How do we know those particular roads close? Or that driving conditions do not persist from December through February, and not November through March? Sounds like Wikipedians are just making up uncited information here. Cirt (talk) 14:56, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

• But again, that's purely description information that anyone can obtain. However, I'll add it back in, as it's not really a big deal. Cheers, –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 16:28, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you. Cirt (talk) 16:37, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

• I'm out of town right now but will fix the last issues when I get back on Sunday. --mav (talk) 03:51, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

  All of the fact tags either removed b/c a cite was added, its sentence was deleted or b/c it was not needed. A few examples on where fact tags are not needed are listed below:

  Stream gradient sentence b/c previous cited sentence mentions uplift. One follows from the other.

  Services along Route 9 & in Mt. Carmel Junction b/c anybody using an online mapping service can confirm that. No need to provide cites to a sampling of commercial websites of these services.

  Hanging valley ; any detailed map of the area can confirm that and the example cited is not controversial or likely to be challenged.

  Anything else? --mav (talk) 02:45, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

No, that sounds great. Excellent work. Cirt (talk) 11:53, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

• I gave this a copyedit. A few remaining issues:

• I left a couple hidden comments/questions.
• I dislike the presentation of the 'Notable geographical features' section. The first item doesn't really belong in the bulleted list because it's not a named feature but rather a map (and an external link, at that); perhaps it would be better presented in an explanatory lead-in sentence. For the other list items, where a wiki article exists, wouldn't it be sufficient to link that article, rather than that article plus multiple images?
• Do all the subsections of 'Historic period' actually belong there, or should some be moved up one level to 'Human history'?

Looking good otherwise. I really like the images in this one. Maralia (talk) 17:51, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

• • Thank you for the copyedit! 'Notable geographical features' subsection turned into a paragraph and no more than one (image) link is behind each named feature now. Subsections under historic period promoted to level 2 headings. I think I addressed all of your hidden comments - please take a look. --mav (talk) 22:33, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are citations and prose. Joelito (talk) 14:43, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

• Keep - Great work and improvements by Mav (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 15:32, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

• Keep - Agree with Cirt, great work. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 15:39, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

• Hold Thanks for the kind words but I want to address Maralia's concerns before we close this FAR as a Keep. NOTE: I often don't have the energy after work to edit so it normally takes until the next weekend for me to address comments. --mav (talk) 20:53, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

  Comments addressed. I vote Keep now. If any other valid issues exist, I will address them. -- mav (talk) 22:33, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

• Keep I feel that all prose and citation issues have been addressed. Maralia (talk) 23:50, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
• Keep YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 02:05, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
• Comment Reference 8 is a broken link. Joelito (talk) 16:00, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

  Fixed by removing it. I have no idea of who added that but the cite was not needed. I suspect linkspam trying to pass as a cite. --mav (talk) 00:36, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

  Dabs need fixing. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:58, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

  Neat tool - dabs now fixed. --mav (talk) 17:08, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

• Keep Good job Mav. Will add this to my to-visit list. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:28, 1 February 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 17:46, 7 February 2009 [10].

---

Hubble Deep Field

Review commentary

Notifying Mike Peel, Marskell, Ashill, and WilyD.

I really hate nominating interesting articles for review here, but this one is just so far from the standard. Problems with 1a, 1c, although its five references are somewhat accurate so far, and mainly, 2c. —Ceran [ speak ] 14:27, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure why I've been notified, as I've never actually edited the article... I suggest that the appropriate wikiprojects are notified (e.g. WP:ASTRO).

However, I would agree with you that the article needs significant reworking if it is to stay as a featured article, especially with respect to references. I would volunteer to do some of that, but I really don't have the time at the moment. Mike Peel (talk) 19:17, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I notified several people I knew were experienced with these types of articles from WP:ASTRO, and from personal experience. Sorry to bother you, if you feel like I've intruded. That goes with the rest of you, too. —Ceran [ speak ] 19:31, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry about it: it's always better to over-notify than under-notify, and as it's turned out I've had some time to do a bit of work on the article. Mike Peel (talk) 23:06, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I can sort out 1c and 2c, though it's (again) going to be a slow process as I have trouble with my internet connection at the moment. As far as the referencing goes, much of the information comes from Williams et al. (1996). I can also check whether Scientific results-section needs update. I cannot do much with 1a, though. Random astronomer (talk) 15:01, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I will help after 10 January, when I will have access to journals again (now I am out of work). Ruslik (talk) 18:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are citations and prose. 18:11, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I believe that prose issues are sorted (if not, please point out areas which need improvement), and there are now only three parts which need citations (marked with [citation needed]) which should be fixable. Hence the article should be kept featured. Mike Peel (talk) 20:23, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I added citations. Ruslik (talk) 14:13, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Anyone else wishes to comment before I close this one? Joelito (talk) 22:46, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

All issues have been addressed as I can judge. Ruslik (talk) 13:52, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I found one instance of awkward phrasing: "Positioned above the atmosphere, Hubble avoids atmospheric airglow allowing it to take more sensitive visible and ultraviolet light images than can be obtained with seeing-limited ground-based telescopes (when good adaptive optics correction at visible wavelengths becomes possible, 10 m ground-based telescopes may become competitive)." I had to read it a couple of times to understand. I think the particular difficulties are "seeing-limited", which was a few too many verbs for me to parse, and the parenthetical statement. Can the bit in brackets be removed, moved to a footnote, rephrased or taken out of brackets?

As I'm not an astronomer, I was not able to decide whether the statement: "It is believed that giant elliptical galaxies form when spirals and irregular galaxies collide." requires a citation or not. Obviously, I don't know how obvious a statement it is.

Great article; nice pictures too. DrKiernan (talk) 17:39, 6 February 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 17:44, 7 February 2009 [11].

---

Music of Athens, Georgia

Notified: WP Rock music, WP Georgia, TUF-KAT.

previous FAR (14:46, 15 March 2008)

I'm concerned that this article no longer meets criteria 1a, b, d. The first problem I notice is that there are a ton of red links. Do acts even need to be mentioned in this page if they're not worthy of having articles? By padding the article with so many facts about (purportedly) non-notable acts and venues, it seems to make the article seem thrown together. Furthermore, the "origins of the modern scene" has a fully unsourced paragraph, and part of the "Rock" and "Other styles" sections have unsourced claums. I'm finding unsourced OR puffery like "Athens also has a small, but loyal hardcore/metal music scene. Venues such as Tasty World, DT's and LunchPaper held regular shows featuring bands including The Knife Trade, Another Broken Vehicle, and Aegis of Athena." creeping in, which also has me concerned about 1e (stability). Other problematic pieces of prose (how's that for alliteration?) include vague numbers ("housed a number of black professional businesses as well as many performance spaces"), yet more original research ("The B-52's and R.E.M. became by far the most famous…" and "that made R.E.M. the top underground band in the country") passages not backed up by sources. Furthermore, there seems to be more weight given to the B-52s and R.E.M. than other groups. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 00:41, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

See WP:RED; redlinks are not a valid objection. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:46, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

This article was on the main page two days ago. Have you raised these concerns in the article's talk page? I am sure that the talk page would be a better forum than FAR at this moment. Joelito (talk) 01:21, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Red links alone are not a valid objection, but the high number of them gives me the feeling that the article is being used to promote subjects which would otherwise not be mentioned on Wikipedia. Yes, I'm aware that this was just on the main page a couple days ago, but I did the same thing with Just My Imagination (Running Away with Me) and no one objected. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 01:27, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Technically, the article was on the main page four days ago, so it doesn't violate FAR instructions, but I agree that these concerns could have been brought up on the talk page first, especially as there are not many technical issues (uncited, MOS, instability). Dabomb87 (talk) 01:41, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to boldly revert this article to a version from last March. Looking through the diff, I don't see any real improvements since then (somebody please correct me if I'm missing something). I think that resolves at least some of TenPoundHammer's concerns. There are still some red links, but I think they all deserve an article. Everything is cited (or at least, should be - I got this through FAC and I believe I've reverted any uncited info, but it's possible some has crept in. This page sees a lot of editing for a rather obscure topic.). REM and The B-52s are covered in great depth because they are by far the most well-documented, popular and historically important part of the topic (which is covered for the references in the version I just reverted back to). Tuf-Kat (talk) 04:07, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm tempted to just revert your reversion because that was a pretty big move, but at the same time I trust you. The current revision is still peppered with red links, and it seems a little skimpy for a FA. I'll go ahead and withdraw this though. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 19:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

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

Removed status

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

The article was removed by Joelr31 00:40, 25 February 2009 [12].

---

Paracetamol

Review commentary

WP Medicine and WP Pharm and Maralia notified.

Question Why wasn't WP:PHARM notified at the project Talk page as well as the Announcements section? Fvasconcellos (t·c) 18:00, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I think you need to ask User:Jmh649 that. I assumed he did. The notice atop of this thread (not added by me) says the project was notified.Xasodfuih (talk) 02:36, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry just did not have time. Has someone done that yet? --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:32, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

done Xasodfuih (talk) 04:22, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I completed the notifications (for future reference, pls see the WP:FAR instructions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:23, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

My biggest concern with this article is 2(c) lack of consistent citations. Says it is an anti inflammatory in dogs. That it can be given iv. Both of these with not refs

done I think I've fully sourced and verified the veterinarian section. It says a bit less than before, but it's verifiable. There are some experimental veterinarian treatments, but I feel that discussing these is too much for a general article on paracetamol. (see the book source I used on gbooks) Perhaps these can be added to Paracetamol toxicity.Xasodfuih (talk) 16:51, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Many small things though as well.

1. I do not think toxicity is a good overview. No discussion of treatment for example.
   • I think it summarizes well enough Paracetamol_toxicity#Treatment: (activated charcoal, acetylcysteine, liver transplant). I added the treatment for cats (to the last section) Xasodfuih (talk) 12:38, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

• done. The lead, but not the toxicity section, mentions occasional hypertoxicity at normal dosage. --Una Smith (talk) 19:28, 17 January 2009 (UTC) Now mentioned, in Paracetamol#Metabolism. --Una Smith (talk) 14:45, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

1. Do not link the see also section. This should be discussed in the text.
   • done Xasodfuih (talk) 12:38, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
2. Some issues with the prose. Some one sentence paragraphs.
   • Feel free to expand the stuff about the snakes. Any other occurrence? Xasodfuih (talk) 16:51, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
3. Some issues with ref formatting. All we get with one of them is [1].
   • done. It was in the infobox. I think the infobox data normally doesn't have footnotes. Xasodfuih (talk) 07:32, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
4. The section on effectiveness is call "Comparison with NSAIDs"
   • It seems reasonable to compare it with NSAIDs. Xasodfuih (talk) 12:38, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
5. The history section starts off with discussion of anti inflammatory in general before getting to acetaminophen. It also says "The product was first sold in 1955 by McNeil Laboratories as a pain and fever reliever for children, under the brand name Tylenol Children's Elixir." With out mentioning which product.
   • done Rewrote most of that section. The are still a couple of issues there, see below. Xasodfuih (talk) 07:34, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I think this page has fallen out of FA status.

--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm reviewing the article; will post comments as I go along. To start with:

• The 1st paragraph in the history section is quite convoluted with lots of parenthetical remarks.
  • done I commented it out since it seemed WP:SYNT to me. Couldn't find a source to support that chain of consequences. Xasodfuih (talk) 04:30, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
• There are multiple non-obvious statements without a source in the history section. (tagged)
• The synthesis section seems correct, but it appears written from a pedagogical rather than industrial perspective. Some references of how APAP is actually produced nowadays would be better.
• The mechanism of action section is up to date an well referenced, but the prose could be better there. I've got skimmed over PMID 17227290 and it has some historical info which could be used to fix the 1st section as well. Later today time allowing.

Xasodfuih (talk) 08:50, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

• done Bernard Brodie seems to link to someone else; I've unliked it. Xasodfuih (talk) 02:36, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

done Linked to Bernard Brodie (biochemist), a new stub in need of expansion. --Una Smith (talk) 17:43, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Progress:

• The veterinary section has been fully sourced. Xasodfuih (talk) 04:22, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
• I have source checked and updated the history section. There a few {fact}s left without sources about British use and recent patents. Xasodfuih (talk) 04:22, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
  • It seems the UK stuff was added by User:Medos2 who isn't active here anymore since his graduation. Oh, well. Xasodfuih (talk) 09:49, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

• I've had a go at revamping the lead and replaced the image in the "Metabolism" section with a more compact, color-coded SVG. I've also expanded the section a bit. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 16:44, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Very nice drawing. Xasodfuih (talk) 18:34, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

• Having just a comparison with NSAIDs section for efficacy and safety is kinda awkward. I added there a bit more about the Lancet study there, but really, we should restructure that. Xasodfuih (talk) 18:34, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Heh, that study resulted in 3 pages of letters to the editor in the Jan 10-16 Lancet. I have the feeling that a wiki article about the study is forthcoming. Xasodfuih (talk) 18:57, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
• Reading the BBC lay summary for the Lancet study I realized there are WHO indications for use of paracetamol. Could someone track them down and summarize them in a bit more detail? Xasodfuih (talk) 18:34, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

IV acetaminophen

Never heard of it used iv. Found a reference for it. http://www.anesthesia-analgesia.org/cgi/content/abstract/101/1/90 Not however mentioned by lexidrugs. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:05, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Bizarre. The drug is inactive until metabolized in the liver, so administration via the stomach (oral or otherwise)) should be far more effective. I suppose administration via the stomach is not always feasible. --Una Smith (talk) 04:33, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

You are probably confused with proparacetamol, which was used in earlier attempts to produce intravenous paracetamol. --WS (talk) 18:44, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Oops. Yes, I did confuse them, and I also misread the Metabolism section. How about reorganizing it to stress that NAPQI is the toxic agent? The fact that NAPQI may be derived from paracetamol via multiple pathways is secondary, isn't it? --Una Smith (talk) 22:38, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I thought "NAPQI is primarily responsible for the toxic effects of paracetamol, rather than paracetamol itself; this constitutes an excellent example of toxication" was clear enough :) NAPQI cannot be formed via multiple pathways, as the section and accompanying image clearly explain; it's quite the opposite. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 11:55, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I found the Metabolism section confusing, so I rewrote it. I tried to only move the information around, not change any of it. Could someone please check that the sources are attached to sentences appropriately? --Una Smith (talk) 16:09, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

The Toxicity section has additional information about metabolism of NAPQI. --Una Smith (talk) 16:28, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

We use it quite a lot in patients directly postoperatively (it is called Perfalgan here).--WS (talk) 18:22, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

History of "rediscovery"

I rewrote this to provide a better account of what happened in the late 1940s. It's pretty insane than some reviews/books attribute the rediscovery to Lester and Greenberg, others to Broodie and Axelrod (or replace Axelrod with Flinn) and a few manage to mention both teams (but even those mention only 4 of the 5 people involved.) Phew... Xasodfuih (talk) 11:34, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Also quite a few sources talk of the superiority of paracetamol over phenacetin demostrated by B & A, but cite the wrong paper: the 1948 one about paracetamol and acetanilide instead of the 1949 one about paracetamol and phenacetin. Xasodfuih (talk) 11:38, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

N.B.: This source manages to tell the story well. Xasodfuih (talk) 12:15, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Box with brand names

This recent edit made me rethink the usefulness of that box. I think that the major brand names are already mentioned in historical context. Since the complete list of brands is likely to be extensive I'd rather remove the box and add a link to the list of paracetamol brand names in the see also section. Or even mention the list explicitly somewhere in the text. Perhaps someone can find some market data for these, but it seems unlikely that a comprehensive worldwide branding info is available for a generic drug. What do you think? Xasodfuih (talk) 23:48, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Metabolism diagram needs updating to reflect mechanism of action

AM404 is missing from that diagram because it was made using a toxicology book as source (which didn't bother with AM404). Bertolini et al. includes it; the say AM404 is metabolized in the CNS. If you need the pdf for inspiration let me know, although I have the impression that other editor here read it too (or at least added extra references to it). Xasodfuih (talk) 17:59, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

All right, although I think we should be careful not to give too much prominence to the role of AM404, which is still being studied. It's certainly responsible for some of the analgesic effects for paracetamol, but it's still only a proposed/partial mechanism of action, and we should keep that clear. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:38, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Figure for toxicology section?

A nomogram that relates the plasma levels of acetaminophen and time after ingestion to the predicted severity of liver injury is available in some books. Anybody feel like reproducing it? Xasodfuih (talk) 22:04, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Will do. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:38, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Future work notice: Due to being fed up with the senseless invocation of WP:THISANDTHAT by cliquish admins that do that to cover their lame mistakes I'm not going to contribute to this article (or to Wikipedia in general) in the near future. Xasodfuih (talk) 15:56, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Say what? Fvasconcellos (t·c) 21:32, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concern is citations. Joelito (talk) 21:55, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

• Remove - Article still has a good deal of referencing issues. Cirt (talk) 23:19, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
• No objection to removal (for now). The article has seen some significant improvements since this review began, but there are still some unresolved issues: comprehensiveness (article is sketchy in some areas like mechanism of action), and presentation (pharmacology should be less comparative and the recent association studies of side effects need some polish). I think these problems will eventually be hammered out, and I see a renomination in the not so distant future. Xasodfuih (talk) 11:47, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
• Remove - Would agree with the above comments.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:26, 11 February 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 removed by Joelr31 00:40, 25 February 2009 [13].

---

Warsaw Uprising

Review commentary

Notified WikiProject Poland, MilHist WikiProject, Nihil novi, Jacurek, Halibutt, and Piotrus.

previous FAR

Since the last review, there has been considerable work on the article [14]. Unfortunately, many citation requests remain and its factual accuracy is still disputed [15]. It is at the top of Wikipedia:Featured articles/Cleanup listing. Despite eighteen months' work on the article (since the last review) the article is still in need of assistance to restore it back to FA-status. DrKiernan (talk) 11:16, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. I am afraid I pretty much exhausted sources available to me during the last pass. Unless somebody else helps this time, I think there is little I can do by myself. PS. I'll improve some refs. But I know that some data will not be verifiable w/out offline sources (books...) which currently I don't have at hand.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:21, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

  Just because something is in the article doesn't mean it should stay. I encourage you to be extra critical of uncited passages that should have cites but are not crucial to the article and move them to the talk page. --mav (talk) 04:34, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

How do people feel about this now? Is it necessary to move to FARC? I see only one tag left, for the joke about Yeltsin. DrKiernan (talk) 08:29, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

had a look for a reference for the joke but could not find one so thought better to remove it. don't think it's necessary to move to FARC given the improvement, better to focus our time elsewhere for now, Tom B (talk) 14:21, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

There are two problems, as I see it: 1) unreferenced parts (there may be no missing citation tags, but the problem remains, simply untagged) and 2) possibly undue coverage of the first few days compared with the rest. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 13:58, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

The book is dominated by Norman Davies. Can someone justify/defend the NPOV status given the big criticism section in his article and whether this article gives his theories undue weight? YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 02:23, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

He's the only non-Polish source. I don't think the claims that he minimizes Polish antisemitism are justified. I did insert his work on Polish anti-semitism into the article[16], but it was removed[17]. DrKiernan (talk) 11:34, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

BTW, it could be undue to mention the rapes and murders of Jews by the odd Polish soldier, when balanced against the systematic elimination of tens of thousands by the Nazis. DrKiernan (talk) 11:36, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are citations. Joelito (talk) 21:52, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

• Remove - There still appear to be many unsourced chunks throughout. Cirt (talk) 23:21, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Oppose FA This just doesn't look like an FA to me right now. I have two general issues, the first technical and the second relating to content. The technical issue is that there are quite a number of sentences that can't really be understood without following a Wikilink, and that isn't good writing. The content issue is that while I'm not by any means an expert, I have seen the Warsaw uprising discussed in several WWII histories, and this article doesn't clearly tell the story in the same way -- the dilemma the Poles faced of needing to assert their strength before the Soviets arrived, the tragedy that as soon as they acted, the Soviets halted their advance and allowed the Nazis to obliterate the Polish forces before entering Warsaw, the desperate struggles of the Polish forces to hold out as the net tightened. Looie496 (talk) 02:20, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

• Remove. I see two factual accuracy dispute tags active since October. Xasodfuih (talk) 10:24, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

You must be looking at a cached revision. DrKiernan (talk) 15:01, 24 February 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 removed by Joelr31 02:44, 18 February 2009 [18].

---

Nellie Kim

Review commentary

Notified Cmapm and WikiProject Gymnastics

While reading the peer review page recently, this PR caught my interest. In it, a reviewer references this article as a good model for female athlete bios. My most-edited article is on a female athlete, and I had never seen this article before, so I decided to take a look at it. What I found was a May 2006 promotion that is sorely deficient by today's standards:

1a: This is my primary complaint. The prose is simply not of featured quality. For example, Kim's entire name, and those of her competitors, are used throughout. There are a load of one-and two-sentence paragraphs, which make the article appear stubby. There are many more examples of questionable prose throughout; serious copy-editing is needed

1b: "Her judging license was suspended by the FIG for a while only once". Excuse me? Do gymnastics judges get suspended frequently, or did something happen that involved her? If so, phrasing it this way is more than a little POV, in addition to not being comprehensive.

1c: A few problems here. First, the links haven't been kept up to date; the link checker shows several dead links. Citation use seems a bit thin—the suspension bit is unsourced, and there is an unsourced quote in Olympics and World Championships, among other things. There are quite a few paragraphs that are uncited or have only one cite that doesn't appear to cover the whole paragraph. Don't know how reliable a couple of the gymnastics websites are, but I'll leave that to the reference experts.

2a: Lead seems short for a page of this length. A two-paragraph lead could probably be squeezed out.

Also, there is a stubby Miscellaneous section that is disguised trivia. Not sure what criterion that falls under, but it needs fixing. Overall, this is not an FA-level article at this time, and should either be improved substantially or delisted. Giants2008 (17-14) 16:42, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are citations, prose, and lead. Joelito (talk) 15:53, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

• Remove - The trivia is gone, but otherwise there have literally been no edits to the article. My other issues remain unresolved, and I haven't been given much reason to believe that they will be resolved. Giants2008 (17-14) 05:43, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
• Remove After looking it over, I agree with this assessment by Giants2008 (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 17:52, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
• Remove per above. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 03:14, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
• Remove Comprehensiveness: as she has published a book-length autobiography, there must be more material available than is detailed in the article. Verifiability: cites required for "compensate with superior technique"; "close to leaving gymnastics"; "a natural smile is more worth, than triumph"; "judging license was suspended"; "to prevent such scandal in the future"; and "This move has been controversial". The alternative spelling of her name, Nelli Kim, should be mentioned somewhere. Dead links should be removed. Unfortunately, I don't think this can be rescued without access to the autobiography, or the Russian-language sources. DrKiernan (talk) 12:35, 12 February 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 removed by Joelr31 02:44, 18 February 2009 [19].

---

Zambezi

Review commentary

Notification of all relevant parties complete: Main contributor and nominator - User talk:Worldtraveller; Wikiprojects - Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Africa, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Angola, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Malawi, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mozambique, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Zambia, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Zimbabwe, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Botswana, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Namibia, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rivers

1(c) - currently lacks inline citations. It reads alright and i've tidied a little, though whole sections and stats are not cited. Background: it was nominated 3 years ago and has not been reviewed since. Only one main contributor, whose account has not been used in almost 2 years. Tom B (talk) 16:39, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I do not have the resources or knowledge to update this. Agree it does not meet current FA criteria. There are multiple WP:MOS issues that need to be fixed in addition to the inline reference problem. The lead does not really summarize the article per WP:LEAD, the section headers do not all meet WP:HEAD, metric units are given without English equivalents, "&" is used where "and" is needed, the article has several bullet point lists that could be put into a table or perhaps converted to prose. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:51, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are citations, MOS and lead. Joelito (talk) 15:52, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

• Remove It appears no work has been done to address above concerns since the review started. Cirt (talk) 17:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
• Remove per my statement above Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 19:47, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
• Remove per above. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 03:16, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
• Remove Comprehensiveness, possibly cultural bias: there is a section on Exploration which focuses on Western explorers, but presumably there were native Africans living there for some centuries before then. It covers the geography of the river, but there's very little on the culture of the region. DrKiernan (talk) 11:46, 12 February 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 removed by Joelr31 02:44, 18 February 2009 [20].

---

Automatic number plate recognition

Review commentary

Notified Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Robotics, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computer science and User talk:Violetriga

The article fails the featured article criterion in several ways. It is largely uncited except for a few instances of up to 10 cites grouped together (1c), the are several short sections (2b) and it uses inconsistent citation style (2c).--Peter Andersen (talk) 20:05, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Please note my post at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computer science#Artificial Intelligence issues branching between WikiProjects. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ guestbook ♦ contribs} 05:48, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concern is citations. Joelito (talk) 15:51, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

• Remove per nom. No work done. --Peter Andersen (talk) 21:18, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
• Remove Agree with this assessment by Peter Andersen (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 17:46, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
• Remove per above. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 03:13, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
• Remove Bizarre citation distribution. One sentence has 10 citations, and yet whole sections have none. DrKiernan (talk) 11:39, 12 February 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 removed by Joelr31 03:06, 12 February 2009 [21].

---

Kalimpong

Review commentary

Nichalp and Projects notified.

Fails 1c. Also concerned that some parts of the article plug various schools and businesses. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 05:20, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Second concern regarding schools and businesses removed. --GPPande talk! 07:21, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Add comments below under individual sections so that follow-up becomes easy. I am doing sections as I am getting the references via google and so please pardon me for not following them in order.

• Page header/Summary done. Review here.

• Kalimpong in literature done. Review here.

• Civic administration: Politics section merged with Civic administration. Refs added. Check here.

• Flora and fauna: Refs added. Check here.

• Media and education: Refs added. Check here.

• Transport: Refs added. Check here.

• People and Culture: Refs added. Check here.

Goodness gracious sakes alive, Pande, would you mind lowering the amount of excess markup, per WP:TALK. This is very hard to read; gonna need sunglasses. Also, please avoid the excess use of graphics, as they slow down the load time. We don't need minute-by-minute on your progress; FAR is a deliberative process. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:50, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry. Removed the excesses. --GPPande talk! 07:24, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't File:Deolo.jpg be either PD or CC but not both? DrKiernan (talk) 14:00, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. I had uploaded the images to WP at a time when I was unaware of the intricacies of licences. I have made the changes. =Nichalp «Talk»= 04:40, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Following sections have been completely referenced:- Summary, Origin of name, history, economy. --GPPande 16:01, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I think the 1c issue is cleared. Any other points? =Nichalp «Talk»= 10:14, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Err yes, lots of the article isn't referenced. Also in some places there is a ref at the end of the paragraph but it only covers 1 sentence. Aslo some of the references aren't formatted. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 00:14, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the culture section onwards. Will look at it once I return from my New Year's break. =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:02, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

• Flora_and_fauna is done. --GPPande 12:14, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

  Done quite a few. If there are any that need a cite tag. Let us know. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

• Oh yeah! I forgot to mention, I had added refs to Poeple and culture section few days back. Anything else? --GPPande 16:07, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

• I took a very quick glance and didn't see anything egregious; if there is more work to be done, it should be identified. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:34, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I see that a lot of work has been done in the past week. How do we feel about this one? Any outstanding concerns? Joelito (talk) 18:05, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

• Why are the refs being indiscriminately removed by the reviewer when the article is undergoing review. Problems with refs should be discussed here before such an act. I have reverted it as it seem little less than vandalism to me. --GPPande 08:16, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

It's not vandalism, sockmaster. The refs don't show "most popular" it just shows that there was a boxing tournament there, etc. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 08:17, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

OMG! Looks like FAR pages are exempted from WP:NPA policy. You never proved it either. FAR cannot be discussed in edit summaries. Simply deleting refs from article is no way a discussion can happen. Minor problems with few words should be discussed here instead of deleting the refs altogether. Undoing the hard work of finding the refs is horrible! --GPPande 09:08, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Note YellowMonkey please refrain from name-calling. I am aware of the previous history between this user and yourself and will not tolerate personal attacks during any FAR. Joelito (talk) 22:23, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

He has been shown to be socking via a checkuser. I haven't vandalised either. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 23:24, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

You did not vandalize but his comment that you did does not give you a reason for calling him a sockmaster in this FAR. You are a good editor YellowMonkey and I am sure you know Wiki's policy on personal attacks so please stick to discussing edits and content not contributors. Joelito (talk) 23:44, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

The article also needa copyedit. Examples: "District administration of Darjeeling, which is still responsible for election, panchayat, law and order, revenue etc., also acts as an interface between the Council and the State Government" and "The NH 31, which connects Sevok and Siliguri,[21] along with the NH 31A connects Kalimpong to the rail stations at Siliguri.[22]" clumsy repetition. "Kalimpong assembly constituency, which elects one member of Vidhan Sabha of West Bengal, is part of Darjeeling parliamentary constituency" Definitely article. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 08:24, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

• I have provided the remaining refs except two for which this link seems to be the 'actual' ref (from where it was taken). Can this source be considered RS for this type of info (media and education)? Thanks.--GDibyendu (talk) 08:29, 30 January 2009 (UTC)Provided refs for all sentences where citation tags were placed. --GDibyendu (talk) 11:59, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concern is citations. Joelito (talk) 01:13, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

• Remove - per referencing issues/citations issue as noted by Joelr31 (talk · contribs), and other problems commented on above by YellowMonkey (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 06:07, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
• Delist 1a/1c YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 05:24, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
• Remove Concerns have not been properly addressed. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 05:51, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
• Remove: With Nichalp gone, there's no one here to address the issues. Kensplanet^T_C 12:11, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
• Support a downgrade I find the prose of the article far too clumsy for it to be worthy of its FA status. Examples abound, and I have started attacking these, of which: "The increase in population attracted large numbers of migrants from Nepal, leading to an increase in population and economic prosperity." is rather mysteriously tautological. In addition, the sentence relating to the arrest in July 2004 of Maninder Pal Singh Kohli appears to stick out as an irrelevancy. The structure of individual sections may also be sub-optimal, as there are frequent dashing backwards and forwards in subject. I have corrected some of these. However, no knowing the political structure of Kalimpong and DGHC, I am not best able to attack the 'Civic administration' section, which fails to give a clear picture of the political and administrative apparatus. Although I do not feel the article is at the required standard, I have made enough changes for now. Ohconfucius (talk) 07:29, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

• Remove. I appreciate that some hard work has been put into the article, but I'm afraid it still doesn't meet FA standards. The prose still needs work, and I'm concerned about the article's verifiability. Just using the lead as an example, note that there does not seem to be a defined structure: the sentences about the military are mixed with details of the location, and in the next paragraph, education and two unconnected sentences on history are conflated together. It should read smoother than this, with each sentence logically flowing to the next. Of the four references used in the lead, three are of concern. The official tourism office site is fine for standard data such as the elevation and economy, but it can not really be used to justify statements such as "popular", as obviously the tourism office is not an unbiased, neutral source for such epithets. The source given for the statement "Kalimpong is known for its educational institutions many of which were established during the British colonial period" does not really support that contention. Firstly, secondary sources outside of Kalimpong are necessary to support "known for" and secondly, the source given indicates that most of the educational institutions (of note) owe their existence to monastic origins rather than colonization. The fourth source, rediff.com, is not reliable in my opinion. DrKiernan (talk) 18:18, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

There are stacks of paragraphs where the citations don't fit properly with the text presented either... YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 00:49, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Example?--GDibyendu (talk) 08:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

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