Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article review/archive/July 2007

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Kept status

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

The article was kept 15:49, July 31, 2007.

Belgrade

[edit]

Review commentary

[edit]
Messages left at WikiProject Cities, WikiProject Serbia, WikiProject Belgrade. Todor→Bozhinov 13:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Citation needed tags and largely unreferenced sections, images are too big and too many (they disrupt the text flow), formatting issues (particularly with references, as most don't seem to use cite templates or a unified style of reference formatting), too great reliance on web references (needs way more published sources). I'm pretty sure Geography can be expanded (I'd call it a stub section), and History may have to be summarized a bit more. Although it hasn't been tagged, Names through history is also unreferenced. Todor→Bozhinov 13:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • My goodness — look at those footnotes (I was traveling when this was promoted). No publishers identified, so we need to click on or mouse over 100 sources to see if they're reliable. No dates, no authors, no last access dates. Lots of WP:UNITS fixes needed also. Apparently promoted on fan support, without serious review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What? "Citation needed tags" as in a single citation needed tag added last week (now removed)? "Unreferenced sections" as in a single unreferenced section, also since last week? (The other tagged section was referenced.)
When the article was promoted, concern was raised about the images, and it was decided that one image per section should be fine; images have not been changed since.
There are no formatting issues with references. Yes, they don't use cite templates, but that is not a FA requirement. Cite templates could be added easily if they are needed. No, there is no overreliance on web references. All the references are either on-line editions of printed material or official sites, mostly official site of Belgrade, both of which is perfectly acceptable. Publishers are almost always identified.
Geography could perhaps be expanded but I really don't see how could the history section be trimmed.
As for accusations of "fan support", how about actually looking at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Belgrade? I never saw most of those people, and most of them have never edited the article. Nikola 09:15, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • When this article was in FAC, I mentioned the problem with the citations - I insisted on the fact that there were no printed sources, and all the emphasis was on inline sources, something not enough for such an important topic with historical and cultural parameters. Aren't there any printed sources talking about the history of Belgrade? Why are the editors occupied just with the Internet. Anyway, even if such sources are not added, I hope that the current citations will be properly and uniformly formatted, indicating publisher, work etc. Make proper use of Template:cite web or Template:cite news.--Yannismarou 09:42, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not to blow my own trumpet, but I did the vast majority of the work to get the article to featured status. Given my current location, books about the history of Belgrade weren't readily available. And like Nikola says, it's not like I used Geocities - the official sites of the city and various musuems etc should be reliable, wouldn't you agree?--Hadžija 13:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Misunderstanding above: there is no request to use citation templates, which are not required. Publishers and last access dates are needed on all websources, and authors and publication dates should be specified when available. See WP:CITE/ES, and I made several sample edits. Also, on one of my sample edits, the text claimed something about the Financial Times, but the citation was to the City of Belgrade, and I was not able to find any confirmation with the Financial Times. This is an example of why complete citations should be given, to help readers verify validity of sources without having to click on each one. Completely formatting references does not mean that cite templates must be used; it just means the necessary info should be provided for a complete reference, by whatever means. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I worked hard in last two days to address the major concerns raised here (citing style, English-language references where possible, architecture and timeline citing); maybe I made some errors in the hurry, but I hope the article is better now. Duja► 13:40, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It starts looking better already, keep up the good work! Todor→Bozhinov 16:29, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List:

  • Miscellaneous is not an encyclopedic heading.
  • References are still not formattted; blue links without publishers identified and without last access dates or language icons, author and publication date when available. See citation examples. The references are not presented in any consistent, recognizable or professional citation format.
  • I fixed them with Gimmetrow's script, but regular editors should become familiar with footnote placement and punctuation per WP:FN.**
  • WP:UNITS still unaddressed (non-breaking hard spaces between numbers and units of measurement).
  • Wikilinking needs attention; per WP:CONTEXT, common words like "protest" do not need to be linked.
  • WP:DASH attention needed, as well as copyedit needs; sample — Besides to its native born population, Belgrade is home to many Serbs from all over the former Yugoslavia, who either came seeking a better life, or fled as refugees from war and ethnic cleansing. Unofficially - taking into account the large number of Serb refugees from Croatia, ...

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:42, 21 May 2007 (UTC) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:42, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Miscellaneous: acknowledged supposedly fixed
    • WP:UNITS, WP:DASH: acknowledged supposedly fixed
    • References not formatted? I've just fixed 3-4 obvious typos in cite web, and 95% references does have publisher indicated. 99% references are from cite web and/or cite book templates.
    • The "protest" is not linked to protest, but introduced by myself yesterday.
    • Copyediting: acknowledged, but I prefer to leave it with someone with better command of English.
  • Duja► 15:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The footnotes are still not formatted. Have you looked at WP:CITE/ES? I would make some more sample edits to help get you started, but the ones I made days ago were removed. I'm not sure how else to get across the work that needs to be done on the footnotes, as Yannis also mentioned it above. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:26, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another example of sourcing issues, which I raised above and has not been addressed. There is a statement about Belgrade winning an award from the Financial Times, but sourced to the City of Belgrade website. It should be sourced to the Financial Times, which I couldn't find. But I did find that it was sourced to a magazine, Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) owned by the Financial Times. The source should be the fdimagazine article. The article referencing needs work still; too many primary sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:36, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

[edit]
Suggested FA criteria concerns are referencing (1c), images (3), comprehensiveness (1b). Marskell 10:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fixes Needed - 1 (a)- Prose: in terms of content I feel looks ok; I'll muse on this with a copyedit. The main problems are two: it needs a thorough copyedit. I'll make a few soon. It is unfortunate that the books mentioned in Further Reading aren't used as references rather than loads of websites. I'll let someone else look at the image status.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:14, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First para of lead is listy.
Layout - first para of History section badly needs expanding. A few more lines on Celts and Romans should do it.
If I have to vote today, I'd say Remove on the basis of 1(a) Prose and 1(c) referencing. All websites and EB - with all these nice books listed in further reading but not cited? However I will have a look tomorrow to see what else can be done if there is any time left.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:27, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As an update, I did add a bit to the history but ultimately am unable (ok, let's face it unwilling) to address teh crux of it which is the referencing. I note there has been little movement since the 18th. This is frustrating as there is not a huge amount to do for someone familiar with it or with a good book or two...
Thanks for your edits. Well, there's been "little movement since the 18th", because there's no one else active around and familiar with the subject and in possession of a "good book or two" (Well, that might lead us to FA concern of maintainability :-) ). The concern of heavy relying on web sources is acknowledged, but 1) it wasn't an obstacle for the article to pass the original FA nomination, even with far worse sourcing than now and 2) why fix if ain't broken, i.e. why artificially introduce book references when there are fine online ones? I do agree it would be nice if the article had it from the outset, but it didn't.
To briefly address Sandy's footnote formatting issues: all the references do use {{cite web}} now (except a few using cite paper or cite book). A large portion of it are city's or companies official sites, where the article author and publication date are not indicated; in those cases, the publisher=Official site of... rather than author=Official site of... is used (a small effort can be done to replace that, but I don't think it's a big deal). Thus, they might not appear identically formatted, but that's what {{cite web}} gives.
While I acknowledge my mild COI on the topic (although I didn't actively develop it to the FA status), I'd say that the article's shortcomings are not such that they justify FA removal. YMMV of course. Duja► 08:03, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Well, this is very frustrating; weeks have gone by, the article has improved, and yet each time I look at the article there are still MOS and copyedit issues (someone should run through with an eye for redundancy), and refs still aren't formatted. PLEASE see WP:CITE/ES, and note that all websources need a last access date. {{convert}} might be used to standardize and provide equivalents on measurements. The level of sourcing is still frustrating, for example In 2006 the Financial Times of London awarded Belgrade the title of City of the Future of Southern Europe.[117] should be sourced to the Financial Times, not to the City of Belgrade. I seem to recall trying to find the source myself weeks ago, and it's not the Financial Times; it's a magazine associated with the FT. A few more days to finish up, or I'll be a Remove. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:46, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I've done an iteration of reference reviewing and formatting diff. I also did some copyediting, WP:$ fixes etc. Maybe a pair of fresh eyes could help regarding copyediting.
    As for access dates—D'oh! I did place them in most {{cite web}}s at the previous pass, but just now I realized that the argument name is accessdate=, not retrieved=. That probably explains why they didn't appear :-D. Should be reasonably complete now. I'll take a look at {{convert}} later... hopefully. Duja► 12:34, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The prose is a big problem. Take the opening para:
    • largest city OF the Republic (unidiomatic)
    • settlements emerged (unidiomatic)
    • "3rd"—see MOS.
    • Remove "literally".
    • First recorded ... where? Reference?
    • First became the capital in 1284. I presume that it lost and rewon this status later.
    • "as well as" x 2 in the same sentence, hello?

Remove it. Tony 15:33, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ack, but there's still work going on from Duja. I'll ask Cas to look again at the prose. Marskell 10:44, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed some things Tony has highlighted and found some more. I feel a bit at sea with some sentences as I'm not sure of the underlying 'truth' as it were as I am not familiar with the topic, but will try when I have time. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:30, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Aargh, I'm wading though the swamp of prose - dilemma "The hyperinflation of the Yugoslav dinar, the highest ever recorded in the world, also decimated the city's economy" - active tense but 3 clauses, or "The city's economy was also decimated by the hyperinflation of the Yugoslav dinar, the highest ever recorded in the world." - neater clauses but passive (infact 2nd passive in a row in the article....)......cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:28, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And then we have this incomprehensible sentence in the first paragraph: "the Serbian Despotate was governed from the city from 1403 to 1427, while in modern times it was the capital of the Principality of Serbia, which became the Kingdom in 1882, and of the various incarnations of Yugoslavia from 1918 until 2006." I'm tempted to remove, but Duja is still plugging away. I'll ask him/her. Marskell 06:34, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Him. It would be a shame that the article is removed only on the basis of prose. Like I said before, I don't feel my English skills are adequate for FA-quality prose; even if they were (well, I can rise along the normal level on occasion, but only in the moments of concentration and inspiration), I waded through that text so many times that I cannot even notice clumsiness and redundance. I've asked a friend for a pair of fresh eyes.
I replaced the sentence in question with a more universal one, but it still didn't turn out right even for myself. I'm sure there are more within the text, but like I said, I can't really see them. As always, any help is welcome :-). Duja► 08:42, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary section break

[edit]

Not done yet, but here's what I've noticed so far. All things considered, the prose really isn't that bad, just a few "a"'s and "the"'s that need adding/removing, and some rearranging of phrases within sentences to help it all flow better. -Bbik★ 20:01, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Specific issues

  • The first settlements in the Belgrade area emerged from the prehistoric Vinča culture in 4800 BC.
    OR
    The first settlement of the Belgrade area was by the prehistoric Vinča culture in 4800 BC.
    • I'm not sure which version I prefer, I think I remember someone complaining about "emerged" farther up this page, though I'm not sure why. But there's an alternative. -Bbik★ 20:01, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • How about "Some of the oldest settlements in the Belgrade area are those of the prehistoric Vinča culture in 4800 BC."? Vinca itself emerged from Starčevo-Körös culture and lived in the same area (I'm not sure if there are Starcevo settlements found in Belgrade) but is much more known and that is why it is mentioned. Nikola 11:43, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Why make it sound more uncertain than it is, especially in an FA? "Some of the" is too reminiscent of "some people say this, others say that", but it looks pretty certain to me (now that I've gone and looked at the source) that the Starčevo culture was the first one, so that's the one that should be mentioned, lesser known or otherwise, and especially since there's a link. Starčevo is also the only one mentioned with the 4800 BC date, not Vinča, so that crisscrossing should be fixed as well. ("The oldest/first settlement of the Belgrade area was by the prehistoric Starčevo culture in 4800 BC." Minor grammatical nitpicks for sticking with the singular, too.) Perhaps something like "predecessor to the Vinča culture" should be added to the history section, though, if that will help people. -Bbik★ 16:47, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well, there are two things: 1) which settlements are found to have existed and 2) which settlements could be conjectured to have existed. As I said, there are discoveries of Neanderthal remains in Belgrade but I can't find a source. So, it could be "Among the oldest settlement of the Belgrade area were those by the prehistoric Starčevo culture in 4800 BC, followed by Vinča culture later on." Vinca should still be mentioned as it is more known. Or perhaps simply "4800 BC old settlements of Starčevo culture were found in Belgrade; they were followed by followed by Vinča culture". This states facts without using veasely words. Nikola 21:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Undent) I don't doubt that in the least, every culture comes from something earlier, but if there's no known earlier culture, then it doesn't matter (until found). As for the abruptness, that sentence could be switched around a little to read "The area was settled by the prehistoric Starčevo culture in 4800 BC, and later by the Vinča culture." which makes the paragraph a little better, but the sentence doesn't flow as well then. I'm not sure what else could be done to give it some more lead-in, unless the entire intro is rearranged and/or more information is added. I do agree with you that it could be improved, but (at least given the sentence rearranging) I'm not sure it's really that big a deal. -Bbik★ 19:06, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The terrain of Belgrade proper is hilly, and the highest point of the metropolitan area (303 m) is Torlak hill.
    • This sentence feels awkward, but I'm not sure what to do with it. Belgrade proper as in the actual city, and metropolitan area as in the city and surrounding city-like area? Why is a differentiation made? It sounds like the two areas have the same general terrain. Perhaps "The terrain of the Belgrade metropolitan area is hilly, with the highest point (303 m) at Torlak hill."? Or, if both phrases are meant to refer to the same area, depending on which area that is, leave out "metropolitan" and either stop there, or substitute "area" for "proper" (and delete "the"). -Bbik★ 20:01, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Uh; "Belgrade proper" is meant to denote the "old" city (but the "old" is not a proper adjective either, as it also significantly expanded in the last 50 years), on the right bank of Sava. I'll try to add a clarification. Duja► 08:40, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Metropolitan area is roughly divided in two parts: one that is hilly and one that is not; the city center is in the hilly area, but also most of the rest of the city. Nikola 11:43, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • So... is how it is now ok, or what are you suggesting? The last sentence could be shifted into the middle of the first to make it that much clearer that both sides of the rviers are part of Belgrade, but that makes the entire paragraph incredibly choppy and not fun to read. -Bbik★ 16:47, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Its ancient walls, castles, harbours and churches were refortified...
    • Its? What's its? Belgrade's? Does Belgrade have multiple castles? The Despotate's? If the Despotate's, the sentence should just be deleted (and somewhere around there it should be broken into two paragraphs, I can't decide where). -Bbik★ 20:01, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Perhaps we could simply say "Belgrade fortress was refortified". Nikola 11:43, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Why add a red link when it's unnecessary? As it is, there are already a lot of them (see my note at the bottom). I'm also not entirely certain what you're responding to or suggesting. Your sentence would make the most sense in response to the original bulletted version, but that's since been changed. So are you suggesting the entire current sentence be replaced with yours, or just part of it, or? -Bbik★ 16:47, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • On the other hand, there is a link for Kalemegdan, which obviously covers the "ancient walls" part. It sounds like there was already a fortress there, though... Or multiple that kept being destroyed and rebuilt. Did Lazarević actually (re)build one himself, or just repair the latest version already there? -Bbik★ 18:04, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Well, there is slight difference between Kalemegdan and Belgrade fortress, in that, roughly, the former refers to today's park as well as to the fortress in its last stadium of use, while latter refers to the fortress during its entire existence. For now, the simplest solution could be to make a redirect from Belgrade fortress to Kalemegdan. Or, what you did. Per his famous quote, Stefan Lazarevic says that he found the city in ruins when he rebuilt it. Nikola 21:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 1817, it became the capital of the autonomous Principality of Serbia, and again in 1841, after a period with Kragujevac as the capital.
    After independence
    The capital was moved from Kragujevac to Belgrade by Prince Mihailo Obrenović, following the departure of the town's Turkish garrison in 1867.
    • Er... When/why did it move back to Kragujevac? The sentences themselves are fine, but there's a rather jarring jump between them. Any chance of a few words or a sentence explaining the switch this time? (For that matter, {{Historical capitals of Serbia}} doesn't even show Kragujevac as being the capital in 1866/67, though it shows Timisoara rather than Belgrade 1849-1860...) -Bbik★ 20:01, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Pančevo Bridge, which crossed the Danube, was opened in 1935.
    • Has it fallen since? If not, that should be changed to "which crosses the Danube". -Bbik★ 20:01, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK. Or, better, "the first that crossed..."? Duja► 08:40, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • "the first to cross the Danube (at Belgrade)", in that case, but unless it's the first bridge ever to cross the Danube, and that can be sourced (the one you've added is unclear whether it means first ever or first in Belgrade[/Serbia?]), it'll either cause disputes or require those last couple extra words to clarify. Same thing for the "and only one" bit. The Danube's a long river, I'd be hard-pressed to believe a single bridge in Serbia is the only bridge over the river. -Bbik★ 15:27, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • The bridge has not fallen, but has since been replaced with another bridge of the same name, built at the same place. So it is not completely correct to say that it was "the first (and still the only one) over the Danube". Nikola 12:19, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Later that day, tanks were deployed onto the streets to restore order. According to various media outlets, there were between 100,000 and 150,000 people on the streets that day.
  • <!--|-
    | Biograd na Dunavu
    | Old [[Croatian language|Croatian]] name, means White City on Danube-->
    • Why is it commented out? For being similar enough to the current name, or? -Bbik★ 20:01, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Unsourced, AFAICT, and not really relevant; Croats have never been in city's possession.Duja► 08:40, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I vote it be removed entirely, then, no need for it to be there and cause confusion to anyone else who notices it. -Bbik★ 15:27, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Could be. Perhaps it could be mentioned that original Slavic name was Бѣоград, with yat, that's where Biograd comes from (not sure if it was ever actually used). Nikola 12:19, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Beligrad is the name currently mentioned as being the original, though the source doesn't actually back that up, all it says is Beograd. Have any sources to support either original name claim? Here's one for Beligrad, though I don't know how reliable it's considered. Here's another, "Adapted from: "Treasures from Yugoslavia" An Encyclopedic touring guide"; perhaps someone could get ahold of that so we have a definitely reliable source? I don't imagine I'd be able to read anything that could support the other one, especially doing it as a Cyrillic search. -Bbik★
  • Taking into account the large number of refugees from Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina, displaced persons from the province of Kosovo, students, and people counted in censuses in their hometowns, the population may surpass 2 million.
    • This follows a sentence talking about specifically Serbs coming to Belgrade from elsewhere, so is it also referring specifically to Serb refugees, Serb students, etc? The population estimate at the end and the following sentences would imply otherwise, but the setup of the paragraph confuses the situation. -Bbik★ 18:24, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Problem gone, sentence removed. The list isn't much use without the (unsourced) population estimate, and was just a more specific version of the previous sentence, anyhow. Any complaints about the new version of the paragraph? I shifted info, so moved the references some too, but I think I matched it up right. -Bbik★ 14:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Economy section
    • It's frustrating me. It feels stunted, or something, and refuses to flow well. I've done some significant rearranging, and it now follows a timeline of sorts, but I'm not sure how much of an improvement it is. (Any chance the National Bank is in Belgrade because it's the most economically developed? That would make the first sentence work a whole lot better.) -Bbik★ 18:24, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Belgrade has an extensive public transport system based on buses (118 urban lines and more than 300 suburban lines), trams (12 lines), and trolleybuses (8 lines).
    • Should the specific numbers really be there? That seems like something that should be left to the main article, but I'm a bit biased by having absolutely no interest in transportation, which is why I'm asking rather than outright deleting. -Bbik★ 17:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Travel by coach is more popular, however, and the capital is well-served with daily connections to all major and minor towns in the country.
    • First, I assume the link I added is in fact the type of coach the sentence is talking about, right? Since trains were the sentence prior? Second, do one of those sources say it's more popular, rather than just also popular? Third, "to all major and minor towns"? Do these coaches really go to all locations that are bigger than a village? (It's also redundant and I've removed it, but left it here for the sake of confirmation.) -Bbik★ 17:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Following renewed growth in 2000, the number of passengers reached approximately 2 million in 2004 and 2005. In 2006, 2 million passengers passed through the airport by mid-November.
    • Growth of the economic variety, presumably? Or is some other type of growth meant? And should it be "nearly 2 million in 2004 and 2005"? Otherwise, what difference does it make pointing out that there were again 2 million in 2006, or, perhaps, even a passenger drop again, since approximately could mean both more or fewer than the given number? -Bbik★ 17:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

  • The history section should probably be given its own page (and then be expanded significantly, obviously. I imagine there's plenty more information around, especially on the World Wars). The short bits for each subsection currently aren't bad, but there's a decent amount of information (mostly an overabundance of specific dates) that could be removed and would greatly help flow and readability. -Bbik★ 20:01, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • References should be checked, perhaps duplicated, now that I've split parts into paragraphs -- as it is now, much of the more recent history appears unsourced. -Bbik★ 20:01, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to MOS:NUM, units of measurement should be spelled out. I did for most, but spelling out km² seems far more unintuitive than any of the other units, so I left it alone. And besides, "square kilometers" or "kilometers squared"? The first just sounds weird to me. -Bbik★ 20:01, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It looks like the article is in British English, though some things seemed to be a bit mixed. I'm not sure if I helped that out any or not, as I speak American English. I tried to look out for the differences, but I doubt I know all of them, and I wouldn't be surprised if I quite simply didn't notice a few because I'm so used to one spelling over another that it wouldn't stick out as wrong. -Bbik★ 20:01, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I shifted a few pictures, and though some are now at the very end of the wrong section from an editting perspective, from a reading perspective at least they don't split the header from the main text or leave odd-looking single lines between images, and there's less overlapping of pictures at each end of the same line(s) of text. Despite that people say they've deleted pictures, there may still be a few too many. -Bbik★ 20:01, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I seem to remember a discussion about COAs being covered by fair use guidelines, and as such they could not be used in the list of cities in Serbia. Since I imagine municipality COAs are much the same as city COAs, should the municipality ones also be removed from that section of this article? -Bbik★ 00:45, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are a lot of red links, especially in the Culture section. I got an awful lot of grief for that going for GA, was that just unusual, or should something be done to at least stub (the majority of) the links? -Bbik★ 03:38, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is the Culture section longer than the main Culture of Belgrade page? Not to mention how big a difference there is. I don't know that the entire thing should be cut and moved, but certainly a large part of it. I'll see if I can come up with a shortened alternate version, but that could be a while. -Bbik★ 03:38, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • More recent population estimates would be nice, if they can be sourced. Come across anything while you were formatting all the references, Duja? -Bbik★ 14:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More later, I need a break (and food!) now. -Bbik★ 20:01, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. It's been two and a half weeks since my last comment, and the references still aren't complete. If others are satisfied with the prose, I will do the reference work myself. If others aren't satisfied with the prose, that wouldn't be a good use of my time. Unless the prose is approved by Casliber, Tony and others (per objects above), I'm a Remove. If the prose is now good, let me know, and I'll correct the refs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:28, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also just added a cite tag to this, so a new review for citation may be needed: The hyperinflation of the Yugoslav dinar, the highest inflation ever recorded in the world,[citation needed] also decimated the city's economy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • References added; I don't know how many should be added, but there are plenty more out there ([2] for one). I'm not sure what you're seeing wrong with the current reference formatting, though. Admittedly, I haven't looked too closely at them in my prose copyeditting, but even looking through the history to find your example repair edits, I'm not sure what you changed, except for a couple that I could see you moved the punctuation before the citation or removed the space between punctuation and citation. Are there more misplaced punctuation marks/spaces that I missed or something? If you could explain in a bit more detail what the problem is, we could do something about it. -Bbik★ 01:53, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the formatting is fine. Just check to add author, date, and retrieval date to those where it is absent. Marskell 09:02, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, there is still missing information (last access date on all websources, publisher on all sources, and publication date and author when available). I can finish this work if needed, but since some of the sources aren't English language, it won't be easy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Closing: This has hit the two month mark, and I'm going to default keep it. An enormous amount has been done and the page has improved significantly. I gave the prose a slight brush-up and didn't notice any of the clunkers I saw previously. Page editors should watch for repeated blue links. I also think there's a bit of a gap in the history from 1970 to 1990. Marskell 15:43, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
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 09:18, July 29, 2007.

Byzantine Empire

[edit]

</math>st FAs. Better use of summary style might be necessary.

  • 2, WP:MOS, WP:LEAD, etc. See also is massive and needs attention, and External links may need pruning per WP:EL, WP:NOT. WP:DASHes need fixing, but since another editor is testing a script which automatically fixes them, that can be left for later in the review. Wikilinking seems uneven and may need attention.
  • 1c, a review of citation is in order. There are multiple, entire sections with no citations whatsoever. There are direct quotes with no citations, page numbers.
  • 1a prose, there is some capitalization I'm not sure on, and since I saw minor punctuation issues (The Angeloi dynasty has had an extremely poor reputation historically, with more than one historian finding them directly responsible for the collapse of Byzantine power[5]), a ce might be in order, given the amount of growth this article has seen since its promotion.

I suspect knowledgeable editors will be able to adequately trim, tweak, and tune up this article during review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:05, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hope knowledgeable editors will do their best. Has User:Bigdaddy1204 who is maintaining the page the page for some time been informed?--Yannismarou 06:54, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Now he has :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:06, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article has been hijacked by Greek nationalists with their own agenda (see the numerous talk pages). It is definitely not deserving of FA status (although there may be some segments that are - they are not enough to compensate for the skewed opinions presented in other parts of the article). Roydosan 11:09, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be specific please. Sending us to "the numerous talk pages" is not helpful. Oh, and by the way, I repeat to you that the main maintainer of the article during all these years is not Greek.--Yannismarou 14:27, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for notifying me of this. Sorry I have not responded until now - I have been very busy for the last few months, and this has left me with very little time to spare for wikipedia. And thankyou, Yannismarou - I very much appreciate your hard work at Manuel I Komnenos, and I am grateful for the respect you have shown to myself and other editors.

I believe that there are several specific and very serious problems with Byzantine Empire:

1. The sections concerning events after 1204 are in extremely bad condition, and need to be removed and replaced by new material.

2. There needs to be a clear decision on what this article is supposed to be - is it going to be long and detailed (as I would personally prefer), or short and concise? I have added some 9,000 words to the article in my time, but most of it has been removed by other editors, who are unwilling to consider compromise and who seem determined to shape the article to their own desires. This needs to be resolved. Personally, I find recent edits made by User:Lacrimosus, among others, to be little better than vandalism - he removes large sections of text (sometimes 1000s of words) without consultation, doesn't bother to find a new home for that text, and reverts any edits he doesn't like. This has got to be dealt with. As it stands now, I feel very disheartened, and at times I feel like giving up on wikipedia entirely.

3. We need to decide if another article, History of the Byzantine Empire, should be created, as has been suggested, so that the history of the empire could be treated in more detail there. I would support such an article, if it would end the current conflict; however, we need to discuss whether or not this is the best course of action to take. Some of my text has been relocated to new articles, but I do wonder if the material would be better placed in a general Byzantine Empire article than in an obscure related page that nobody is going to read (for example, Byzantine civilisation in the twelfth century, which by the way needs attention itself...).

Roydosan, you sound pretty disillusioned yourself. This I understand. But ultimately editors like us should stand up for this article, if we feel it is being taken in the wrong direction - together, we can make wikipedia a better place, whereas if we allow ourselves to just give up, wikipedia will be the worse for it. As Yannismarou has said, it would help us all if you would be a little more specific, though I think I know what you were referring to. Bigdaddy1204 19:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I am concerned I try for the time being to properly cite the article, fix some obvious prose deficiencies and keep it in a total length of about 105 kbs. The years after 1204 are my next priority in rewriting. I did not remove material from the Justinian, Heracleian and Isaurian period. I did some removals from the Komnenian period, which was the most detailed in the article, but, using WP:SS, I send the reader to Alexios' or Manuel's article, where he can find all the relevant details. As a matter of fact, after starting my rewriting, the article has become longer in terms of total length (from 104 kbs to 107 kbs) due to citations and additions in the Isaurian and Heracleian periods, which had serious flaws. Nevertheless, I do not worry much about that. My only priority now is quality, and then we'll see if there are worries about the length. After all, personally, I have a personal opinnion differing a bit from Sandy's views as far as FA's length is concerned.
In any case, I'll continue to gradually work on the article, and I believe that through discussion and exchange of ideas, we'll find the best solutions for one of the most important topics in Wikipedia. This article could be a model one. Of course, I do not know if my rewriting will be done within FAR's or FARC's time limits. I'll do my best, but I can guarantee nothing here. Unfrotunately, the article's problems are not limited to adding citations, but I have at the same time to research, re-structure, copy-edit (though not a native English speaker!) etc. It is a tough and extended job. And it is a pleasure, because during this rewriting I do learn things, and I improve myself, and my knowledge of an empire I love! So, even if I do not manage to save the article, I'll be happy just for the fact that I had the chance to follow once again the lives and the achievements of some of my heros of my childhood: Heracleius, Leo III, Justinian, Basil II, Alexios and Manuel, Constantine the Great and Constantine the Palaiologos. That is ok with me!--Yannismarou 08:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that we should not be constrained by arbitrary size limits that are in any case long out-dated and no longer relevant. We should concentrate on returning Byzantine Empire to its former glory. I look at the article now and I feel despair - it has been ruined, a travesty of its former self. Yannismarou, I think it is going to take a lot of work from both of us if we are going to save the article from its present terrible condition! Bigdaddy1204 11:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wholeheartedly agree. This is an incredibly large subject with several periods of history which, even if summarized themselves, would still create a large article. Size paranoia is dying out of Wikipedia; let's not resurrect it here. As for those unsavory editors, perhaps you can begin arbitration. I'm unfamiliar with the process, but invoking some kind of administrative help or ruling may settle the issues. Zeality 00:35, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Attention spans have not grown just because certain technical limitations have become irrelevant. One should generally assume that the general readership has something like half the patience of the aficionados that write articles. 20-something printed pages is pretty unreasonable unless one is actually intent on writing for one's peers. "Because we can" is really not a good argument...
Peter Isotalo 10:28, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Peter is right. There's no need to give a blow-by-blow of every military campaign or administrative reform in the main article, especially as it is already structured according to intelligent and well-considered chronological divisions: each subheading can easily become a more detailed article in its own right (and many already have), so that none of the hard work of the various editors need be lost. Next to this overdeveloped, if impressively accurate, political history stands a rather underdeveloped, and largely out-of-date, section of thematic entries on "legacy and importance": the "cultural elements of Byzantine literature," for example, are carried over from a 1913 Catholic Encylopedia article, and the section on Byzantine art is carried over from Brittanica. None of this is to suggest that the article does not constitute an excellent resource; merely that its excessive length is the product of an inordinate concentration on political history, which forms a very small part of any given state or society. --Javits2000 09:58, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

[edit]
Suggested FA criteria concern are focus (4), MoS issues (2), citations (1c), and prose (1a). Marskell 10:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd clarify an issue with criteria with 2(a) - the LEAD does not summarise the article but is mainly concerned with when the Byzantine Empire is supposed to have begun.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:06, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to inform the reviewers here that my rewriting is still on the way, and hopefully I will need until one more week to get it over.--Yannismarou 22:04, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • All those article series templates, quote boxes, timelines and whathaveyou combined with so many images make the article look rather cluttered. For example, do we really need 15 maps? I also question the relevance of an infobox that is intended for modern nations. Most of the facts included in that infobox are pretty arbitrary choices. Peter Isotalo 08:03, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove Rather than being summarized and shortened, the article has been expanded to 83k of prose since the last comment here and there are now 16 maps. Yannis is still not back from his vacation and it doesn't seem like anyone else is going to rein in this colossus any time soon. Peter Isotalo 23:19, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no idea how the figure of 66KB has been reached (my calculation puts it at around 80), but it's still massive. Haggling about what constitutes actual article material isn't going to amend the problem either. Peter Isotalo 21:15, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If such a massive amount of text-based information (we're talking some 20% in this case) is so irrelevant to the total size of the article that it's not be considered prose, one really wonders why it should be included in the article in the first place. Peter Isotalo 14:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Length isn't a criteria, though is it? I do agree that the "history" section of the article should essentially be composed of the leads of daughter articles, each of which covers a specific period. But then someone has to write those daughter articles! The only problem I see with the maps is a spelling mistake, "Constantinopel", in the 1400 one. "Early history" is under-cited. "None of this was of any comfort to the farmers in Asia Minor, suffering raids from fanatical ghazis." Hmmn, I suppose not, but still a source would be nice. Paragraphs from 1391 to the end of history are under-cited. Despite these problems, I'm not keen on removing FA status from a well-researched and illustrated article. So…Default keep, but please try to address my comments DrKiernan 09:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Focus is a criteria. As an article gets longer it gets less focused, even if the limits aren't set in stone. 20+-pages and 83k of prose, however, isn't what I'd call a borderline case. Peter Isotalo 07:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Would be a pity to lose this one. Tony 15:35, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I cannot agree more with you, Tony. Gradually, I will be back to Wikipedia more focused and eager to work. I already work on the article, but I cannot guarantee that at this or this moment I will have completed my work and the article will be ready. Any assistance is welcomed here. Unfortunately, this article came here during the most complicated period of my life ...--Yannismarou 16:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing on what language people spoke in the Byzantine Empire. I have browsed thru it - main thing would be to (fairly aggressively) summarise historical segments for which there are subarticles - starting with Justinian I think...cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:41, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Greek-speaking" is in the first line of the introduction. Slac speak up! 00:10, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Earlier, someone said that " the article should essentially be composed of the leads of daughter articles, each of which covers a specific period. But then someone has to write those daughter articles!". Well, a start has been made on that process. New articles on the Komnenoi and Palaiologoi are being linked into Byzantine Empire. Hopefully, this is the start of a process that will eventually give rise to a series of articles on, for example, the Heraclian line, the Isaurians, etc, allowing the main BE article to remain as a featured article whilst the real detail is contained in these smaller, more detailed sub articles. Bigdaddy1204 22:30, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment on the "history section" issue: Recognizing the article's current deficiencies, I must however point out that I disagree with the view of some of the reviewers (e.g. Piotrus, a reviewer I highly esteem) that it is a problem "that the 'history' section comprises most of the article". An article about a no more existing empire is normal to speak mainly about history. First of all, the article does not (at least not any more!) just speak about history - it treats religion, diplomacy, economy, culture etc. linking to the proper relevant articles per WP:SS, but it is IMO inevitable most of the article to be history. If we create a sub-article History of the Byzantine Empire, keeping here just a section of this article, I am afraid we will deprive Byzantine Empire from its essence, from its wealth. Yes, I support the creation of sub-articles in parts of the history, yes, maybe the WP:SS could be even better utilized, but I do not honestly see the reason for the creation of a History of the Byzantine Empire sub-article. The history of the Byzantine Empire is the Byzantine Empire itself! And I do not say that in Britannica everything is perfect, but, if you check the respective article, you'll see that it is nothing more than history!--Yannismarou 13:35, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. When I nominated this article, it was in dismal shape from almost every aspect; that it has come so far is a joy to behold. The article is now cited, has a nice lead, conforms with the MOS, and is deserving of featured status. The only outstanding concern is length, and that has me between a rock and a hard place. I have never supported an article that passes the upper guideline of 50KB prose. This article started at 78KB of prose, and has been reduced to 65KB during the FAR. Many reviewers argued at FAR that B movie—at the same size (63KB prose)—was not too large. I disagreed; B movie passed FAR with 63KB prose. I submit that if a topic like B movie is not too large at 63KB prose, then the Byzantine Empire—a weighty topic—would not be considered oversized if the same standards are used. I echo Tony's statement: it would be a pity for this article to lose status based on size alone, while the same FAR process passes B movie at the same prose size. All of my other concerns have been addressed, but there is an unequal standard at play here wrt size, as that has never been sufficiently resolved at WP:WIAFA. I'm afraid I can't support or oppose because the standard has not been clearly defined, and the closing admin will have to make the call. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:17, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Further clarification, which may muddy the waters or make closing decisions easier. I fought the Extra Long Article Committee (ELAC) because they were applying extreme and un-Wikilike measures to reducing article size, without consideration for overall and prose vs. reference size; in other words, they penalized well referenced articles. I sort out prose size from references with Dr pda's page size script, and I have opposed any FA that passes WP:SIZE by a large amount. I believe our longest FAs currently are B movie (63KB of prose), Byzantine Empire (65KB of prose), Campaign history of the Roman military (74KB of prose) and Ketuanan Melayu (a whopping 82KB of prose). IMO, WP:WIAFA 2 and 4 (complies with MOS and stays tightly focused) are no less important than other measures. But, Ketuanan and Roman military passed FAC, and B movie passed FAR. If Byzantine Empire fails, Ketuanan and Roman military should be revisited. If Byzantine empire passes, the requirement that featured articles comply with WP:MOS, including WP:SIZE, is weakened. The size issue should be settled at the level of WP:WIAFA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:10, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another: History of Russia, 72KB prose, currently at WP:FAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:13, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Çlosing: Precisely because a size rule has not been sufficiently resolved, I think this should go keep. Until we decide on a specific criterion, that must be the default. Now, if an article is bloated and wanders (4) that's a different thing, but I think this is great read. I agree with Yanni about the history issue—comments on religion, the arts, bureaucracy, etc. are woven throughout the article, and then get their own small sections at the end. Plus the nominator is pleased with various criteria concerns. (Though note that the Early history needs sources.) Marskell 09:17, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
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 (22:24, July 26, 2007).

Barack Obama

[edit]
previous FAR
Messages left at Columbia Univ. Project, Hawaii, Illinois, U.S. Congress, and Bio. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:43, 8 July 2007 (UTC) Also Gdo01 and Meelar.[reply]
In the future notify WP:CHICAGO as well. He is currently one of only 20 top priority articles for our project (out of nearly 11000).--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 16:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
notified (used tool as instructed by sandygeorgia): Barack Obama talk page, Maximusveritas, Jersyko (knows and already commented), Bobblehead, SandyGeorgia (knows and already commented), Dereks1x, HailFire, Steve Dufour, MPS, Italiavivi, Manic Hispanic, Jogurney.
Feddhicks, I have notified the Projects that you failed to notify, and partially cleaned up and completed the notificatoins of relevant parties; pls complete the rest. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:53, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article is of good quality and I think it would pass a good article nomination, but it is not of featured article quality anymore.

;Well written, comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral and stable

  • The article is not stable and subject to an ongoing edit war. While I AGF and do not accuse the editors of being campaign workers, the edits of some editors (not named to prevent accusations) is trying to hide information, place some information in small print, deleting relevant information, etc. Some editors give up but this doesn't mean there is a concensus.
  • Article is prone to vandalism and reverts possibly due to frustration of the edit warring.
  • There are other contentious issues that no censensus has been reached. These can be found in the archives of the talk page. Essentially, many editors left wikipedia because a small group of editors kept insisting on doing it their way, even if it wasn't right.

::Examples include the controversy (without commenting what the right thing to do about each controversy) about his Muslim education (or explaining that it was a controversy but there's no substance to allegations), police endorsement and opposition, Myspace and internet support, etc.

;Images

  • Poor image, makes his skin blotchy and unattractive (subtle POV edit warring or not?)

;Length and focus

  • Exceeds recommended article length but attempts to shorten have only led to edit warring.

Loss of featured article status is no big deal. Prime Minister Blair's article is very good and loss of FA status does diminish Blair's reputation. Feddhicks 18:27, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • The article has not changed to such a significant degree since its last FAR as to warrant further review. The edit warring noted above is being perpetuated by that editor. Since the only other substantial reason given for delisting that doesn't reference edit warring is "Poor image, makes his skin blotchy and unattractive", this article should obviously not be delisted. · jersyko talk 18:41, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

:The lack of consensus is more than one editor. I am only concerned about hiding information by putting an important phrase in small print hidden in the footnotes, instead of the main article.

Other editors with other disputes include Group 1: Jersyko, Tvoz, Bobblehead; Group 2: Italiaviva, Jogurney; and the independent group: ManicHispanic, Vintagekits, UTAFA, Nuclearj, Hempbilly, and many others. All total, there are about a dozen disputes where all the editors have not reached an agreement (although some got fed up and left).
There is more than one area of edit warring. I don't represent the other editors and they have their own beef with the article, some of which seem to be very reasonable proposals.
The lack of FA status can be good. It does not say Senator Obama is bad because his article is not an FA. In fact, it encourages cooperation to improve the article rather than false resting on its laurels.
Feddhicks 19:06, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This FAR seems to be largely in response to a dispute over some minor content and whether it is adequately covered by including the content in a footnote rather than in the main body of the article and subsequent accusations of sockpuppetry. As far as the issues raised by the submitter:
  • Two reverts of actual content over two days does not make an edit war.
  • The article is of a highly visible person whose chosen profession is going to draw attention from vandals and the four edits from the vandalism only account and three subsequent reverts are a function of that. Granted, the page is on fairly permanent semi-protection, so that does cut down on the vandalism quite a bit.
  • Because a subject is frequently raised by different people does not mean that consensus has not been reached. I'm not going to go into detail on the specific examples given, except to say on the general level of "controversies" those have all been rather minor in regards to Obama and the amount of weight given to them has to be measured carefully.
  • The image is free... What's there to complain about?
  • The article's readable text is well within Wikipedia's guidelines, the size of the article is due solely to the 168 citations that have been used to support the article. All of which have been necessary because of the level of attention the article has gotten. To say attempts to shorten the article has been met with edit wars is a bit of an overstatement of what's been happening. Shortening the readable text more than what has already occurred would be detrimental to the article.
What does "Group 1," "Group 2," etc mean?

I am confused by Fred's description. Italiavivi 21:54, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pasted from talk page: Comment - I am satisfied with the footnote mention of the Rezko relationship. My understanding from previous discussions (see Bobblehead's list above) was that most editors agreed that the controversy/relationship was notable but to give it more than a sentence or footnote mention would give it undue weight (compared to other more significant topics in this article). Other political candidate articles have used similar techniques (footnote mention of notable but minor controversies) such as Ron Paul. I hope this helps. Best regards. Jogurney 19:59, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Paul's article doesn't use tricky tactics as this article. That footnote further expands on a sentence in the article. The Paul article says there is controversy and explains the controversy in the footnoot. The Obama article makes no mention of the house controversy and then hides a one sentence in the footnotes that mentions the controversy. The Ron Paul footnote is in normal print. The Obama footnote is in such small print that some people can't even see it. Therefore, Jogurney's logic proves there is a problem.

SteveDufour removed the POV tag because he said "no topic was added to talk page to discuss possible problems" This shows how bad the small print in the footnote is. Steve read the personal life section and then looked at the talk page and didn't see any personal life discussion. However, the footnote is part of the personal life discussion. It is so hidden that a veteral editor, one who has edited Barack Obama more than hundreds and is in the top few editors as far as number of Barack Obama edits, did not even see it. This proves that the small print is a problem. Feddhicks 16:43, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's difficult for me to assume good faith on the part of an obvious sock of a banned user. It's obvious to me that this FAR exists solely to draw attention to a single content dispute on a minor point. A FA will not be delisted almost solely because of the size of a bit of text in a footnote. This is an improper use of FAR, an attempt to skirt the required dispute resolution methods, and a violation of WP:POINT. I cannot take this FAR seriously. · jersyko talk 17:11, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And if pictures are an issue, check out the public domain photos I have found at Google images. Pick one and upload it. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 08:10, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was not notified of this FAR, and I can guess why. This is just another tactic by a sock of a banned user who has used these tactics repeatedly to disrupt editing on many Wikipedia articles. Indeed some of the names he lists here are known or suspected socks of the same user. Bobblehead's summary and analysis is correct, as is Jersyko's, and this is an improper use of FAR. The RFC he instituted a couple of days ago didn't yield the support he wanted so he's now instituted a FAR and is canvassing for his POV as well. This is just one more disruption in a very long history. Tvoz |talk 15:05, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

:::AGF, you guess wrong. You wikistalk by following me to obscure article and disrupting these articles so I knew you would come here. If you did not wikistalk or come here, then I would have notified you. You just proved again that you wikistalk. Can't you see that you are part of the problem. Even Bobblehead, who I don't agree with has a calming effect but your edits cause disruption. Again more proof of edit warring which makes an article unsuitable for FA. With no FA status, there will be incentive for you to reach consensus so that we can bring the article back to FA status. Are you opposed to making an article better?

Do not look at me as the bad guy. I do not re-revert stuff on the article. I discuss, like here. Many others actually edit war by making the reverts and try to stop discussion, like this FAR.Feddhicks 16:36, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is proof that there are many edit warring problems in this article making it unsuitable for FA (but quite possibly suitable for a GA). All this edit warring above involves only one of many issues.

Other issues involve other problems. These include (taking quotes from the talk pages):

;Relentless Censorship of Anything that Would Hurt Obama

Why is it that I added something to this article about Barack Obama's opposition to a bill protecting infant victims of botched abortions and it was deleted by another user MINUTES later? Can somebody explain why CONSTRUCTIVE CRITICISM of Barack Obama is deleted with no explanation? Also, there is NOTHING negative about him in the whole article. Compare that to any article about a REPUBLICAN Presidential candidate and you will see what I mean. But for now, I will re-add the article from world net daily and hope that none of the censors (obama supporters/staffers) don't delete for fear it will take away from the positiveness of this fluff piece.

Has anyone else noticed how any mention of anything controversial regarding Obama does not survive in this article. It appears to be a tool for the Obama '08 campaign and they are stomping out all opposition in fascistic style. Can someone please report what's been going on here to the wikipedia administrators.

;"not easily pegged to typical U.S. categories of the left or right"? Hi. While I am inclined to support Obama (we're both left-handed smokers), my BS detector lights up a little after reading this. In the Political Image section it describes him as being neither lefty nor righty. He's been against the Iraq war since day one (a position typically reserved for the extremes on both sides - like Ron Paul or Denis Kucinich), is pro-choice and advocates universal healthcare. In 2007 America this combination puts you on the left.

;Biased report on police endorsement Hellfire made an edit in September. Essentially, it says that Obama got the endorsement of the Fraternal Order of Police and a citation is given. However, looking at that citation [2], the Chicago Tribune article actually said " 'I don't see him as pro-law enforcement," said Wheaton police Chief Mark Field. "I could spend hours with this man talking about his voting record. It is very anti-public safety." The crowd of 60 police officials applauded only once during Obama's 20-minute remarks. The whole article is about the chilly reception that Obama got.

This does not seem like very balanced reporting by Hellfire. It seems like there is a POV being pushed, i.e. trying to convince the reader that Obama has police support.

It's really very hard for me to see that this is other than biased editing by Hellfire. Furthermore, it wasn't just an honest mistake in editing because Hellfire recently reverted Italiavivi's correction accurately summarizing the citation back to the biased, one sided summary of the Chicago Tribune citation.

;Picture I don't feel Barak's picture is from a neutral point of view. This looks like an image from the campaign for his presidency.

Let me get this straight. A flattering picture of a person violates NPOV? Are you serious? KyuzoGator 15:35, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

(editor's note) so an unflattering picture may violate NPOV?

What is the image being considered a possible POV issue? The infobox photo? User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 19:15, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

;Race and "blackness" Since his Senate race in 2004, some American politicians and commentators, many African-American, have asserted that Sen. Obama is not "African-American" or not "black like me" because he was not descended from American slaves. His "blackness" has been questioned.

(editor's note) was overwhelming noted by many to be notable.

;Antoin Rezko real estate In November 2006, Barack Obama acknowledged his participation in a real estate deal to which Antoin "Tony" Rezko, an Obama campaign contributor, was a participant. Under the deal, Obama and Rezko purchased adjoining properties, with Rezko later reselling part of his parcel to Obama. No laws are alleged to have been broken and Obama is not under investigation. Obama acknowledges that the exchange may have appeared improper, and said "I consider this a mistake on my part and I regret it." [5]

(editor's note) was found to be notable. No discussion was made on using small print despite false claims of a consensus.

;Wikipedia has spoken After reviewing the ongoing discussion regarding Senator Barack Obama's categorization as an "Irish American Politician,"

(editor's note) The consensus outnumber the minority by almost 2-1, yet the minority imposed their views.

These are just from ONE page of 9 in the archives. Also note that I don't necessarily agree or disagree with the above quotes, just that they raise some important questions that a censensus has NOT been reached. Feddhicks 16:24, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, please, but this suggests that this is not a valid username. Maybe it was a sig. Tvoz |talk 04:43, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • As near as I can figure, the notification list is the users (excluding IP addresses) that have commented in some way on which "controversies" should be included in the article and which should not rather than a list of the people that have made significant edits on the article. --Bobblehead (rants) 22:05, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SG commentary
  1. Disclaimer: According to Wikipedia Page History Statistics, I figure among the top 10 editors of the article. I have never been a regular editor or follower of the article, and to my knowledge, I have never made a content edit to the article. I figure as a top editor because I "cleaned up" the refs during the January featured article review; all of my edits can be reviewed on or around January 9, 2007. When I clean up refs, I edit by section, and since you can't see the ref display until saving the edit, it often takes repeated edits, resulting in a high edit count. I say "cleaned up" because they were (and still are) the cleanest refs I've ever encountered during a FAR, and I found literally not a single marginally-reliable source. The referencing on the article is a standard by which other articles can be judged, and is superior to most articles passing FAC today. That I could still be one of the top editors, after only cleaning up refs half a year ago, speaks to the article's stability.
  2. Disclaimer: I am decidedly not an Obama supporter, and don't really understand all the kerfluffle about a Senator with very limited experience (but a remarkable ability to raise money).

As far as I can tell, after four days, there is not a single editor in the extended commentary above who agrees that this article warrants review. My own review of Feddhicks' concerns is:

  1. Feddhicks says the article length is an issue. It is well within WP:SIZE guidelines, with 34KB in prose and 29 KB in refs.
  2. Feddhicks complains about the quality of the images: I detect no image issues (although I struggle to understand Fair Use, they all look fine).
  3. Feddhicks says the article is prone to vandalism: I refer him to WP:WIAFA.
  4. Feddhicks says the article is not stable: I can't find any indication of that, and Feddhicks hasn't made a case that backs up this claim.
  5. Feddhicks says there is an ongoing edit war: I don't find indications of that either.

If Feddhicks has content issues, I suggest he follows the procedures for dispute resolution. Perhaps an argument could be made that Exernal links need pruning per WP:EL and WP:NOT; Wiki isn't Obama's personal website, and the links are a bit out of control. That is the only deficiency I can find in the article: I suggest that External links be pruned, and move that this FAR be closed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

;Correction to incorrect info

Feddhicks says there is an ongoing edit war: I don't find indications of that either.

That's because I have been extremely restrained. Whenever I (or other editors) make a NPOV edit that is the least bit negative, even if 1% negative and 99% positive, the editor or editors called Tvoz/Bobblehead/Jersyko revert it. Only occasionally does another editor do it. This is edit warring. Do you want me to defend the article like they do and respond to edit wars? Feddhicks 17:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is also other info raised by others that seem reasonable. They have been shut up by those 3 user names.

Also, about SG wanting to close the debate on the FAR, thank you for your help. The rules say differently about closure. "Nominations last for two to three weeks, or longer where changes are ongoing", also consensus has not been reached as few participants have commented other than Feddhicks and Tvoz-Jersyko-Bobblehead, also I've made a NPOV improvement and we'll see how quick that gets reverted (hopefully not reverted). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Feddhicks (talk •contribs).

I have made one revert on the Obama article in probably about a month, maybe more (I don't know precisely) more than two months, and it wasn't even to a Feddhicks edit. Thus, the ONLY reason you would lump me into that group of reverters with Tvoz and Bobblehead (without conceding to the truth of the assertion that they are reverting your edits, I have no idea) is if you are a sock of Dereks1x and experienced me reverting you in the distant past. Thus, again, this FAR is pointless and has been brought by a sock of a banned user that needs to be indefinitely blocked. I'd do it myself if not for my involvement in this discussion. · jersyko talk 18:25, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

without conceding to the truth of the assertion that they are reverting your edits..That's wikilawyering..ILLEGAL/AGAINST WIKI POLICY....Bobblehead just reverted a comment against concensus. More people think the small print footnote is a POV attempt to cover up.Feddhicks 19:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Transcribed quotes: The continual relegation and of this does smack of ownership. I realize this is an FA and consideration should be taken when editing it, but come on, this is getting out of hand. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 18:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

The "footnote" looks like more of an attempt to bury it rather than address it.Torturous Devastating Cudgel 15:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC) I'm actually an Obama supporter (full disclosure), but as a Wikipedia editor I have to somewhat agree with User:TDC. I think the Rezko thing warrants a *small* mention (more that just a note like it is now). Whether or not Obama did anything wrong is not really the point, the point is that there was a controversy around the issue. Again, i don't think there should be a whole long section on the Rezko thing like some people want, but I think it atleast deserves a mention of a sentence or two somewhere. Bjewiki 19:35, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Further proof of edit warring..above personal attack by Jersyko. He calls me a sock because he says he is uninvolved and bringing up his name is evidence of socking. The truth is that Jersyko brought his own name up early on by writing here. Therefore, he is trying to trick others. Therefore, this is edit warring. Please, stop! This is not an anti-Obama attempt. It is an attempt to improve the article, not make it a biased campaign ad. Even the Obama campaign is not so brazen as to hiding Rezko. Feddhicks 19:48, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I blocked Feddhicks as an obvious sock of banned user Dereks1x and requested review of my block at ANI given my involvement in the discussion here. · jersyko talk 19:55, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can someone please deal with the incorrect and inflammatory heading Feddhicks inserted on the talk page? [4] Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:04, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As noted, there is a POV issues with the article, that is actively being discussed. If no progress one way or the other has been made on this, then it is time to delist the article from FA status. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 19:58, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought this edit dealt with things well and solves the issue. (However, it has since been reverted.) I think the incident should be mentioned in the article itself in a few sentences. Obama released a statement on it and everything.--Gloriamarie 17:39, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is coming up on the two-week mark; have you all worked that out yet? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the Rezko matter, the fontsize in the relevant footnote (and other similar ones) has been equalized so that it is no longer smaller and therefore it is now more readable. This takes up more space but it seemed worthwhile and it satisfied several editors who had raised questions about the font, including Jogurney who if I recall correctly came to the page in response to the RFC about the Rezko matter. The majority view, I believe - not unanimous, but this is Wikipedia - is that the note within the footnote is adequate at this time, in same size as rest of footnotes. This FAR was brought by a sockpuppet of a banned user whose edits here are now stricken, and it was raised, I believe, to disrupt editing. The content disagreement about the relative importance of this matter should not have come to FAR and I would respectfully request that it be closed so we can get on with the business at hand and continue to edit the article based on consensus of the editors. Tvoz |talk 07:44, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It would be helpful to hear from Torturous Devastating Cudgel; unless TDC still has concerns, my Move to close FAR stands. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:31, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to try some edits before this FAR gets closed, including substantially pruning the external links section per your suggestion. May we keep it open just a bit longer? --HailFire 05:47, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I hope today's edits address most of the legitimate concerns that have been raised here. Thanks for waiting. I have no objection to closing this FAR. --HailFire 22:51, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Tvoz |talk 03:02, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I saw on ABC a story about sites like wikipedia used by supporters to help their candidate. It wasn't specifically about Obama but did mention Obama's article. There was mention of his travel section. Since they mentioned about that, let me give you my 2 cents worth. The travel section is pure spin. Maybe someone is trying to make him look like a world leader. It really doesn't belong in any biography unless the biography is book length.

So overall, if we are serious about featured article status, the whole article needs to be revamped to make it a biography, not a campaign press release, like ABC said. Cut the travel section, maybe move it to the campaign article, clean up some misleading statements, move most of the campaign news off, after all the articles like FDR doesn't have his campaign details, etc.

If we want to award all the people running for president a featured article star, then it's equal treatment that we give Obama one. Since ABC mentioned grass roots people supporting their candidate on the internet, like wikipedia, we don't want to ruffle their feathers and can make everyone happy by giving everyone the featured article star. Fineday 04:57, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this comment makes any sense or has any relevance to the issues discussed in this FAR. Tvoz |talk 03:02, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
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 16:49, 25 July 2007.

Hamersley, Western Australia

[edit]

Review commentary

[edit]
Messages left at WP Perth and WP Western Australia, and Orderinchaos

I would like this article reviewed by people not directly involved in the creation of it. It has created some significant discussion since I started editing it a few days ago. See discussion: Talk:Hamersley,_Western_Australia#this_article. I disagree with the status of Featured Article for a number of reasons:

  • History section - is very long and verbose. it's not "well written" in my opinion as it's not concise. almost every single planning decision is included up to 1980 (not all of which is notable) yet there is a considerable gap from 1981.
  • Some editors think I am questioning the comprehensiveness and factual accuracy. Not true. it is well citated and referenced. My issue is with the number of facts, some of them are minor, like the relevance of the history of bus services, or that school used to be a community hall till 1975. the only thing I would question about comprehensiveness of this article is this Talk:Hamersley,_Western_Australia#Jump_in_history.
  • However, I think the article fails the last criteria of Featured articles: "It is of appropriate length, staying focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail"
  • Structure is not clear and does not bring out the suburb's key notability or key facts. Compare the readability to other featured article locations: Birchington-on-Sea or El Hatillo Municipality, Miranda.

Thanks for your consideration. Michellecrisp 06:04, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • As someone not in any way involved in the creation of this article, I disagree. Firstly, I note that this is a relatively recent promotion, and I don't think standards have changed since it was promoted. I found the history section well-written and covering all the important facts - the lack of information post-1981 seems to be based more on a lack of actual important happenings rather than an oversight. I have no issue with the level of detail in the article, or the facts you cite specifically above - I find them quite relevant for an article on a suburb as small as this. The article is of a good length for an article of a subject of this type (similar to other FAs covering similar ground), and doesn't go into unnecessary detail; rather, it actually makes for an interesting article on a suburb, which is not an easy feat. The article remains, in my opinion, quite possibly the best article yet written on a suburb, and certainly of equal standing to the other two FAs on Australian suburbs. I'm just not seeing Michellecrisp's claims borne out at all. Rebecca 08:11, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for your comments, your statement is "lack of actual important happenings rather than an oversight" is a presumption rather than based on fact. Surely similar detailed planning decisions have been made since then. for example, this is omitted http://www.stirling.wa.gov.au/home/development/Schemes+Policies+and+Legislation/District+Planning+Scheme+No+2.htm which came into effect in 1985 or this work http://www.stirling.wa.gov.au/NR/rdonlyres/BA489B94-A042-496B-AA55-384E0CE20BBA/0/CarineHamersleyDiscussionPaper.pdf
    • 2 notable and important omissions, which I believe was omitted because it was not researched not because it was not notable.Michellecrisp 08:22, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • It also fails to mention golf course in any detail (not at all mentioned in amenities), and it's one of the busiest in Perth [5] (as claimed by Council). another notable omission. Michellecrisp 08:31, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • (Disclaimer: As the person who wrote this section...) Golf course despite the name is 2.5 suburbs away in Karrinyup (see here left of the X), hence the lack of a mention in this article. The enactment of a district planning scheme for a rather large massive area that happens to include Hamersley, which relates more to R-codes than anything else and is well beyond the scope of a suburb article (if anywhere it belongs in City of Stirling), was simply not included. A link to the R-codes PDF was actually included in the "External links" section at the bottom of the article, as it included a reasonable land use map of Hamersley Orderinchaos 09:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm not really seeing the planning scheme change as warranting inclusion, let alone being a requirement. The history section contains the information on town planning and such because it strongly pertains to the creation and development of the suburb. The current planning scheme, however, seems irrelevant (and, ironically, too much detail); we don't mention them in any other suburb articles (including any of the FAs) - why should this one? The golf course, on the other hand, seems like an entirely pertinent addition, but why this justifies the aggressive attitude towards the article I'm not sure. Rebecca 08:50, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close as content dispute Firstly, the user who has opened this FAR has tried to place conditions on top of WP policy. You simply cannot impose your own level of process on an FAR, everyone's opinion here is welcomed regardless of if they have edited the article or not. For the record, I have not edited the article in question, but participated in the FAC and voted in support of it when there. The person who has nominated this article for FAR has failed to specify the criteria which s/he believes the article fails to meet. Additionally, the nominator has failed to propose any reasonable remedies for the issues they perceive with the article. In light of this sub-standard FAR nomination, I have reviewed the article in full against the FA Criteria. I am of the reasonable opinion that the article adequately meets all the FA requirements, and that the changes that were made to the article without consensus by the user who nominated it for FAR would actually reduce the likelihood of the article retaining it's FA status. And while I generally avoid Ad hominem points, the user by their own admission and demonstrated through their edits does not have a demonstrated knowledge of the subject matter being covered. Further to this, the article in question is generally considered by the Australian projects as the gold standard and benchmark for suburb related articles on the project. A majority of the suburb articles created by more experienced editors are in fact modelled on this one. This FAR was opened only for the purpose of advancing a single users' position on a content dispute, which I consider a WP:POINT disruption, and thus this FAR should be closed with prejudice as soon as possible. Thewinchester (talk) 11:07, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (I think I'm excluded from a 'vote' :-) Several outstanding reasons have been given to close this discussion, is there no policy regarding this? The best reason is the waste of energy and disruption. Any of those 'things that live under bridges' would be madly cutting and pasting this debacle for future reference. Anyway, here is a fun fact from El Hatillo Municipality, Miranda: "... a well-known local restaurant called "Mauricio's" mixes Swiss and French food with Caribbean gastronomy. El Hatillo also offers many varieties of confectionery, such as churros, pastry and ice cream.[2]". Fully referenced of course! ☻ Fred|☝ discussion|✍ contributions 12:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response thewinchester said "The person who has nominated this article for FAR has failed to specify the criteria which s/he believes the article fails to meet." I have already stated 2 criteria it fails to meet: It is of appropriate length, staying focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and Well written. Remedies include creating separate entry for history section, and rewriting some sections in a more concise manner. Michellecrisp 15:02, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the record, I have been subject to a bad faith vandalism accusation by User:Thewinchester concerning this article which an administrator is found to be inappropriate. He/she seems intent (in my opinion) to close this discussion down with comments such as "the user by their own admission and demonstrated through their edits does not have a demonstrated knowledge of the subject matter being covered". In addition, the user is from Perth, so WP:OWN may be an influencing factor. These are solely my opinions.Michellecrisp 15:07, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment WP:OWN is this case has been used by the FAR nominator as a defence against someone who has a legitimate and sound disagreement with their reasoning. You literally have tried to suggest that by virtue of the fact my userpage states I reside in the state of the article's subject I am unable to objectively contribute let alone draw a reasonable view on the issue. Was trying to place conditions on top of WP policy not enough for you, now you've labelled all WA based editors as being unable to contribute objectively to the topic, the talk discussion, and the FAR on account of what you perceive as WP:COI because of where they live? That's the biggest load of rubbish I've ever heard all week (And I work in the public sector so I hear rubbish constantly), and by your own logic would suggest that not even the key authors and contributors to the article should of contributed or are permitted in your mind to discuss the issues you have raised. This is a massive WP:AGF problem on your part. I'd reiterate my call for this FAR to be appropriately closed as on account the FAR was opened by the user to grandstanding and advance their viewpoint on a content dispute, which FAR is not the place for. Thewinchester (talk) 01:37, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'd also like to remind Michellsecrisp that the point of this page is to address any perceived issues with the article. As such, the people who wrote it not only should, but are the best people to, actually respond, since they are the ones with the knowledge and ability to fix any issues. This, I might add, is impossible in this case, since no substantive criticism of the content has actually been put forward. Rebecca 02:26, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - as someone who originally picked up on the editing of this article, I feel I should comment in this FAR. For a start, I uphold and defend the right of Michellecrisp to run this FAR - I believe her intentions are in good faith and her aim is to improve articles, not to take away from them. Despite the fact that the FAR has taken place less than 3 months after the promotion to FA and that Michelle asked for non-Perth people only to participate, I think these can be overlooked out of a misunderstanding of Wikipedia policy and a desire to see some different people view the article on top of those who have had a hand in the article. Further to this, after my revert of her initial changes, I believe that the minor edits she did of the article were positive and were done out of an attempt to improve the article, and since I asked her to discuss any proposed changes on the talk page, she has done so. I don't believe her actions have assumed bad faith. As Orderinchaos has said elsewhere, I think that if the outcome of this FAR is that the article is improved, then that is a good thing. However, as someone who was not involved in the creation of the article (although I did approve the FA under my old username), and someone not from Perth (I live on the other side of Australia), I also must disagree with the reasons cited for this FAR. Firstly, as to the number of facts, I don't believe that the comparisons with the two other FAs are valid - the first is a small seaside village that has been around since 1240, the second is a municipality in Venezuela of about 115 square kilometres - neither are comparable to a small suburb of less than 4 square kilometres that has been around only since the 1960s in a city of 1+ million people. To have an article of featured standard for something this small, there have to be minutiae, and we need to go into detail for some sections. I'm a firm supporter of the WP:NOT#PAPER policy and think that some details are appropriate for Wikipedia which might not be appropriate for a paper encyclopedia like Britannica - so the things like the history of bus services are an interesting and relevant addition for a Wikipedia article on a small suburb, as an important part of its public transport history before the introduction of the Northern Suburbs Railway. Secondly, if the article is too long, then it should be split into other articles if there is enough information available. However, the article is less than the recommended splitting size (in Wikipedia:Article size) of 60KB (it's only 53KB) so there is no real need to do so at present unless we can sustain a whole other article from a particular section. Thirdly, as to verbosity in the article, I'm yet to be convinced and I can't find any section that is too wordy, (although some more specific examples where the language could be expressed differently might help my thoughts on this). For these reasons I must disagree with the FAR; though I support any (discussed) attempts to improve the article by making some minor changes. In my opinion, I think this is probably the best Australian suburb article on Wikipedia, but any attempt to make it even better is more than welcome. I hope these comments are helpful. (Finally, an apology to the Perth editors for spelling the name with two m's!) JRG 04:00, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment my request for third party review is only confirmed by some of the comments here. On one front with respect to well written I am not looking for subject matter experts but testing the readability of the article (as with someone that saw the article for the first time like I did ). For example, the article has a detailed history that could be better presented/structured as perhaps bullet points by year arranged in chronological order to indicate milestones.
  • I believe that the number of Ks is only a guide. The actual length and readibility is a better guide. To me, if someone has to scroll down through a whole lot of minor history. Michellecrisp 04:34, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately the first dot point above (re dot points with years) would not allow the article to pass FA. Also, some years (1968, 1969, 1970) would be very hefty while others would not, so I don't see how this would improve readability. Orderinchaos 04:40, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My suggestion is that it could be grouped by decade as with other locality articles. Michellecrisp 04:46, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response If this a FA article, then it should stand up to international scrutiny. Could someone from outside WA get a solid understanding from reading the article? I am not questioning that the information is there. It's its presentation. Michellecrisp 04:46, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, on both grounds, as you've been told by numerous people from outside WA. I do believe this is the most aggressive handling of an FAR by a nominator that I've ever seen in my time on Wikipedia. Rebecca 05:53, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Review by Hesperian
  • Lead is fine
  • Geography section is mostly fine but natural history section is overly detailed. One possible solution would be to identify and write articles on the vegetation communities present in Hamersley; then we would only need to link to them rather than characterise their composition, and of course identify any way in which Hamersley vegetation is atypical.
  • Name section contains a bit too much information that reads as only obliquely related to the name. If this is necessary to the narrative, then perhaps information on the name should be worked into the other history sections, and this section abandoned. Also, the {{see also}} is redundant as the link already appears prominently in the text.
  • Early history: Again, I think the {{see also}} is redundant. Otherwise, good.
  • Hamersley Development Scheme: Good.
  • Suburban development: Fine by me; I'm satisfied with the level of detail presented here.
  • Demographics, Amenities and facilies, both fine
  • Education - I'm not convinced this level of historical detail is needed here. If it is that important to the history of the suburb, put it in the history section.
  • Transport - A bit long - I would probably work the historical information into the history section, or discard it.
  • Politics - good.

Hesperian 05:12, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments. Despite the fact that the FAR has taken place less than 3 months after the promotion to FA ... Incorrect, the article was promoted on March 7th. Will the original nominator please follow the instructions at the top of the FAR page, and notify all relevant parties, including original nominator and most active editors, and leave a note at the top of the FAR? Also, FAR is not dispute resolution; please focus on the issues that should be reviewed with respect to WP:WIAFA. Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:13, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's my fault - I read the date of display on the Main Page (April 14th) as the date of promotion to FA. I agree it was done on March 3, 2007. Sorry for any misunderstanding. JRG 06:23, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on Public Transport This relates to the criteria of (un)necessary detail. I am mentioning this because if FAs are top class articles, then precedents for other locality articles are set. From the paragraph starting with During the morning and evening rush hour, is it really necessary to list the pattern of timetables such as between 8am and 4pm etc. would it be better to summarise the main bus routes and where they connect to? this relates to: WP:NOT#GUIDE . Wikipedia should not be in my opinion an explanation of bus timetabling to a particular suburb. Secondly, is knowing which year a bus service was introduced to a suburb necessary? do people really look up Wikipedia for that information? I've suggested to someone in Sydney that this type of information is more relevant for a specific article like Buses in Sydney, you would think a more transport inclined person would visit that article for specific info. I ask because then it would be similarly expected to provide similar info on all other locality articles in Wikipedia. Bus services can easily be introduced or removed by the government or bus operator at the flick of the switch. this is not like railway stations or railway lines which are usually permanent. Of course something notable like buses replacing trams is worth reporting as in Vancouver#Transportation. Other FAs like Waterfall Gully, South Australia provide no information on bus service history, nor do city articles like Canberra or Detroit (however, info may be provided in linked articles). Michellecrisp 13:35, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply - I really must disagree with you on this. The paragraph on bus routes does exactly what you asked for - it summarises the bus routes and where they run in the suburb, and has a bit of informative history about public transport in the area before the Railway came in the mid-90s. The reason for the times of some bus routes being listed is that the various routes do not run at all times of the day. These sentences are informative and are relevant to how public transport works in Hamersley. They do not violate WP:NOT#GUIDE. An example of a violation of "Wikipedia is not a manual, guide or textbook" would be a listing of every bus stop in the suburb and which buses you could catch from it, or saying "to get to the Perth CBD you can catch a 431 from X street to Warwick Train Station, then catch the train into the city". The article does not read like a directory; it reads as a statement of facts about public transport availability and usage in the area. The comparisons with Canberra and Detroit (both cities) are not valid, as a listing of bus routes for a whole city's article would definitely be unencyclopedic - at the very least they should be in a "Transportation in X" article; it's a matter of degree as to what is and what isn't valid. This is a very small suburb in a large city and some detail is necessary, as I have already said. And we must also remember that Wikipedia is not a static encyclopedia (see WP:NOT#PAPER), so the fact that Governments change bus routes doesn't matter - that's just an invitation for us to alter the information and improve the article. Waterfall Gully probably doesn't have a history of bus services because no reliable source outlining that exists - it's not valid to compare other articles, it's a matter of what sources are and aren't available. JRG 06:50, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clarification After discussing with Rebecca (thanks), I'm aware that some have taken exception with my initial request for third party commentary only. To clarify I only wanted initially third party input as I wanted independent scrutiny of the article, for something to be put up and supported as FA is of course done by the authors. Having said that, I understand that those involved in it may want to discuss. but what I was trying to mean was that I would have appreciated more input from others especially those who perhaps got their own locality entry up as a FA in a different place as they may or may not have had similar questions about meeting criteria. Thanks. Michellecrisp 13:59, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on Education Here are my views on the Education section, which I believe is not well written ,although not bad either but I'm applying that "excellent" standard.
    • No private schools are within the suburb or near its boundaries is this sentence necessary? can it be safely assumed if there is no mention of private schools (or unis etc) that they don't exist?
    • Is street location of schools necessary? doesn't usually appear on locality articles. see other FAs Yarralumla,_Australian_Capital_Territory#Suburb_amenities, Birchington-on-Sea#Education or a city FA Tulsa,_Oklahoma#Education and also think it relates to: WP:NOT#GUIDE.
    • As schools were built in those suburbs in 1974–1976, congestion eased considerably This seems obvious statement of fact, whenever new schools are built in existing suburbs congestion is eased. Although I guess it relates to previous mention of congestion.
    • The school and kindergarten were also used as a hall and meeting place by residents and groups until the recreation centre opened in April 1975. Necessary or notable statement? In many many suburbs in Australia, school halls are used for community groups. do people really need to know this stopped happening in April 1975?
    • East Hamersley Primary School, in Doon Way, accepted its first students for the 1979 school year. couldn't this be more easily said as "East Hamersley Primary School opened in 1979"?

Michellecrisp 14:21, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Withdraw or close - Procedure for review submissions was not followed, the perils of which have been realised in subsequent discussions. I therefore do not believe it would appropriate to continue discussing improvement on this page; it is in the interests of the community and its productivity that the discussion revert to the talk page. Since having the article pointed out in a discussion of a revert, (Carlingford) - 06:13, 5 July 2007 (UTC), the nominator, unfortunately oblivious to the consequences, proceeded to reduce the article size from [responded by cutting 10129 bytes from Hamersley - with the rationale to this action];[reply]
  • (54,654 bytes) (→Public transport - history of bus services is too much detail for a locality entry and not consistent with other localities)
  • to (44,525 bytes) (→Governance - rm verbose)
[ and ...] summaries of 'too much detail', if any, at the intervening edits. It is reasonable to conclude that the editor has made an unannounced and substantial disruption, to the continuing improvement of this recently scrutinised article, in order to further a position that has only an incidental bearing on it. This review is part of that campaign. The editor is a quick-study, but the pedagogical benefit of this exercise has been exhausted. The nature of this review is such that I must draw attention to this by ad hominem argument in a sense, but this is due to the neglect of any form of procedure, my apologies to the editor who has been civil with me in discussion. I believe that she can help to improve article. Perhaps others will take an interest also, its all good.
However, this review was not required, all FAs can be edited - discussion prior to doing so is encouraged. Withdraw per the many and crucial reasons given by others, here and elsewhere, please. ☻ Fred|☝ discussion|✍ contributions 16:59, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fred.e gives examples of my changes and reasons, may I say upfront that I apologise for the large scale edits I did a few days ago and have not attempted (nor will I in the future) do large scale edits of highly rated articles. That is not the rationale nor reasoning for the FA review. I do not oppose supposed "unilateral" action being reverted, I believe in consensus that is why I have put this up for review, especially to get a wider audience on how it meets criteria than simply listing on Talk page. I have stated after my initial putting up for review, specific sentences and areas where I think this article fails WP:WIAFA. it is not a content dispute I believe, I am applying the highest level of scrutiny for a FA, especially as it should be the benchmark for other locality articles. For evidence, that I am willing to work significantly to article improvement, check the last 500 edits of this [6]. I digress, let's stick to the WP:WIAFA discussion, I appreciate it if anyone would comment specifically on the Education and Public Transport sections, some of you have already. thanks Michellecrisp 11:36, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
page break
[edit]
Review by Alansohn

The article demonstrates most of the characteristics of a featured article, but contains portions that are far too detailed to justify inclusion in an article of this caliber. The article needs to be trimmed in some sections to provide better balance and focus, in other places additional sources must be provided.

  • Geography - trim down details re naming of streets. If retained, sources need to be provided to support the statements.
  • History - Source must be provided to support 1906 as first use of name.
  • Suburban development - focus on Hamersley Gazette, and its coverage is overbroad and unbalanced for a featured article. Details of a specific crime and brushfire are unnecessary.
  • Demographics - source needed for religion details.
  • Public transport - specific details on timing of routes is too detailed for a featured article.

This article demonstrates that you don't need to have millions of residents to justify a featured article and should inspire editors to improve articles for smaller communities. Addressing these issues will bring it up to appropriate standards. Alansohn 06:45, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see "specific details on timing of routes" in the public transport section - your complaint refers to a single clause of a single sentence that gives two times. I could easily change that to "off-peak hours", which would give you no complaint on these grounds, but that would be vague and possibly misleading a non-Australian reader. As for the crime and scrubfire, they refer to notable events which have taken place in the last decade or so in the suburb; to take them out would present a non-up-to-date view of the suburb. JRG 07:01, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think Alansohn was referring to the reference to specific hours of operation, I guess the issue is almost every small suburb has a peak and off peak bus timetable all around the world. is it necessary to spell it out that this happens? secondly, giving an idea of specific roads that a bus route travels eg which linked Greenwood to Perth via Eglinton Crescent and Glendale Avenue/Aintree Street respectively, traveling along Blissett Way is that too detailed? surely origin and destination should be sufficient for this encyclopaedia not which roads buses use. I don't want to be replicating travel info when it can be found at http://www.transperth.wa.gov.au/ or say for Sydney www.sydneybuses.info for government buses. Michellecrisp 08:27, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Alansohn highlights a couple of things that could do with a source, but I again disagree with his suggestions regarding the development of the suburb. The information is verifiable, it is pertinent, it is interesting, and its removal solely because information of its kind wouldn't fit in articles on say, an older suburb, would be only to the detriment of the article. Rebecca 09:13, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Re the Transperth web site comment, said site does not contain timetables prior to 1987 (which these routes related to), only current ones. The point was that service has, unusually for a stable area, decreased its scope and scale over time. Re development - the focus is only in one small part of the article, and the article itself indicates to what extent the paper can be viewed as a reliable source. The West Australian and other publications do not cover news of this type within a suburb, and recordings or transcripts of TV and radio news broadcasts from that period, which would have contained it, cannot be obtained (I did try). Orderinchaos 09:33, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on transport section, the timing is a useful piece of information as the Bus service during the peak period are design to take passengers northwest, while in off peak times they take passengers south via the eastern edge of the burb even though passengers on both services are heading towards the CBD.
The crime was a major news item of the time in Perth and reported in national media as well. The fire had a significant impact on all transport to the northern area of the Perth metro area, and is likely to have repeat effect in the future. Are they necessary to the article, IMHO they offer a balance view of the burb by providing the negative aspects of the area. WP:OR warning -- the burbs around this are significantly more notable locally(in WA) for severe crime issues. Gnangarra 11:27, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
View of Twenty Years
  • I have been monitoring this for a short while now. I would agree largely with Hesperians comments regarding the name section. This is a slight problem. Also in the education section; the last line is quite out of place, consider merging into another section.
  • I think that the nominator may also consider, next time that he or she puts an article up for FAR that they adequately notifiy the concerned parties (most notably the main contributor - OIC). In this case i think that it may have been somewhat considerate for them to wait until this person had returned from their wikibreak to put it up for FAR, considering it was so soon, it would have given them (OIC) more time to address the concerns about the article. Although it is not nescessary by any means (waiting, that is) it would be somewhat considerate, and something to consider in the future. I think we have all learned well from this experience.
  • Back to the system: My opinion is: Keep as FA and Close debate ASAP - nom did not notify people related to it, and etc. Simple: learn the lessons. Thanks.Twenty Years 15:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Procedures are supposed to make it easy to do things like request reviews, not harder. Perhaps, as you guys say, procedure was not followed. But now that we're here, can we just get on with reviewing the article please? Hesperian 02:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, scratch that. Please do close this review, then immediately open a fresh one, so that the article can be reviewed without all this squabbling. Hesperian 02:23, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
STRONGLY SUPPORT HESPERIANS VIEW - Close this, open it fresh. And lets get on with building this encyclopedia. This is become a rather large waste of valuable admin time. Thanks. Twenty Years 02:26, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is this really necessary? Amidst all the bickering, there still hasn't been a single substantive criticism of the article that hasn't been challenged by several people. I don't see any need to drag the article over the coals again unless something else is raised. Rebecca 10:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Rebecca. The review has started. No one has commented on my education comments which to me don't stand out as "excellent" quality. I note orderinchaos has made some small changes to education in the article. Nor have we resolved the Public Transport issue, others have raised issues about its current presentation too. Michellecrisp 11:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • The public transport issue isn't "resolved" because there isn't even any consensus that it is an issue. The education is similar - I outright disagree with a couple of the changes, and the other two suggestions are very minor changes of debatable value - hardly something that would result in a demotion from FA status. Rebecca 12:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Melburnian

I live 2700 kilometres from Hamersley. I've never been there and in fact I didn't even know it existed until I came across this article some time ago. It's a very small piece of the geography of Australia, and the level of detail, I believe, is well scaled to the area described.

If I were looking at moving to Perth I could examine the article to see how Hamersley shaped up as a place to live. I'd like to know what the public transport is like, including the frequency of the services, and what parts of the suburb are best served by it. I might check out the politics section to see if people there are raving lefties, raving conservatives or somewhere inbetween. If I selected Hamersley as a good place to live, I could work out the best location, maybe on Rannoch Circle, so I could have good views to the city and be near Warwick Centro and a bushland park (I'll also know what the bushland consists of). There's a school there too. It's not near a community centre like the other one, but maybe being built 9 years later makes it slightly more modern. The median property values in the suburb average $432,500 (roughly the median for Perth), so maybe I'll need $500,000 + to live in that particular area (oh dear). The history section tells me that the area was mostly developed in the 70s so that's the era of house I'll most likely come across here. I'd want to be in the western part of the Rannoch Circle area, so I wouldn't have to walk too far to the bus stop on Eglington Road. I can go straight down Eglington Road to Bunnings so that will be handy if I have to do renovations to the house. The crime rates pretty low, and it seem like there hasn't been too many major crimes committed in the area. It looks good - hang on- I don't think I want the ABC coming through my phone, thanks very much. Let's see what the suburbs around it have to offer. I'll have a look at Girrawheen. Let's see... its got a Video-Ezy and ... never mind.

That's all a long-winded way of saying that I personally find the level of detail in the article is appropriate although I understand everyone has different thoughts on the appropriate level of detail in articles, and it is sometimes difficult to judge the cut-off line. I also understand concerns about having history passages in various subsections, but I think that putting them all in the history sections fragments the various topics.

I had some minor comments on the talk page, but these have now been addressed.Melburnian 03:43, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Orderinchaos (main contributor)

I've fixed a few small things here and there per some comments above. The education section was modified a bit - moved last line to end of first para (per Twenty Years), got rid of the private schools line (per Michelle), and reworded the Doon Way line per Michelle's suggestion. Hesperian's suggestion to remove the see also and Alan's suggestion to reference the religion were also adopted, while Melburnian's fix to the towers section makes a lot of sense. Are there any other obvious things that need fixing? Orderinchaos 04:27, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Zivko85

I strongly agree with the idea that everything should be continually assessable, as standards and ideas change and nothing is ever incapable of improvement as we are all human. Furthermore, bringing more heads and eyes onto a topic can often result in improved perspective. However, on this occasion, I see no reason to remove the Featured Article status from Hamersley, Western Australia. This article still meets the featured article criteria against which it was assessed in March 2007, and with which it was featured on the main page on 14 April 2007.

The article is well written - there are no spelling or grammatical errors, and the prose is fairly tight without an abundance of complex or ambiguous words which would confuse International English readers. As others have said, it also manages to hold the reader's interest, something very rare for an article about an administrative geographic entity! The article contains 76 references from a range of reliable sources, including state and local government publications, primary and secondary historical references and newspaper articles amongst others. No major fact within the article is unreferenced. It would be difficult if not impossible to assert that any part of this article is untrue or biased.

In considering what level of detail is appropriate it is necessary to consider the nature of the subject - in this case, a suburb. A good article should address the key questions of how, what, where, when and why. In reading Hamersley, I know where it is, and can see a map for more detail. I know what it is, and what it contains. I know how it came about, and have some idea as to how it works today (noting that the latter is more the domain of an oral history project at a local library rather than an encyclopaedia, but we have transport, land prices, education, etc which give us clues and leads). I know when key events in the suburb's history unfolded, and I know why it is called Hamersley, why it exists and why it was created. The latter is critical in answering questions raised above about the description of the planning of the suburb - in my view, the council information is not given in excessive detail but only so much as to indicate why Hamersley developed when and how it did - it would appear that if it had proceeded to the plan by which it originated, it would be a very different place from what it is today.

Areas for possible review include historical public transport, education and the name - while I don't think any of it should be removed per se, I'm not sure that it all belongs in *this* article. As Hesperian said, perhaps companion volumes with a different focus could emerge and provide a more natural home for these pieces of information. However, I don't believe the maintenance of any of these where they are reduce the quality of the article as it stands today. Zivko85 05:11, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

[edit]
Suggested FA criteria concerns are structure, length, and focus (2 and 4). Marskell 04:54, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Lots said above and I see people think it still a good article. Moving it here to get crisp keep or remove comments. Marskell 04:54, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
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 --BozMo talk 07:25, 20 July 2007 (UTC).[reply]

This FAR is closed. The Intelligent Design remains a featured article. 13:51, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


Intelligent design

[edit]
Pasado, Hrafn42, KC, Morphh, Orangemarlin, Guettarda, Filll, Dave souza, Adam Cuerden, Jim62sch, Kenosis, FeloniousMonk notified
Message left at WikiProject intelligent design. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:02, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Messsages left at Ed Poor, Duncharris, FuelWagaon, Ec5618, Margareta, Rbj, RoyBoy, DLH and JoshuaZ

In its current state, this article easily meets several of the featured article criteria. It is comprehensive, factual, neutral, and stable. However, it fails to meet four of the criteria: 1a (well-written prose), 2a (concise intro), 2b (sensible headings), and 4 (appropriate length and focus).

My chief concerns about this article are:

  • The prose is frequently quite bad. There are many run-on sentences, dangling modifiers, and rambling excursions. I've posted some examples on the talk page, here. The article reads like what it is -- a bodged-together compromise resulting from lots of acrimony.
  • There is excessive footnoting, particularly in the introduction. Because of a history of acrimonious editing, even rather simple and straightforward claims have a half-dozen or more redundant references. The footnotes[1] tend[2][3][4] to make the article rather hard[5] to read.[6][7][8][9]
  • The sections are badly named and badly organized. More than a third of the article is in a section entitled "Overview". The other large section of the article is entitled "Controversy", a rather nondescript section for an article on a controversial subject.
  • The article is excessively long. It has a lot of information in it, which is good; but much of its length is due to bad organization, poor sentence structure, and outright repetition.

I have attempted to raise these issues, both on the talk page and by editing. However, the response among the small number of editors who frequent the talk page has been ... unwelcoming of change. There is expressed concern that any change will tend to undermine a carefully-worked compromise on the article's content, or invite unwelcome attention to the article from biased editors, specifically, advocates of creationism. I do not think that these are good reasons to have a badly bodged-together article.

To repeat what I've said before: There's nothing wrong with the factual content of this article. It doesn't need NPOV review, or more cited sources (FSM forbid!), or anything of the like. It needs to be edited for good writing style ... and it needs to be allowed to be edited.

I encourage reviewers to read the article from top to bottom, as it exists right now. Featured article status is supposed to be based on how good the article actually is, not on how hard-fought someone's battle was to get it into its current shape. --FOo 08:54, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's a matter of "the small number of editors who frequent the talk page" being "unwelcoming of change." (There's a veiled WP:OWN accusation in there that I'm none to happy with). What it has been it a matter of asking you to educate yourself on the history of the article, which FOo seems unwilling to do. There has also been a request for FOo's patience while we discuss changes. An article like Intelligent Design is a very contested article and compromises have been reached in terms of wording in order to resolve discussion page disputes.
I also disagree that it is a "badly bodged-together article", and I think most of us have noted that there are areas that could be rewritten if we work together and keep the history of the article in mind. FOo seems disinclined to listen to these requests for reasoned discussion and patience. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 10:15, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It worries me that a number of contributors have said, in effect, that the quality problems are negligible when viewed in the light of the Triumphant March of Progress Through History, or the Great Struggle Against Evil that the article represents. This seems to be a demand for featured article status to be granted and maintained on the basis of amount of effort expended and difficulty of the task, rather than on the quality of the results. --FOo 19:28, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Foo, in spite of your confidence that your suggestions will uniformly improve a disaster of an article, I will note that very few editors seem to agree with this position. Some of your suggestions might very well be valuable, but I would advocate a conciliatory and reasoned approach, rather than a demand to allow a wholesale rewrite to your own personal standards. One thing I can guarantee with about 99.9% confidence; if we let you have free reign to rewrite the article in this fashion, in short order the article would be consumed in edit wars and under aggressive attack by those who forced many of the original compromises you seem to despise so much. Without a cadre of a half dozen or more regular editors, the article you envision would soon be torn to shreds. One person alone cannot protect this article. This article only exists at all in any semblance of NPOV through the efforts of a team. I soon found in other articles associated with this controversy like evolutionism or Hindu creationism that a single editor, or even a couple of editors, is unable to create an NPOV article in this general area. The forces with other agendas very quickly overwhelm these articles with POV edits, and in a matter of days or even hours these sorts of articles descend into POV rants by one side or another. Therefore, ignoring the advice and past efforts of these regular editors is not advisable or reasonable. Let us try to evolve the article, rather than impose huge changes rapidly by fiat or fatwa. --Filll 13:48, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following statement of Foo I find particularly naive: There is expressed concern that any change will tend to undermine a carefully-worked compromise on the article's content, or invite unwelcome attention to the article from biased editors, specifically, advocates of creationism. I do not think that these are good reasons to have a badly bodged-together article. Other editors do not feel it is a "badly bodged-together article". This is only your own gratuitous personal opinion, which by the rules of logic, can be gratuitously refuted and discarded. If you have not had extensive personal experience (on the order of daily exposure and several edits per day, for at least 6 months) on one of these controversial articles, your opinions carry very little weight. Editing articles of this type, compared to regular articles, is as different as night is from day. Many of the regular editors of these controversial articles occasionally edit and create less controversial articles in areas like history or medicine or biography and have a compltely different experience. I can reasonably expect that even after a few months, a less controversial article of mine will be roughly the same, and evolving with slow changes and improvements. The rate of change on these controversial articles is perhaps 500 or 1000 times greater than it is on the average article, and editing them is a completely different experience. If Foo wrote an article in a controversial area himself and tried to defend it over a few weeks, he would soon start to gain a deeper understanding of the situation. His article would rapidly be overwhelmed. The more he tried to defend it, the more this would encourage attacks by POV warriors. Without a cadre of associates with the same viewpoint as him to defend it, his article would quickly be destroyed, in only a matter of days or even hours. Lecturing us about how awful the article is according to his uninformed standards is the height of arrogance. Instead, let us try to work together to improve it in small bites. The only way to do this is to do it incrementally. And as I have repeatedly suggested, locate reasonable pieces to farm out to subsiduary articles to relieve the stress on the main article. Let us learn from past experience at contentious articles like evolution, rather than try to reinvent the wheel.--Filll 14:21, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • The article is neither neutral, nor factual or anything like that. Neutrality: It restricts mostly to viewpoints that are either Intelligent Design or naturalist, and doesn't even mention critical viewpoints that don't agree with either. The article restricts itself too much to the controversy between some parts of the scientific community and the Intelligent Design movement, while positions held in professional philosophy about the matter are missing almost completely. Intelligent Design is mostly a problem of philosophy, and a good article about Intelligent Design needs to write about results from philosophy about Intelligent Design just as much as a good article about Evolution needs to write about results from science about Evolution. Facticity is a problem as well: The article describes some orthodox views as if they were exclusive. For example it uses "empirical science" instead of "empiricsm" as if the orthodox empiricist view were the only valid view on empirical science (falsification, for example, is a different one). --rtc 10:22, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note - RTC is basically advocating using the same language in this article as is used by the ID folks to confuse the issue. That's pretty much what the above objection amounts to. Raul654 17:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have no sympathy for the "ID folks", but it sure doesn't sound that way to me. If there are concerns about "intelligent design" coming from academic philosophy as well as from science, they should also be addressed in the article. --FOo 19:21, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • The "basic academic philosophy" argument is a trojan horse - ID is creationism repackaged as science. And the only way you can call ID a science is to redefine what science is. So the ID folks (RTC included) advocate watering down the article with all sort of arcane philisophical minutiae to confuse the basic issue that science is empirical - that is, it is based in observable fact. Raul654 20:24, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • If anyone should care to examine RTC's contributions, one will see that RTC specializes in obfuscation and excessive pedantry, slanted to promote intelligent design. If left up to RTC, the article would read like a promotional brochure for the Discovery Institute, and be of little use as an encyclopedia article. --Filll 13:36, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well I apologize if what you have done on WP appears to be biased. However, I am just going by what I have observed, and how I and other editors have interpreted your contributions and discussion. If you have some more subtle agenda, it has escaped my notice up to this point, and I think you should ruminate on that state of affairs a while to see if you can come up with another way of presenting your views and suggestions.--Filll 15:19, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • I didn't bother reading beyond the header. Not a single source, advocacy group or organisation is listed that is not from the US. Granted, this is chiefly a US debate, so either the framework of that debate needs to be elaborated within a US context to justify the inclusion of US-only material, or else a committed effort needs to be made to situate the debate within a larger (i.e. rest-of-world) view. My personal view is that, from an encyclopedic standpoint, the question why popular belief in ID is far higher in the US than anywhere else across the developed world is worth addressing. But either way, the US-centrism of this article is hideous and needs to be redressed. Eusebeus 11:45, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree that the article is a bit too US-centric, but there are obvious reasons for this, given the history of the movement. I have in the past attempted to flesh out the description of its gradual spread outside of US borders which continues apace, and I think that this can be easily addressed. Basically, the American legal system has spurred the creation and growth of this movement in the US first, and this momentum is being transferred to many foreign venues recently. A better way to go, which I have advocated, is a separate article addressing the spread of ID ideas to other countries. --Filll 12:58, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is puzzling. ID is essentially a construct of the US creation science movement in response to the US constitution as interpreted by US courts, led by a US organisation, so inevitably there's a US focus. However, despite the statement that "Not a single source, advocacy group or organisation is listed that is not from the US.", the cited sources include the BBC, The Guardian, the UK Government and Hansard, and specific mention is made of the UK organisation "Truth in Science", as well as Australian, Dutch and Turkish sources. ... dave souza, talk 19:04, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I meant sources within the debate. Let me restate my issue: The consensus in the scientific community is that intelligent design is not science. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated ... The National Science Teachers Association and the American Association for the Advancement of Science say it is pseudoscience. Others have concurred or termed it junk science.

The term "intelligent design" originated in response to a 1987 United States Supreme Court ruling ... culminating in the 2005 "Dover trial" .... U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III ruled that intelligent design is not science ... therefore violated .. the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

That lead makes it clear to me at least that this article is more navel-gazing US religious war stuff. It makes me laugh that there are 35 footnotes in the lead alone in order to satisfy "POV" issues: if this was a Canadian description of the issue, there'd be like 2. See also, in this respect:

  1. The French article: http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dessein_intelligent
  2. The German article(s): (both very solid, offering the kind of context I think should be in the English wiki, although I appreciate they have more latitude to be, shall we say, direct since the article is not plagued by pro-ID POV pushers.)
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent-Design-Bewegung
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_Design
Other national scientific bodies have declared ID to be pseudoscience (see the German non-ID list above referenced, e.g.). But the editors of this article don't give a s*#t (nor should they) what some Polish or Japanese scientific body thinks, since ID hasn't emerged as an issue in those countries. So, I think the article needs to be more honest about contextualising this as a US-specific debate, in which US courts and US judges, US scientists and US scoolchildren, US school boards and US religionaries duke it out. Actually, User:Dave souza in his gentle-smackdown above to what he perceives to be my latent idiocy puts it very well indeed:

ID is essentially a construct of the US creation science movement in response to the US constitution as interpreted by US courts, led by a US organisation. Tighten that up and there's a great opening sentence for this article. Eusebeus 12:09, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have gone back to examine these supposed model articles in French and German. The French article is only 17KB or so, and covers very little of the material in our English article. This is understandable, since for the French this is just a note describing another insane circus by the lunatic Americans. The French article, if rendered here in English, would NEVER survive very long. It also makes a wide range of unsourced claims that we have had to cite extensively in the English version. The German version has actually been split into two articles, of 118 Kb and 14 KB; one on intelligent design in general and one on the public opinion, social and political campaign. Again, the German articles make unsourced claims that would never survive the type of trial-by-fire that the English article has to endure. And collectively, the German pair of articles is longer than the English article. The only "advantage" to the main German article is that it is not clogged with all those pesky references. Sorry, but this is like comparing apples to oranges.--Filll 11:57, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • I've thought it could use work on 2a to better summarize the article but changes to the lead take a great deal of time and effort to gain consensus. The external links could probably use a cleanup too with regard to guidelines. Morphh (talk) 12:46, 06 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment A bit more work on non-US elements could help. However, most of Foo's complaints seem to be at best overstated. In any event, it is highly premature to request a delisting wFubar has attempted little discussion on the talk page about the issues in question. JoshuaZ 13:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist as quickly as possible. I am among those who generally appreciates seeing and paying close attention to feedback and criticisms from a broader community. I find the recent facts and circumstances under which this FAR was filed, however, to be reasonably explained only by dynamics such as bullheadeness, personal pride in being a self-appointed member of the style police, a demand to be paid attention to, and an arbitrary and somewhat capricious attitude with little respect for hard work and local WP:consensus. I'm for taking it out of FA status promptly upon receiving the feedback of the broader WP community, which hopefully will take into account that:

1) Intelligent design has proven to be a difficult and complex topic with countless personal POVs expressed, typically on a weekly basis, about what relevant facts are most important to effectively summarize the topic for the reader of the article, or even about what the facts are to begin with. Frequently the POVs come from four, five, six or more separate angles simultaneously and often are in direct and essentially intractable conflict with one another.

2) Being a complex and controversial topic, frequently this article gets attention from folks that haven't even bothered to thoroughly read the article and check the references. I recognize this is sometimes difficult because learning this topic takes time, energy, diligence and ability to comprehend complex sets of facts as well as broad descriptions of ideology that are integral to the topic according to the many reliable sources that have offered published accounts of different aspects of the topic. Maintaining it is a pain in the neck, and after the lastFARFAC discussion the participants mostly went their merry way and didn't do squat to defend the decisions that were made for the article at the time, and the hard work has fallen in various measures on about a dozen long-term participants in the article.

3) I think, purely as a personal opinion here, that those who choose to continue to actively participate in the article on intelligent design would be collectively best served to simply remove the article from FA status (delist it) upon receiving the feedback of the broader community--feedback which, again, IMO, should always be welcomed. But constantly attemping to explain the conceptual and practical intricacies of this difficult topic to people who'd rather argue with the participants than take the time and expend the effort to learn the topic should not be part of the participants' job. The often vociferous feelings that the topic engages in many of the people who post about the article are a natural byproduct of the topic, in my judgment, not of the present form of the article itself. It would be good, IMO, to merely remove the "stick" that quite arguably is presently being used to brow-beat the participants in the article.

4) I don't aspire to be an administrator, only a contributor to WP, but I will say that it is my opinion that the administrative community here should look into this FAR with a close eye on the use, or possible abuse, of WP process in quest of users' personal agendas. There might be facts involved in this FAR that are worth analyzing from a "process perspective", and perhaps appropriate to act upon in forming and enforcing WP policy, specifically in better defining the concept of "disinterested" or "objective" application of WP processes by both admins and WP users generally. ... Kenosis 15:11, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What previous FAR? There was not a previous FAR; it was removed by Raul. Are you perchance mixing up WP:FAR and WP:FAC? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:45, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I was mixing up the two, and was referring to the FAC in which the article attained FA status. Thanks. ... Kenosis 21:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did you mean "delist as an FA" or "remove from FAR"? I'm a little confused here. KillerChihuahua?!? 15:45, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I did mean "delist as FA". If FA status is going to be used willy-nilly as a stick to brow-beat participants in the article, it should be delisted as an FA. If there's a procedure for removing the FAR once initiated, of course it should be removed from FAR. Feedback from the broader community is, IMO, always welcome and often quite helpful. But I wouldn't object in the slightest to removing it from FAR, under the present circumstances in which it was initiated. ... Kenosis 16:07, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • NOTE: I now see SandyGeorgia's instructions below regarding the correct application of FAR and FARC. ... Kenosis 11:20, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep FA. Article is accurate and every well supported, unlike FOo's analysis. That the prose is bad is simply a personal opinion; the editors who wrote it are a professor or holders of advanced degrees, and FOo's yet to offer any substantive alternative prose that's an improvement other than a revised intro yesterday which was an incremental improvement at best, not sweepingly better. FOo fails to keep in mind that this article has been a daily target for over 3 years of a well-organized campaign of ID pov pushers and the that the amount of footnotes has been proved necessary due to their clueless and bad faith objections. A quick glance at the 41(!) pages of archived discussion back this up; he should consider our 3 years experience in dealing with this issue first and foremost. FOo's objections to the "Overview" and "Controversy" titles is a minor quibble and one yet to be discussed. And of course the article is long, it covers a complex topic. If there's repetition in it, I've yet to see it. I think FOo misrepresents both the situation and the article here. Instead of rushing to challenge it's FA status when one or two proposals aren't getting the traction he'd like, he should instead write and propose a revised article and let the community decide if it's an improvement first, something he's failed to do. FeloniousMonk 15:13, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with Kenosis's and FM's assessments - Fubar seems to be equating "not written the way I like it" with badly written. The article is heavily footnoted because ID (like Global warming) tends to attract POV pushers. The fact that they are mostly (if not exclusively) from the US is because ID is distinctly a American phenomenon - an attempt by a group of American evangelicals to repackage creationism so as to fit US court decisions. In short, this FA review is completely unnecessary. Raul654 17:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If writing style is just a matter of opinion, then why is it a featured article criterion? --FOo 18:05, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because objections due to bad writing can be subjective or objective. Yours are subjective. Other people reading through the article have no problems with it. Raul654 20:20, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And as for length ... do note that Intelligent design is longer even than Evolution, even though the latter notion has been around for a lot longer and has actual science to speak of, and both have subsidiary articles (e.g. intelligent design movement and natural selection). --FOo 18:14, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would ask that you compare the daughter articles of evolution and intelligent design. I have personally put a lot of effort into producing daughter articles for the evolution article for precisely this reason-to remove the stress from the main article of covering all these side-issues and produce a shorter, more-readable, more-focused main article. Evolution was stretched thin and much too long and less readable before we pushed a lot of the material into daughter articles. Once the daughter articles were of sufficient quality (some even longer than the main article), a lot of the attacks on the main evolution article slowed down, and the main article could be trimmed down and improved. Unfortunately, the very nature of the topic covered by the intelligent design article is that more subjects have to be addressed in the main article, and it is less easy to farm out the attacks and difficulties to daughter articles. Nevertheless, we can still improve the subsiduary articles, and thereby stop asking the main article to be all things to all people. The main article can be more of a summary, or lead article of a family of articles covering the different aspects of this very difficult and very controversial topic.--Filll 13:35, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep So the article has too many references. Do I have that right? Read number 5 of Raul's Laws of Wikipedia. As for FOo's other objections: The prose is better than most other articles on controversial topics, the section names are accurate, the article is as long as it needs to be to cover the topic. Evolution is a shorter article because it covers the mainstream view and only has to devote a couple paragraphs to creationism. Whereas the ID article has to present two opposing views, the challenge of creationists to the scientific method and evolution and the response of the scientific community to that challenge, and in the proportion they are held. This filing smells like sour grapes. Odd nature 19:02, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Great, Jim, thanks. Honestly, who cares if it's an FA--do readers look it up under FA? or under "intelligent design"? Do they attach more credibility, or less credibility, to what the article states because it's an FA? I thnk not. All this arguing about FA-status is in substantial part just internal politics within WP. Maybe I'll still change my mind on my stated preference, but for now, my stated preference stands as is. ... Kenosis 23:24, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
True, very true. But FA status is like a bone you throw to the dog for a job well-done, and some folks like to pile up bones.  :) &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 13:19, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Gee, thanx. Woof. Me want bone. [Kenosis wags tail; rolls over.] Gimme bone. woof. ... Kenosis 23:20, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:FAR instructions; Keep, Remove, Delist etc. are not declared in the Review phase. The review phase is for identifying and addressing issues; Keep or Remove is declared if the article moves to FARC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:56, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I thought. :) I was a little bit surprised when people started posting "Keep" and "Delist" and so on here, since I was pretty sure I was asking for support in making the article feature-quality again ... --FOo 05:02, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like the text of the article to be verifiable and more factual. Currently too much weight is given to unreliable sources over reliable sources. Pasado 07:24, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's a little bit out of scope, but ... Can you give examples? --FOo 07:48, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would expect that this discussion would attract plenty of intelligent design advocates and so this should be kept in mind when one reads comments like that of Pasado.--Filll 13:39, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Fubar's comments on the article's prose and structure, and would support changes in these areas. However, the history of the article combined with the extreme reluctance of certain editors to allow any changes, even the most trivial ("La WP:OWN sans phrases", pace Sieyès) does not give me confidence that these issues are capable of being succesfully addressed. I don't have an opinion on whether this means it should be delisted - it's not changed significantly for the worse since acheiving FA status, at least. Tevildo 10:47, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I appreciate the lesson in WP procedure-- the two terms are somewhat counterintuitive, each implying its opposite ( FAR <-> FARC ). My opinion about this situation stands as given above, except I've stricken the incorrect use of "delist". The feedback from the broader community would be much welcomed, except as we've seen from the last time around with this FA stuff, the reviewers will go on their merry way and Raul's Law #5 will kick right back into gear. ... Kenosis 11:20, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am glad that we have so many people interested in improving the article, but I wish most people would look back at how the article was formed and respect the opinions of those who have been regular contributors and shephards of this article over the months and years. Without them, the article would be eviscerated in short order. This is a thankless stressful task, and the input of those regular contributors should carry some some weight in this process. As I have said repeatedly, the writing style in the article can clearly be improved in spots. The organization of the article might not be optimal. The current reference citation method is not the prettiest, but has been chosen and rechosen and reexamined many times, and is the product of a long process of concensus, as can be seen in the history. Given the contentious nature of the article, I suggest strongly that improvements be made in small steps, rather than massive rewrites that threaten to to discard huge amounts of material forged by consensus. My fear, and those of the other regular editors, is that this will leave the article vulnerable to attacks and predation by the very determined group of intelligent design advocates that forced the compromises in the first place, or embroil the article in huge amounts of time-wasting consensus building over the next year or so, resulting in an article not much different than what we now see. This intelligent design article is inherently different than the evolution article because evolution has science to back it up, and has a huge number of reasonably well-written daughter articles to support it. Intelligent design has to deal with several highly controversial and disputed matters, contradictory legal arguments, and multiple sides of a dispute that is still hotly contested. The evolution article is far more narrow, and all these contentious associated issues have successfully been dispatched to a very large number of daughter articles like evidence for evolution, creation-evolution controversy, objections to evolution, level of support for evolution, etc, which can be used to diffuse attacks on evolution and absorb the attacks. I think that farming out material and topics to subsiduary daughter articles, and improving the daughter articles is a better way in which to address the subject of intelligent design, rather than endlessly rewriting (and possibly further lengthening) the main article. Overall, in spite of the difficult nature of this subject, the intelligent design article is informative and balanced and well-written. I am not advocating a stasis, but a slow evolution of the article, keeping in mind the substantial constraints that this process much operate under. Any other process will inevitably lead back to a morass of editorial disputes.--Filll 13:21, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which point I think we have tried to explain to FOo several times. Maintaining the ID article is a very difficult balancing act, and the various objections with which we must deal inevitably lead to a longer article, occasional peculiarities in syntax, and an abundance of references and citations and those by need are predominately from the US as that is where the debate rages. Of course on can try to find info on ID from France or Spain or Italy, but this is a topic of so little interest there that, when it is covered, it is ripped apart as being utter nonsense. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 13:37, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep FA status. This article fully qualified for Featured Article status, and passed, fairly recently. To address FOo's points:

  • There have been no substantive changes since the article became a FA, at least none that turned the article into a hodgepodge of compromises written in bad prose, or created the other problems FOo perceives. The prose is good, and if there are any grammar problems those should be trivial to fix.
  • I have no problem with "excessive" footnotes; it means every sentence that has been subject to argument in the past has been well-researched, giving readers confidence in the reliability of the article given the sources cited.
  • I have no problem with section naming, although more clarity is welcome, but the current section naming and organization are apt, and don't detract from FA status.
  • Finally, the length is appropriate. A featured article should be comprehensive, and this is. =Axlq 16:20, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I really wish the first sentence didn't use an unattributed quote to define not just ID, but also to claim natural selection is "undirected" - a misleading description at best, and at worst patently false, since natural selection is, by definition, the non-random part of evolution (genetic drift is the random part) Adam Cuerden talk 00:42, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What unattributed quote? It's a direct quotation from the sources cited. That's the definition the Discovery Institute uses. If the Discovery Institute is stating something misleading or patently false, well.... they say it, so the article quotes it. =Axlq 01:15, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I mean that it's not attributed in the article text - sure, if you check the footnotes, it's attributed, but it's a quote from an extremely biased source which is not labelled as such unless you footnote dive Adam Cuerden talk 02:43, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're confused. Using a primary source (the definitive defintion of ID used by all leading proponents to show what it is they say ID is) is exactly what is called for by policy. That they misrepresent what they oppose (evolution) and their own claim is beside the point and dealt with later in the article. FeloniousMonk 04:45, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm surprised that policy requires this. Could you direct me to this policy? Thanks, Pasado 18:06, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say Wikipedia:Attribution requires it. However, I wouldn't have a problem with inserting "by its proponents" into the lead sentence: Intelligent design is the claim by its proponents that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection." - but I don't see how it enhances the value or readability of it. =Axlq 18:20, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the use of "is the claim" makes it pretty clear who's making the claim. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 18:27, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, I just don't understand why we let ID proponents describe their opposition. There doesn't seem any reason to. Adam Cuerden talk 06:54, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Where better to get a definition of something than from the horse's ass, I mean the horse's mouth?  :) ID is functionally an exercise in redefining creationism, so we might as well let the redefiner's own redefinition be what we use. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 18:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A number of posters above have emphasized a point that I made in the initial request for review: there is resistance to change in this article because of the fear that change will be abused by biased editors, specifically creationists. I would like to take a moment to address this concern.

The changes that I have proposed -- that I still believe are necessary for this article to meet the style-related portions of the FA criteria -- can be made in small steps. They can be made without sacrificing any of the meaning of the article. They do not need full rewrites, but incremental changes -- mostly copy-edits, grammatical changes to individual sentences; along with some reordering and removal of duplication.

On the struggle: I understand that a number of editors feel that they have struggled mightily to prevent bias in this article. I'm well familiar with the problem; heck, I edit Scientology-related articles. :P However, I do not think that FA criteria should be relaxed for articles on topics that are tough and prone to bias. Nor is it necessary to do so! I ask editors to look at any of the featured articles on other controversial subjects, such as Islam, atheism, or Jerusalem -- just to pick a few articles that have been recently featured on the Main Page. For that matter, try evolution ... or even Xenu.

All of these articles have been struggled over. All of these articles are on issues where some group(s) of editors strongly want to push their bias, and other editors have had to hold the line against bias. All of them have clearer writing, better-chosen sections, better grammar, and less repetition than Intelligent design.

(And none of them need more than 14 footnotes in the introduction, while Intelligent design has 35....) --FOo 03:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Has the Church of Scientology ever put Wikipedia on notice about its articles? The Discovery Institute, ID's leading organization, has: [7] That's just one of many attempts to rally their followers to attack the article. So please don't be so quick to judge the regular editors there or assume that you understand the lay of the land on the topic or the article. Again, the number of sources in the article is the result of the persistant and often disruptive organized challenges to each and every source by these people; they won't let go a point until you've provided them with ten notable sources for each and every statement.
Also, I've still yet to see specific examples of this poor writing, ill-chosen sections, and repetition you continue on about. Which specific parts are you objecting to? Why haven't made a significant effort to build consensus for the changes you seek in the "small steps" that you suggest above, instead of defaulting to challenging the article's FA status after a couple of days half-hearted discussion? Furthermore, I may be wrong on this point, but I don't think anyone here has suggested that FA criteria be relaxed for this particular article. For those making the claim that particular editors prevent any edits to the article, its history for the last 45 days belies the claim [8] FeloniousMonk 04:45, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you should go look at the talk page. There are plenty of examples of poor writing there, and an ongoing effort to improve it. Only reason I came here was to get more eyeballs on the problems. --FOo 18:56, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, I sense dismissiveness and hostility there.
Look FOo, of any of the editors to comment on this page, FM probably knows the most about the topic of ID, and has been working on the article for some time. I think he's well aware of what you consider to be poor writing, but it seems from his comments that he disagrees with your evaluation. Consider that before making further snarky comments. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 19:56, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Both Margareta and Fubar claim the desire to improve the prose of the article. Margareta has made dozens of sentence structure improvements without the meaning of the sentence being lost. But when Fubar makes a change the meaning of the sentence is lessened and the sentence structure in not improved. It belies the true intent of Fubar’s offer to "help". Pasado 05:26, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I would have to agree. Margareta's edits have been very good (although two needed to be tweaked), while FOo's fave been problematic at best and I'm begining to detect a desire to weaken the article. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 18:40, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


It's worth noting that two of the five examples of bad grammatical style that I originally highlighted on the talk page have since been improved by other editors. So apparently there's a little more consensus that this article needed stylistic improvement than some people suggest. While some editors responded with bile and hatred to the notion that this article has had style problems and needs work, others seem to have responded productively and usefully. Yay! I call it progress. --FOo 20:54, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They're incremental in nature, not the sweeping problems you've suggested exist. The source of you lack of success there was your half-hearted attempt to make any genuinely meaningful improvements, instead rushing to challenge the article's FA status. That and what looks lime altering the article to favor the ID viewpoint at the expense of the scientific community's. On the other hand take a look at the effort of Margareta at the article. Through collaboration rather than brute force she's managed to do more in two days than you have in two years. That says something. I suggest you consider dropping this FAR. FeloniousMonk 05:51, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I find your accusations amusingly irresponsible. As an atheist with a strong (albeit amateur) interest in biology -- indeed, rather a fan of Richard Dawkins since before he was cool -- I have no interest in making creationism (since that's what it is) look good.
I find your claim of "brute force" to be rather sickening. After an initial attempt to directly edit the article, where my rather small efforts were reverted, I wrote up my concerns and made some proposals on the talk page. What I got back was a hostility I didn't understand. I realize now that this hostility was nurtured and cultivated by the ongoing struggles against creationist "POV-pushers", as evidenced by your attribution of that view to me. You think anyone who doesn't like the state of the article, must dislike it for biased, creationist reasons. Well, that's wrong.
I wanted more eyes on the problem -- and I wanted some serious discussion of whether this article still merited FA status -- so I brought it here. Unfortunately, you and others appear to be convinced that anyone who challenges the quality of your work must be an enemy out to destroy it, to twist it into some kind of creationist showpiece. Too bad. That's a sick, scary way to look at the world. Moreover, it's an attitude ultimately contrary to Wikipedia's goals, its policies, and the culture the project tries to cultivate.
If making proposals and raising concerns about quality via the channels offered for that purpose is "brute force" now, the project is doomed. Doomed, I say. Doooomed.
(I understand the irony in that I'm attributing views and motives to you, after rejecting your attribution of views and motives to me. I hope you'll excuse it. I hope also that my interpretation is slightly more accurate than yours, since yours is way off base.)
At this point, this FA review falls under WP:SNOW; you've defeated any chance that a serious discussion will occur here. I'm not going away, though. I'll continue to work on this article when I feel I have something to contribute -- mostly on the talk page, of course, since I expect the hostility to worsen if I actually try to edit. --FOo 06:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it's called WP:Consensus. Arriving at it is often contentious, sometimes worse, depending on the combined approaches of all the participants. I should add to the above that participating editors have needed to edit this article and arbit disputes among strong POVs from a significant number of extremes, including proponents of creationist apologetics, scientism, POVs involving presumptions that the very notion of evolution is inherently political in nature and that the article is a product of a leftist conspiracy, self-appointed officers of the style police, self-appointed citation police, persons favoring much more detailed treatement of specific aspects of the topic, those favoring a "let's cut right to the chase and skip all the confusing details" approach, etc.. Well, where we'all ended up after all this is where the article is right now. So, it is a bit overly self-centered, IMO, to expect that after over 4mB of talk, about 10,000 article edits, nearly 200 citations, etc., that suddenly the local consensus must give way to FOo's vision of now the article should read and what it should look like.

I hope this set of exchanges here will quickly be put aside, because frankly, while the article can always use improvement, these are complex concepts that the article deals with and even leading philosophers of science, scientists, theologians and courts struggle with them. Now that FOo has gotten the attention of a number of participants and Margerita has ironed out a significant number of minor syntactic and grammatical wriggles, maybe we can get back to slowly hacking away at the article again. There are, because of the very nature of "intelligent design", complex sets of facts and concepts involved in this article that can't be properly put forward in just a few words with broad swipes. Given that the article is in an advanced state of development after a long and still contentious history, and that there have been no major new developments about intelligent design recently, maybe we'all can do any further work like the Slowskys on the Comcast commercial widely aired of late in the US-- slowly and deliberately. It would be good not to fall prey to expectations that the article read like a poster child for a style manual at the expense of accuracy and reasonable thoroughness . ... Kenosis 18:28, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus may have become majority rule by those who persisted the longest; the article doesn't read as if consensus building is at work here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I missed this comment the other day. Given that Sandy has never spent any time editing the article, how could she possibly know just how big of a role consensus building had played? &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 09:36, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments—continue FAR. The lead alone is an embarassment to FA status; there is also an external link farm, and incorrectly formatted citations. I avoided this when it was at FAC, but there are clear issues here. Looks like Wiki's worst example of how not to hammer out an NPOV compromise. Continue review; try to fix the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, I've looked at the FAC, and am not surprised at what I found. The article was promoted over multiple and serious actionable objections, and without involved editors identifying themselves as per the instructions at WP:FAC. Raul has expressed sentiments in this area that may reflect a conflict of interest.[9] This article is an embarrassment to FA. Besides the issues already raised here (embarrassing lead, external link farm, incorrectly formatted citations), there are also basic MOS issues, starting with WP:MSH. A word to avoid in the first line? Poor wikilinking per WP:CONTEXT? Sloppy prose with parenthetical (see) inserts? Evolution was featured in spite of the potential for similar issues; this article doesn't achieve Wiki's finest status as Evolution did. This thing is dripping with POV and sloppiness; when six and seven citations are needed to source statements, it seems apparent that NPOV hasn't been attained. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:12, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I just left a comment above that might address some of these issues. I strongly advocate integrating the feedback given in this context. But this is inherently a controversial topic with complex and often-highly-debated issues involved. After the last FAC discussion, the reviewers went on their way and left a core group of about a dozen participants to defend against the various POV onslaughts this article is subjected to as a matter of course. If the very diligent and often heated quests for accuracy and thoroughness will threaten to be compromised in the slightest by stylistic concerns, I strongly advocate removing it from FA status and leaving it to the local consensus to decide how the article should be written. ... Kenosis 18:39, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Evolution did it within a similar context; if this article can't do it, it should be defeatured. Embarrassing, embarrassing, embarrassing. From reading only small pieces of the article, it's apparent editors aren't working together to present the info in a neutral fashion, and from the notifications I just did, it's not surprising many of the active editors have given up. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:50, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, evolution is not similar as regards anything important to this discussion. The controversy in the article on evolution is about one thing-- one central question only: Is it a correct, highly developed empirical assessment of life, or isn't it? Or are the creationists who base their conclusions on whether the presented schema fits with scriptural revelation correct in their conclusions about evolution? In that case WP:NPOV#undue_weight was dispositive of the main issue. And a separate article covers the creation-evolution controversy to allow arguments from both sides to be presented in tandem. In the case of intelligent design, it is a complex interaction of ideological, socio-politically driven, inherently and self-admittedly deceptive strategies by its proponents (said to be for a good cause of course, to bring people to Christ), legal strategies that involve science, philosophy, speculative theology, biblical apologetics, US national educational policy, local school-board politics, and a number of other important issues that are part of a thorough summary of the topic. ... Kenosis 20:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this certainly makes no sense, "and from the notifications I just did" -- sloppy, sloppy prose. Also, embarrasing is a bit subjective, don't you think. Thanks for sharing.
BTW, what is so diffult about comprehending just why we have all of those references? It has nothing to do with not attaining NPOV status, it has a lot to do with sustained attacks by DI hacks. Why not go through the archives? After you have, then you perspective might be a bit different. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 19:03, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speaking of which, while FOo has been criticising run-on sentences (some of which can readily be fixed without overly damaging the explanations), Margerita has been criticising the use of "And" and "But" at the beginning of sentences that are extensions of issues begun in the prior sentence. No big deal so far, but we can't always have it both ways, folks. Also, speaking of stylistic quirks, even the footnotes that are not part of the discussion about consolidating multiple citations sometimes present stylistic issues that ought be noted. Did anybody notice how ridiculous it looks to have footnote #1 following footnote #120? (#1 being one of the notes used multiple times in the article). The decision to use separate footnotes was elected for a reason that is familiar to the local consensus but not to those outside the local consensus, which is: after the style police go on their merry way, the regular participants are left to defend the article, at great expense of time and effort, against passersby who haven't even noted that there are multiple sources combined under one number, accusing the WP participants of cherry-picking the sources to suit the WP editors' preferred rendering. This has happened multiple times. The main point being, there are going to be stylistic quirks that don't necessarily fit everybody's preference, and there will inevitably be conflicts between the Chicago manual and Garbl manual and Oxford manual and even WP:MOS that arise out of the complex, interdisciplinary nature of the topic, not out of bad decisionmaking by the article editors. This article needs to deal with ideology, socio-political advocacy, legal strategy, science, the demarcation problem, several aspects of philosophy and theology, the culture wars, and self-admitted intentional deception by the proponents of ID, and other such concerns, not least the constant bombardment from multiple POVs simultaneously (pardon my dangling modifier). So IMO, we'all (anyone who hasn't permanently given up per Raul's law #5) proceed cautiously to fix what we can, and not compromise accuracy and thoroughness, if that proves to be possible here. ... Kenosis 19:58, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Simple point here being this: English is a living language, as such there is no definitive prescriptive grammar regarding usage. For example, I despise the serial comma yet others are fond of it; both usages are actually "correct". And and but can certainly be used to start a sentence, although in my opinion, they should be used sparingly. I have no qualms regarding passive voice, while others throw fits when it is used. These, my friends, are the joys of a living language. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 20:11, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well said. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 21:57, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article is good at its primary purpose of being accurate, informative and well sourced about a complex and difficult subject. Improving the prose is welcome, but as FOo has found, it can be tricky to rephrase while maintaining accuracy and balance in this highly nuanced context. Some reorganisation is in order, but patience and careful consensus is needed to make these changes. Combining references could look tidier, though this has been done in the past and led to arguments as to whether there were enough citations for a point, but any reorganisation has to be resolved before combining references. With patience and cooperation this excellent article can be further improved. The place for discussion is the article talk page rather than here. . .. dave souza, talk 19:33, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep FA status. This is a very good article, one of the few Wikipedia articles to attract external praise. The main editors have worked extremely hard on it, in the face of all kinds of nonsense. It's clear and comprehensive, well written and well referenced. If some editors think there are too many ref tags, the citations can be combined. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 21:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep FA status. Frankly, I have a hard time believing some of the objections are serious. Too many footnotes? That's an astonishing thing to say about a Featured Article. As for the section headings and article length, I don't see any serious issue with the former, and the latter is appropriate to the subject. I agree with FM and Odd Nature's arguments here, it's an excellent article, and deserves to retain FA status. I'm not even completely sure why this review is being raised; is there something going on here that I'm missing? Jayjg (talk) 00:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, you missed a user who decided to appoint himself Style-Lord find his poor edits being rejected. To get even, he opened this mess. At least that's my observation (and no FOo, I will not apologise for stating the bleeding obvious). &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 21:48, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is no vote here to keep or delist - it is a FA review, not an FARC. I think the thought with the footnotes is not that there are too many for the article but too many references for one statement.[1][2][3][4][5][6] Not all the points raised are with regard to prose, although I do see it as a valid point for review and improvement. My thoughts were with FA criteria 2a using some work as I don't think the lead summarizes the article well. There is a growing linkfarm in the external links section that requires cleanup to WP:EL guidelines. There is no reason to dismiss points of heading titles or other areas that go against Manual of Style. The point of this is to discuss areas to keep this article up to FA standards. If some of the areas are not addressed, then it could possibly lead to an FARC and voting but there is no need to jump the gun. Morphh (talk) 0:42, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
    • If Featured Articles are meant to be well-written, then this one is poorly written from the outset...

"certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."

I'm a living thing. I have pierced ears. Is this an aspect of the theory of Intelligent Design? I thought natural selection was a DIRECTED process by definition. There is a serious grammatical elipsis too, leading to an amusing ambiguity of agency.

Im not a scientist, but it seems clear to me that this opener is not saying what it should be saying, and that this is the result of poor written expression. I'm not qualified to say what other theoretical assertions may have fallen under the same fate, but I suggest that Wiki doesn't continue to draw attention to the article as an example of its best work until someone has checked. I've been reading a lot of FAC proposals lately, and it seems to me that popularity/networking ability of the authors/proposers is over-riding true assessment of the 1 (a) aspects of the articles themselves. Gnomethegnome 01:40, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Cuerden has also made this objection. It is not poor wording on our part - it is a quote of the definition of ID by its creators (the Discovery Institute). I think we all agree with that point but it is not our definition. Morphh (talk) 2:03, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree it's a bad definition of ID. So what's it doing as the first sentence of the article? Is there a requirement to let the proponents of a deceptive cause set the frame of the discussion? Especially given the content of the article? Pasado 04:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, last I heard it has something to do with WP:NPOV. The view of the proponents must be put forward as the definition that the proponents have given. It's definitive, so to speak. But although I support it, this wasn't my doing, Rather, it was agreed around the end of 2005 or very beginning of 2006 to present the proponents' definition first. How else would WP do it and still meet WP:NPOV. Suggestions? ... Kenosis 04:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delist. If this should be a FA by WP standards, WP is indeed hopelessly anti-intellectual. This article is neither neutral, readable, nor coherent. (I must declare a prejudice: I am a convinced and determined supporter of evolution, and therefore think that a purely objective presentation of an anti-evolutionary theory with a reasonable citation of the opposing arguments is quite sufficient to convince any ration person.)
The first step in a neutral article about a theory is to present the theory without continual interruptions by critics, and without the constant use of "alleged" The fist step in a readable article is to reduce the use of footnotes to one a sentence, and not reference each point with a multiplicity of redundant references. A second step to readability is to not use the footnotes for argumentation--for example, to present the arguments of the evolutionists at length, or to present the speeches of trial judges as if they demonstrated anything about science verity.
The first step in coherence is the distinction between general and specific arguments, and between strong and weak ones. Behe's argument is a subtle one, and the response to it requires a serious presentation of thermodynamics. It cannot be disposed of by a judicial ruling--however correct the ruling may be in legal terms.
One does not disprove intelligent design by arguing against the Christian religion, or its fundamentalist interpretation. The Christian religion might be altogether false--all theistic religions based on a personal god might be false--and intelligent design yet true. One does not disprove intelligent design by exposing the political and religious agenda of its proponents. They may support it only to confirm and evangelize their preconceptions, and yet it might be true.
One does not disprove intelligent design by showing that 99% of trained scientists reject it--we might after all be wrong, & our method of analyzing the universe not the correct one.
I'll give one specific example of the article's POV: The article states "Though evolution theory does not seek to explain abiogenesis, the generation of life from nonliving matter, intelligent design proponents cannot infer that an intelligent designer is behind the part of the process that is not understood scientifically, since they have not shown that anything supernatural has occurred" This is POV at its clearest. The editors of WP have no business in determining such matters. Who are the authors of the article to determine what arguments are correct? What revelation do they depend on? And how is this certitude of theirs supposed to convince anyone else?
And I'll give one example of its argumentative style: "if one were to take the proponents of "equal time for all theories" at their word, there would be no logical limit to the number of potential "theories" to be taught in the public school system, including intelligent design parodies such as the Flying Spaghetti Monster "theory"." I'm embarrassed even to copy it--it's the straw man argument at its most sophomoric.
And an example of its rhetorical style: "The consensus in the scientific community is that intelligent design is not science.[21] The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that "intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life" are not science because they cannot be tested by experiment, do not generate any predictions, and propose no new hypotheses of their own.[22] The National Science Teachers Association and the American Association for the Advancement of Science say it is pseudoscience.[23][24][25] Others have concurred or termed it junk science.[26][27][28][29]" (the refs. here dont link--see the article)
That's the appeal to authority, at its most superficial: what would one expect them to say? But it gets worse-- there's also the Argumentum ad baculum--that evolution is science and ID not, because a judge has said so. Evolution was always true, even when judges said the opposite. DGG (talk) 04:26, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Come to think of it, I repeat my suggestion that this article be voluntarily withdrawn from FA status. If what's needed to keep FA status is to present nice clean lines to the nice oogling gentry that will pony up a few bucks to sell the pseudoartistry to, better to jettison the relationship to the pseudopayola of FA status altogether. ... Kenosis 04:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly oppose the core of DGG's argument, as well as his/her conclusions. The content of the article is largely neutral. The style has problems -- and some of these problems get in the way of the content ... sometimes quite badly.
Citing scientists, or scientific associations, as sources on the subject of whether ID is science is not appeal to authority. It's citing sources, a basic requirement for all Wikipedia articles. Wikipedia is not here to concoct original proofs or research; it is here to present the arguments and conclusions that others have made.
The article does present others' arguments rebutting ID, and describing the reasons that it fails to be science, and more pointedly that it fails to be legitimate science education. Some of these arguments rest on the religious basis of ID -- that, for instance, whole textbooks were developed with the religious terms "creation" and "creation science", and that these terms were replaced wholesale with "intelligent design" in contempt of court. Likewise that ID advocates willingly and openly speak to their own political base in terms of subverting science education in order to establish religion.
Describing these facts is not an attack upon religion. We've seen this same kind of fuss over on the Scientology articles. Scientologists accuse Wikipedia of bias and "POV-pushing" when we neutrally describe certain things their church has done, like try to have journalists locked in insane asylums or infiltrate the U.S. government, or kill its own members. The truth is, a neutral description of those actions reflects badly upon them because (surprise!) they're bad actions.
It is true that the present article does not do a perfect job of presenting the claims made by ID advocates without adopting the heckling tone of inserting constant rebuttals to every proposition. The heckling tone has the effect of making ID look better than it should, by failing to allow its frauds and deceit to fall on their own weaknesses. The heckling tone is what attracts accusations of "pseudoskepticism" and "debunkerism" -- accusations that distract from the subject at hand. The lack of clear writing makes the facts of the matter needlessly difficult for the casual reader to understand.
Those are what need to be fixed. And when they are, readers of this article will see a ... much more accurate ... picture of "intelligent design" and its advocates. --FOo 06:36, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oddly enough, you're the only editor I recall alleging "pseudoskepticism" and "debunkerism". &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 21:03, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Well, this is going to be a very long FAR. I see a much simpler issue: the article never had clear consensus for promotion to begin with, and the featured article director should not be judge, jury and witness at the same time; this creates a conflict of interest, or at least the appearance of a conflict of interest. The issues with this article highlight the problems that can occur when an article is promoted without consensus. This is a a process problem as much as an NPOV, MOS, etc. problem. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:36, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your posts here are inappropriate, Sandy. You may not like the article, but it's not an "embarrassment," and it's unfair to describe people's hard work that way. Secondly, people have confidence in Raul as FA director and in the way he chooses to involve himself. In fact, he's the one person who keeps the entire process from falling apart. This discussion shouldn't be turned into an excuse to attack him. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 21:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please take care with tossing around the word "attack", SV; there is no attack. Please consider suggestions made elsewhere regarding cooling off the recent aggressiveness towards other good-faith editors; it's not becoming. IMO, citations to an extent that they impede readability are problematic in any article, and embarrassing in an FA. Saying so is not an attack, and is quite appropriate for a featured article review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:33, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looking at SandyGeorgia's edit history, I only see one edit to WP:AN/I in the last day. With respect to one of the most respected admins in this place, this requires a bit of a stretch to be called a personal attack. It's a support of User:Tim Vickers in a dispute with lots of administrators, but it's rather mild to be called an attack, and I don't see any singling out of Slim Virgin, so it's hardly personal. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 18:25, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, the infamous non-attack attack. It really depends on how you define personal, I guess: I can both see how someone could think it was an attack, and how it very well may not be an attack. There is, however, a bit of a history behind the comments, so I guess I'd prefer to call it a veiled tacit sort-of-but-not-quite-attack. Bear in mind, that a famous debating tactic is hiding an ad hom in an ad rem, which is kind of what the referenced edit was.&#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 22:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Responsive comment. Sure, all fair enough. An article like this, though, is not about Sandy Hook or Sandy Spring (pardon my free association here), but about a complex, controversial topic involving an intertwined set of issues with numerous possible points of contention within, according to the WP:reliable sources that deal with the topic and it's constituent parts. This requires familiarity with the topic to make judgments about the article, and also requires reciprocal feedback between those familiar with and thos not familiar with the topic, to try to judge how well this stuff is being explained in light of the inherent difficulties of the topic. While the point about the nominator being an advocate of FA status may well be fair game for discussion among those involved in FARC's, FACs, FARs and such, right now I see, if anything, an excessive degree of restraint exercised by participants in the article who happen to also be admins, such as KillerChihuahua, Guettarda, JoshuaZ, even FeloniousMonk. (FeloniousMonk weighed in briefly then left; Dave Souza, also an admin, has participated; Raul654, who gained a fairly close familiarity with the topic during the original FAC, also has participated.) So I'd appreciate hearing more summaries in the future about what the internal administrative discussion is among those involved in FA candidacies and review--many of which are not WP admins, I do recognize.

A core issue here seems to be that there's some confusion about whether the main issue in this FAR is that intelligent design was improperly granted FA status? Or whether the issue is about what's happened to the article since it was granted FA status. This affects a couple of things at present. The first thing it affects is the lengthy discussion several months ago guided by Adam Cuerden (who's also a WP admin) that resulted in some consensused changes to the lead after the FA status was granted. The second thing it affects is the use of separate rather than consolidated footnotes, another decision that was made after the FA status was granted. Thoughts? ... Kenosis 15:36, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's only a matter of consolidating (or not) footnotes: if you need six and seven footnotes multiple times in the article, has consensus been attained and are the best sources being used? I also don't understand why bringing up who is and is not an admin is relevant. All editors are equal; adminship is no big deal (unless you're implying that admins are using their tools inappropriately to effect this article's content). On the original question, it concerns me whenever Raul advocates for promotion of any FA—that damages the credibility of the process, which must be impartial. The article was promoted over strong opposition; that would at least appear less damaging to FAC's credibility if Raul hadn't taken a stance. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh. SandyGeorgia, I think I see a bit better what your point might be. Are you asserting that Raul654, as the nominator, should not be involved in advocating the article's improvement, discussion of its merits, etc., or merely that he should not be involved in making the final judgments and closing out the FAC procedure? (If it's the latter, I suggest he might consider becoming more closely involved in this review, so as to have both sides of this story equiably represented in this discussion.) ... Kenosis 18:42, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm asserting neither (and Raul is not the nominator, so I'm not sure what you're asking anyway): I'm saying that since Raul—as the FAC director—has the final decision to promote or fail a FAC, he should't opine on candidates. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't know until now that he's the director. Was he the director when the FAC for intelligent design was first discussed? Either way, the handy solution would at first appear to be for him to weigh in on procedural matters and make judgments about relevance and criteria, but recuse himself from further advocacy of substantive issues and limit his role primarily to assessing the procedural issues. But this appears to solve little or nothing, because he's involved in the decisionmaking and must make rational decisions either way, in turn justifying the reasons for those decisions to the community of FA reviewers. It's an extremely strict interpretation of the principle of COI that's being proposed here, in my opinion. ... Kenosis 19:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Kenosis, I didn't realize you had limited knowledge about the FAC process. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
NP. The links to the necessary info are slightly akin to the streets in a gated community-- not easy to figure out if you don't have directions from someone who's already familiar. And the names can be quite counterintuitive (e.g., FAR and FARC, each of which implies the other of the two). Thanks for the clarifications. ... Kenosis 21:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The very long length of this FA review (just like the Barack Obama one) is a tipoff that there's some serious disagreement about the article. Also, why is there a pockwatch picture in the article? Why not a computer? Or a picture of Jesus? Don't get the meaning of the pocketwatch. Feddhicks 18:48, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since I'm already paying attention, I may as well respond briefly. The watch is related to the watchmaker analogy widely used by intelligent design advocates. I don't get the relationship to Barack Obama, but if the implication is supposed to be that there's a political element in all this, it would appear to be roughly correct that it's part of the culture war in the US. More specifically though, ID is a legal strategy involving separation of church and state in the US. But our little aside is not directly relevant to this FAR, which has more to do with how the article's written and whether it deserves to be a Featured Article in WP than it does with whether the article's basically an accurate rendering of what relaible sources have said about the topic. Hope that helps... Kenosis 19:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kenosis, you don't get the relationship to Barack Obama because there is none. Feddhicks seems to not understand what FAR is for, and it would appear he is attempting to canvass here for his invalid Obama FAR which he launched because of a minor content disagreement on the page. Tvoz |talk 20:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, no relationship at all. Not even apples and oranges; more like apples and ham. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep FA status - I see no reason to demote. Informative and NPOV article that demonstrates that it is possible to have articles on controversial articles on Wikipedia which are neutral. One of the best summaries of this subject I have read. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:49, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep FA status - I would like to comment further, but editors have messed up the formatting and have interrupted other conversations, so I have no clue what the hell is being said above. So, I'm in favor of keeping in counter to what Foo has written in the nominations. 1) I think the prose, though not perfect and certainly as a result of consensus building to counter POV warriors on both sides of the issue, is above a lot of other articles. Not quite as good as Evolution certainly, but better than 90% of articles on here. Also, I'd like to see some sample of bad writing in the article (which might be above, but I lost patience with the bad formatting). 2) Excessive footnoting??? Give me a break. More footnotes the better in a contentious article. Almost everything written has attribution, how great is that? More articles should be like this. 3) Badly named sections? Didn't this thing pass FAC? In that case, it seems like independent editors thought it was fine. But we can tweak the sections and not have this FAR. 4) Long? Not sure what we could cut. It's a great article. So, if I repeated anything someone else wrote, I'm am very sorry. I just can't deal with the random formatting of this discussion, which makes it hard to follow the conversation. Orangemarlin 20:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    After trying to read a bit of this discussion I particularly agree with FeloniousMonk's and OddNature's commentary. I repeated them, so that means they rock. Orangemarlin 21:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Short answer, Orangemarlin; did it pass FAC? Read the FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Sandy, yes we know all about your campaign against Raul645 that you, Marskell, and Tony1 have been conducting, trying to undermine him here at FA for some time, over a year now it appears. The entire project does. It's transparent that your participation here is part of that campaign. Your little group has tightened the FA criteria to the point of absurdity, with all kinds of new ridiculous rules about how citations should be written, and quality of writing and sources, which you guys simply ignore when when it suits you. Your new rules go way, way too far, and were made without any substantive community input. It's clear to observers that your little group tries to maintain the FA review process to give them more control over FA content and guidelines, and you frequently use it as a weapon, either against Raul or against individual editors; both being the case here. A good number of we admins have watching this from the sidelines for several months now, so don't make the mistake thinking that you're going to continue on like this at FA unopposed... the cat is out of the bag. This behavior of yours matters because several of the best FA writers have stopped writing FAs because of your group and it methods I've outlined. I'll also note Marksell and Tim Vickers (another from your group) have recently turned up at NOR, V, and RS trying to force unduly tightened sourcing policies too. This constitutes a pattern by a group, and the pattern shows that the group's aims are not the betterment of the project, but undermining and marginalizing fellow volunteers like Raul654 and SlimVirgin. Until you stop trying to impose inane new FA criteria and cease engaging in selective enforcement of same, I'm taking a personal interest in seeing your group's vendetta against Raul654 and SlimVirgin aired out and ended for good. FeloniousMonk 04:41, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply to Sandy's rude comment. Yes it passed. Of course, since I participated for several months in editing and building the article, I would be clueless to whether it was FA or not. And thank you FM for pointing out what's going on here. I didn't know. Orangemarlin 06:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, I had no idea. This is more complicated than it appears at first glance. Thanks FeloniousMonk.--Filll 12:45, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hell hath no fury like an editor scorned or something... &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 22:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Replied to FeloniousMonk's post of same content on my talk page. I guess this ID stuff is pretty nasty territory, and perhaps the personal attacks going 'round this FAR might be better refactored to the associated talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:22, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Refactored? And of which PA's do you speak? Refactored? I think you mean moved, and what is there to move? &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 22:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sandy, from what I see, you're the personal attacker. Making some nasty remark as to whether I read the FAC is contemptible. And your one-person campaign on this FAR is reprehensible.Orangemarlin 23:23, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. One more thing for the reviewers. ["This just in."] See this edit, which is illustrative of what participants in the article need to deal with on a regular basis. This speaks directly to the issue of why there are so many individual citations in the article and why participants have been reluctant to combine citations. The other reason is that when text gets moved around, it is far easier to move relevant citations to where they belong. ... Kenosis 22:07, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is another example of endemic anti-ID POV: This sentence us equally an example of the problems of trying to put objective perspective in this article. When I tried to provide comment / references to growing international interest, they were deleted as pro ID.DLH 03:08, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep FA status. A well balanced and well referenced article on a highly controversial topic. ID’s failed attempt to be accepted as science is much of what there is interesting about it, so the abundance of criticism in the article is absolutely justified. The edits during the past week have gone a long way in cleaning up the prose. This FAR is working. Pasado 05:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment...hmmm..the content ain't too bad and the prose is ok, my issues would be:
why call the first section an overview? Isn't that what the lead is? It isn't an overview but what it is is a summary on the theory, so why not call the section Theory, or Teachings, Concept, Ethos or Paradigm or something that describes the sections.
Also, is it possible to reduce the number of direct quotations? They don't help making the article look polished or encyclopedic.
Finally, this may be a good article to leave the inline refs out of the lead and just in the body of the article, again for style reasons.

Otherwise on a quick scan the prose looks ok. I'll have a closer look later. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It might not be a bad idea to change the citation style to be more like "(Author1,1999; Author2 et al, 2000)". However, this might still break up the flow of the text, since a large number of citations appear to be crucial because of the scrutiny and attacks that this article is subject to. What I do not think people realize is that this article is the focus of an extremely determined and well-funded computer literate movement. Do a google search on the term "intelligent design". The last time I looked (today), of the top 10 hits, 9 were not favorable to the Discovery Institute. The first link returned by google was to the Wikipedia article we are discussing. The Discovery Institute has several paid staff whose job it was to promote intelligent design, as well as advertising and public relations firms, and has invested millions of dollars already in the promotion of intelligent design, only to see it slowly being eclipsed by negative publicity. Since anyone can edit Wikipedia, of course it is natural to attract these kinds of attacks, which we do. A stylistically beautiful article might make us feel warm and fuzzy, but it will not survive. I personally wonder how valuable and accurate the rating system is here sometimes, but it is obviously important to some people. Our goal should be to make the best compromises we can to achieve the best article we can, under the circumstances. I am sure we can do better than the present article. But some of the suggestions people are making are not taking into account the conditions in which this article must exist. Short of just writing a perfect article and then permanently protecting it, like some of the other controversial articles, we have to make some compromises and grope our way forward. If you want an article closer to evolution in style, remember that it was not easy to get "evolution" into its present condition. By trial and error, at evolution we seem to have hit on a scheme that reduces vandalism and trolling and attacks, while allowing for a better-written article. It was not easy. It took a lot of arm-twisting to allow its last major rewrite as well. And huge blocks of the evolution article were farmed out to other articles. Eventually this might have to be done at intelligent design as well, which would be my suggested approach. I might also suggest an FAQ page linked to the talk page on intelligent design, as was done for evolution (although I disagree slightly with the present style of the FAQ page, it seems to have done the trick anyway). Also organizing the archives so that past discussions on topics that arise over and over are easy to find can be useful, as was done at evolution. Another approach that seems to have worked well at evolution was to produce a simpler, less heavily cited Introduction to evolution article so that one article did not have to be all things to all people. This approach might not work here, or be suitable, but it might be worth considering. The problem is that the intelligent design topic is not really scientifically intricate or sophisticated, but more socially and politically contentious, with multiple layers of meaning to almost every statement. For example, there is what the Discovery Institute says, there is what other creationists of different flavors say, there is what the mainstream science community says, there is what the politicians say, there is what liberal theologians say, there is what conservative fundamentalist theologians say, there is what people in the US say, there is what overseas observers say, etc. Therefore, it might not be possible to easily divide up this topic into a more straightforward piece, and a more detailed piece. Even the discussions about how to connect intelligent design concepts to their obvious antecedents was extremely difficult, with 5 or 6 different views contending for precedence, and the topic arising repeatedly over an extended period. I would ask people here to try to lay off the attacks and bureaucratic criticisms, and for everyone to put their heads together and see if we can think of some ideas for reducing the vulnerability of intelligent design to assorted attacks and predations, while optimizing the writing style and readability, at least within the constraints we are presented with. If you like how evolution turned out, lets try to think of some innovative approaches the way we did at evolution; an FAQ page, organizing the archives, farming material out to more daughter articles, a parallel article with a different slant, etc (disclaimer: I pushed for and participated in 3 of these 4 ideas on the evolution article, so I might be a bit biased)--Filll 13:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Filll, paragraph breaks good. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 22:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't like. First, it offends my anal-retentive sense of style on articles. They should be academic, not made for the lowest common denominator. So what if there's a couple too many references. A contentious article requires it. Yes, the article can be cut down to a few offensive POV forks, but maybe not. And some random editor, based on Filll's thoughts on the subject (and another long paragraph dude), decided to screw up some of the references this morning. I guess that editor has some unusual sense of consensus. Orangemarlin 08:38, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

<comment withdrawn>

Not an insult. You have NEVER involved yourself with ID or any of the Creationist/Evolution articles. That makes you random in my view of the project. You didn't even comment here. And you created a consensus where there is none. TWO editors, one of whom, according to FeloniousMonk, has an ulterior motive for this FAR, think that the references need to be fixed. The dozens of other editors who labored over this article think it's fine as it is. So, I went to look at the article, there you are, without any tiny bit of consensus, without ever editing the article, without exhibiting any knowledge whatsoever of this article, throws in a couple of odd edits. Trust me, if I wanted to insult you, I would. I AGF'ed you by not even insulting you. Just watch out when I don't give any AGF. Orangemarlin 08:58, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly don't think that my long paragraph encouraged him to do that (at least I hope not). Of course, similar formats have been tried. Does no one think we haven't tried that one before? Good heavens. The thing is, just because we are discussing it here, does not mean that a consensus exists. Did he not read a bit of the talk page history? A bit of what is written above? The references look like that for a reason...--Filll 10:49, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For those who did not want to read the long paragraph, I am not suggesting any particular format for the references, just that we discuss the reference format some more before anyone jumps to conclusions. I am also suggesting that we might correct some of our problems at intelligent design by doing a bit of what we did at evolution, or maybe trying some other ways to be innovative.--Filll 10:49, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A key, and oft overlooked, interpretaion of ID re religion, is it would be more aptly akin to the proverbial "wolf in sheep's clothing," rahter than a sheep in wolf's clothing. [A view that at least warrants inclusion, don't you agree?]

  • Delist. This article strikes me as a bit of the "curate's egg"--good in parts. The opening paragraph I find problematic. If I weren't a wikipedian, I would regard the long quotation in the opening definition as bad high-school prose. In our world, of course, it's a scar left over from a long-edit war. So, too, all those footnotes? Yech. The rest of the article is much better. I'm a bit concerned to see inconsistency in referencing. Passage of Plato, Artistotle, and Cicero are mentioned without providing references to the specific passages. The link to the de natura deorum is welcome, but it's a bit unhelpful to the reader without Latin--that is, all of them. (I'm not sure, in fact, that the teleological section is very helpful to the article.) Finally, I think this article does have a NPOV-problem. It happens to be my POV, but I think it's detectable enough that the article is less effective at showing ID-sympathizers and/or waiverers anything about themselves. I sincerely think that the best reason to delist it is that the drive to get it back to FA status will make it a better article. semper fictilis 05:46, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • In our world, the opening quotation is the chosen definition of proponents of ID, a complex piece of legalistic deception that may be bad high-school prose, but is extremely hard to summarise without original research. Fully translating it becomes an attack on ID, not how they wish to portray themselves and therefore problematic in NPOV terms. Better proposals on the talk page will be welcome, expect detailed analysis and discussion which is likely to find problems with most suggestions. ... dave souza, talk 09:27, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I appreciate User:semper fictilis' feedback. I should point out to the reviewers and to participants in the article that this is illustrative of why a close-up familiarity with this very complex and still-controversial topic is vital. This, again, is not an article on Yosemite National Park or Washington Monument (which needs work, by the way; and I've picked US-based topics because ID is fundamentally a US-based topic). It is, instead, an article on a legal strategy with an intertwined set of complex, controversial ideological, socio-political, religious, theological, philosophical, educational, public-policy advocacy built around a network of advocates who are self-admittedly engaging in deception of the public in the United States to get religion back into the public school, debunk evolution in favor of a presumed higher cause, and engage in religious apologetics and speculative theology in the high-school science classes. In order to meet WP:NPOV, it was necessary, and widely agreed among participants in the article, to use the proponents' definition up front in the article, because it's definitive, it's what the proponents define it as, and the proponents have consistently used this definition verbatim on their websites for quite some time now. The rest of the article, given the nature, or is it supernature?, of the topic, requires no apoplogetics. The issue of being a "featured article" is another thing, and I'd be perfectly willing to admit that this article might not be FA material. For one thing, it's been placed under the FA category of "Religion, mysticism and mythology", when perhaps it should instead be "Politics and government"?, or perhaps "Law"?, or perhaps "Philosophy"?, or perhaps "Education"? But the problems at present are not with the article; rather they reflect the topic. Not that there aren't things to be improved, but it's never going to have the nice clean lines that everybody can easily and uncontroversially agree are examplary of excellent writing in WP. Not, at least, without an understanding of the difficulties of the topic. ... Kenosis 13:16, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Kenosis. I think there are definitely some weaknesses in the article, and as I said before, I am not sure that FA means that much, especially in the case of this intelligent design article. Also, the arguments about US-centricity are a bit like complaining that the article National Institutes of Health is US-centric. It is primarily a US movement, that has historical international antecedents, and is now spreading to other countries as well. So what?--Filll 14:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, and the spread into other nations has been cursory, with the UK, Netherlands and Australia quickly disposing of the issue in essence by mass suggestions that the education directors/ministers who brought it up might be best suited for another line of work. And the Discovery Institute's offshoots have set up little networks, or at least several websites, that appear to be in several other countries where the issue of separation of religion and public-school science education may be regarded by its advocates as potentially vulnerable to infiltration. That is to say, unlike the Internet, or McDonald's, to date it's not exactly a global movement that happened to start in the US, but is a US phenomenon with a few passing outward ripples at most. ... Kenosis 15:31, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, with the possible exception of Turkey and maybe some other Islamic countries as well.--Filll 15:51, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prose issues. I find the use of the generic male pronoun objectionable. I find the instructing of readers to "note that" in poor taste. The whole article needs a good run-through by some copy-editors. Awkward expressions such as "Intelligent design deliberately does not try to identify or name the specific agent of creation" ("Intelligent design deliberately avoids identifying the specific agent of creation"). "Can be found in" twice in three sentences. "Put forth" is a bit ... 19th century. But there's lots to commend in the article. I hope that its supporters can find fresh eyes to spruce it up. Tony 14:35, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely true. However, in partial defense, we have been too busy fighting off the alligators to drain the swamp...--Filll 15:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tony, what you you prefer in place of "he"; "he or she", "he/she" the infamous "xe", or the grammatically incorrect "they"? English, given its developmental path, has no gender for its nouns, so the pronoun doesn't match the gender of the noun as it does in Romance languages (or even in other Germanic languages). Using "he" as a default stems from the restriction in Old English of the instrumental case to masculine nouns, not really to any type of prejudice.
"Can be found in" -- agreed. First there are better ways to say that, and second, repetition of phrases is something up with which we shall not put.
Put forth isn't 19th century, but it is very formal, and grammatically correct.
Yes, agree too about "note that" -- it's like a neon arrow with blinky lights. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 09:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The "development path" of English has seen masculine usage largely disappear in professional media in the space of about thirty years. And "he", I'd suggest, has ceased to be colloquial even in common usage—it "reads weird". "She or he" is better, even if clunky. (I'll guess that "they" will eventually be a correct use in the singular because it's been adopted verbally—but probably not for another generation or two.)
There's agreement on the talk that we can at least move to unpack the refs further—publisher, date, retrieval date etc. Can we do that tidy-up, at least? Marskell 10:24, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"They" has a long way to go: it's a colloquialism much like "ain't". Fine for speech I suppose (although the usage of "they" creates and ambiguity), but still not for standard prose (ain't will appear but only if used ironcally).
"colloquial even in common usage—it" makes no sense to me. Colloquial means the common usage of the populace. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 15:01, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for my redundant phrasing. "Ain't" doesn't solve a linguistic gap; singular they does. In fact, judging from our sources on that page its usage doesn't have far to go at all. The Cambridge Guide appears to advocate it. (Let's form a commitee!)
Jim, starting from the bottom I have begun unpacking ref info. I won't have much time after today, and it's going to take hours to do. Any other volunteers? Marskell 15:22, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In a certain sense "ain't" solves a linguistic "non-gap": the desire to not have to remember all those verb-forms for "to be". Shame English isn't Swedish.
Well, you'll never catch me using singular they. Besides, what would be the proper verb usage? They is? They writes? They eats? (After all, if it's to be a singular, the verb should be as well). I'd much rather use (s)he or he or she, as unwieldy as some might see that.
You can have a go at the refs -- I really dislike working on refs, too much of a pain in the but. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 17:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The words "note that" now removed. Turned out they were part of a quote of William Dembski. But the words were part of a clause that was somewhat superfluous anyway, so I removed them and put in an ellipsis. "Put forth" now changed to "put forward", with an edit summary thanking Tony1 for the criticisms. The phrase "..can be found in" is followed by "can be found again" in the section on "Origins of the term" I thought the usage was reasonable there. Any suggestions? ... Kenosis 13:13, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the issue of gender neutrality, I found one instance where the issue presently comes up. It's in the example of the archaeologist finding a statue made of stone, second-to-last paragraph of the opening section of "Overview". There, the word "he" is used three times in close sequence, so "he or she" in rapid sequence might be a bit verbose. Of the rest of the instances of the word "he", one is in the phrase "he or she", so that's already covered, and all the remaining ones refer to a specific intelligent design proponent or critic. Incidentally, all but one of the many CSC fellows are male (Nancy Pearcey being the lone exception and not among the more vocal advocates); the two most prominent critics are female (though I do not attempt to attach any particular meaning to this at the moment). Beyond an abstract advocacy of gender neutrality as a general principle, does anybody have any concrete suggestions? Maybe I'll go try "(s)he", and see where it goes. ... Kenosis 14:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, political correctness. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 15:01, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would be interested to see the comments of new reviewers separated from those of the editors who have been involved in all the bitter fights over this article in the last several months. Gnixon 00:56, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's called a discussion, GN: breaking apart the discussion would serve no purpose. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 09:58, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't appreciate your rudeness. My point was that 99% of the comments here are from people who have been very active in editing the page, and it would be helpful to be able to identify the comments from people who may have a fresh perspective. Gnixon 23:07, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind that Gnixon those who brought the article this far along all share the opinion the Gnixon has a long history of trying to impose his personal views onto the article at the expense of neutrality. Odd nature 23:23, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can you provide any example of a time when my personal views have been at issue? Gnixon 23:32, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Shall I bring up the criticisms of at least 10-15 editors in the past? FeloniousMonk, an administrator, probably would be best to recount your activities. Orangemarlin 23:36, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just about every issue you raised there was shot down as favoring ID proponent's rhetoric over a neutral recitation of facts and views. You can start at Talk:Intelligent_design/Archive37. Odd nature 23:40, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since I obviously don't think my personal views ever came up, nor do I think I favored anyone's views, a specific diff would be more helpful. Gnixon 23:53, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist Others have given my reasons, and I fear further comment would only further incite the wrath of the article's editors. For the record, I was involved in some of the fighting I mentioned above, generally on the other side from this article's supporters. I'd love to help with the article if the environment ever improves. Gnixon 00:56, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wrath? LOL. If I recall, your edits ran into WP:NPOV problems. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 09:58, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One of the basic problems with the article is that editors can't agree on how to follow WP:NPOV. Gnixon 23:07, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're one person with whom few agree with respect to NPOV. Jim recalls you correctly as I do. Orangemarlin 23:20, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. As I mentioned earlier history has shown that Gnixon is the last person to be delivering lecture to anyone on NPOV in regards to the intersection of creationism and science. But he is an excellent candidate to receive such a lecture on NPOV. Odd nature 23:29, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One could examine the history to see that many editors have independently raised concerns about NPOV in the article. It's true that the owners of the article tend to disagree with me. Gnixon 23:32, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The passive aggressive attack on us. No, NPOV editors ALWAYS disagree with you. But, I understand your being aggrieved. Apparently we all pick on you and only on you. Orangemarlin 23:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies for the way I stated it. I think the article is fiercely owned by a group of editors, which in itself should disqualify it from FA status. I think (at least some of) the group attacks (not merely disagrees with) not only me, but anyone who disagrees with them.
Owners? Are you trying to claim that the 8-10 regular editors of that article are violating WP:OWN? Presummably you are just dissatisfied with the current OWNERSTM but would be perfectly happy were you owning it. Odd nature 23:40, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think they are violating WP:OWN. I have no interest in owning the article. In fact, I once suggested that the best way to improve the article was for everyone currently involved (including myself) to never edit it again, and rely on random chance to select a crop of editors who could work together with better results. Gnixon 23:57, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Without these "owners" the article would quickly deteriorate into a publicity tool for the Discovery Institute. Maybe that is what you think is preferable. I think that would not be a reasonable and balanced article. Readers who want to see the Discovery Institute position can visit that website. Wikipedia does not present minority views as though they were majority views. And Intelligent Design is clearly a minority position. Deal with it.--Filll 00:02, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nowhere did I indicate that I think it "preferable" for the article to "deteriorate into a publicity tool for the Discovery Institute" and I think it's rude (a violation of WP:CIVIL) that you would suggest that. Can you provide an example of when the DI coopted the article because its "owners" weren't there? Gnixon 00:06, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One has to wonder why you haven't even bothered to check the article's edit history before sounding off. There's a broader of people editing the article than you realise or would have readers believe. Odd nature 00:09, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I guess he's not including me, because I barely edit ID. But I guess the rest of the cabal owns the article. Of course, the cabal that edited this particular article included both ID or Creation advocates and those who support science. About 10 editors I would guess. So let's round them (me excluded, of course), and have them banned for owning the article. Oh wait a minute, only one person is making that accusation. Orangemarlin 00:12, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, one person who wants to lead the firing squad. Sadly, he'll not get the opportunity as his accusations are rather risable. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 15:09, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The original nominator of the FAR stated problems with 1a, 2a, 2b, and 4. I would add to that list 1d (neutral) and 1e (stable) as well.
    • Concerning 1d, the article tries too hard to convince the reader of the conspiratorial nature of the subject. For example, there is the repeated use of words like "deliberately" or "intentionally". Or bringing argument after argument debunking ID such as in the Controversy section. In the end such a strident push makes the article appear more like a tract than an encyclopaedia article.
    • Concerning 1e, it is clear from the length of this FAR, the controversial nature of the original FA promotion, and the continuing reverts in the history of the article that no consensus/stability has been reached. A lot more work has to be done to get this article to truly exemplify as one of our very best. --RelHistBuff 10:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Stability is a unlikely and unreasonable expectation for such a controversial topic. Particularly one that is the target of online POV campaigns: Putting Wikipedia on Notice, the Discovery Insitute Odd nature 00:13, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If stability is not possible, then it should not be an FA. It does not satisfy criterion 1e. If it can't be made neutral, then it should not be an FA. It does not satisfy criterion 1d. If the prose cannot be fixed due to fear of deterioration, then it should not be an FA. It does not satisfy criterion 1a. Etc., etc. The article can remain A-class or GA, but not FA. --RelHistBuff 22:45, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Correction of POV-pushing edits does not count as instability, at least from my POV. Stability implies the article is largely "fnished", that is significant edits are not being made to either add more material, or bring the article up to acceptable standard. That this article is a magnet for POV edits from ID pushers should not affect its eligibility for FA status. --Michael Johnson 00:07, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Michael that periodic vandalism or the like doesn't disqualify an article from "stability," but there are more serious changes that a number of editors have tried and failed to make, in good faith and without any POV-pushing agenda. Some editors who frequent the page have tried hard to reach solutions, but I think they have so far failed. Because of that, and because new parties continue to raise good-faith objections, I'd agree with RelHist that the article doesn't seem stable. Gnixon 05:38, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Of course I was not talking about vandalism but rather "good faith" edits by editors unable to accept that their POV is not a NPOV, and insist on repeated attempts to change the tone of the article. --Michael Johnson 07:10, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let me assume for the moment that I can be included among your idea of those "unable to accept that their POV is not a NPOV".... First, my personal POV, which I can only guess is unknown to this group since I've very rarely if ever described it, has never been an issue. The question is entirely one of what constitutes the correct application of NPOV policy, i.e., how to avoid allowing the article to take some POV. I think enough editors have independently and in good faith raised objections to the "tone" of the article that it's unfair to dismiss them as cranks. Gnixon 15:35, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes, vandalism is in the eye of the beholder.--Filll 11:27, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone divide this discussion into subsections? Gnixon 23:13, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No one wants to. Orangemarlin 23:20, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can you clarify? Clearly someone (me) would like the discussion divided into subsections. As I imagine is obvious, my reason is that it's difficult to follow or add to such a long discussion with no subsections. Surely you can't testify that no one is willing to perform the task. Gnixon 23:25, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'd object to that. And I'm sure many others would too. Odd nature 23:23, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Could you say why, please? Gnixon 23:25, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No. Odd nature 23:30, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't you usually refactor discussions without consensus? My reason would be that people won't read all of the discussions and move right to the most recent section. That's not fair to this discussion. But you know, please be bold and refactor away! I'm sure everyone will appreciate your endeavors.Orangemarlin 23:34, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • My Word. I just read the current version of the article on ID. While I understand the complexity of getting the various factions to agree on any text, this is remarkable. It is almost unreadably redundant. The article would be better served as the summary of the definition, a bit of history, the Dover decision then link to long discussions of the various important sub topics. The discussion on the tactics and motives of the various proponents is hugely important, and feels burried under loads of explaination of why there are no peer reviewed articles. In addition, the fallicy of "God in the space between" is so abhorent to me (as a Christian) that I can hardly comment. I have faith that you all can do better --Rocksanddirt 00:02, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for a very valid point. There's an underlying theological debate, about the validity of Johnson's description of "theistic realism" -- or sometimes, "mere creation" --as the defining concept of our [ID] movement. This means that we affirm that God is objectively real as Creator, and that the reality of God is tangibly recorded in evidence accessible to science, particularly in biology. Less fundamentalist Christians don't have that need for physical evidence to support their faith. The intelligent design movement article covers aspects of the campaigning, but the history is very much intertwined with the various concepts put forward, and coverage can be improved in the intelligent design article, with patience and research.. dave souza, talk 19:08, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing like showing your hand and demonstrating how neutral you are on this, is there? And somehow, I do not understand what this "fallicy" has to do with the article. This is article is not arguing for or against God or his/her/its nature. It is discussing a popular public relations and political campaign for a certain agenda. This is again someone unlikely to be satisfied by more than an advertising brochure produced by the Discovery Institute. If anyone doubts the problems that this article faces, just look at the handful of people with NPOV POV agendas that have even shown up on this page. This sort of thing attracts them like flies.--Filll 11:27, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Filll, I think you've misunderstood Rocks' reason for mentioning his faith. By the way, I do indeed have an "NPOV agenda"!  ;) Gnixon 15:41, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, well I guess I missed that someplace.--Filll 15:45, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, you didn't miss anything. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 15:57, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I must have missed it too. But it's possible if I put on my reading glasses I'll see it. Nope. Still not there. Orangemarlin 06:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the problem lies in having one set of criteria for all featured articles when different types of articles should be featured as representing the best wikipedia has to offer for its type of article. This article should be featured for many reasons. That style choices have been made due to this being a wiki and a controversial subject is a fact that should not be responded to by making the article superficially better but worse as a wiki article. Instead it should be recognized that syle choices should reflect the nature of the subject and the nature of the publication. Wikipedia is breaking new ground as a type of publication never seen before. Let's be open minded about also breaking new ground in what constitutes a well done encyclopedic presentation. WAS 4.250 18:53, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Major Rework Needed. Thanks for the notification SandyGeorgia. I find the article seriously deficient to be FA, primarily by providing little on what ID is, and emphasizing criticisms of ID. Major effort needed to achieve FA status.DLH 07:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, so Sandy is canvassing POV pushers now, is she? Seeems that this is getting a bit personal now. I wonder what Sany's real interest is given that she's not contributed squat to the aricle. As for you DLH, the link you provided below gives away your POV in spades.
And as for Sandy, editors who truly have Wikipedia's best interests at heart do not slither about behind the scenes looking for the most tendentious POV pushers they can find. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 18:07, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On editorial criteria:

  • Factual - I find numerous statements that are false or misleading. Substantial corrections are needed See examples below.
This long and wooly discussion on a pro-ID wiki (not a reliable source) was written by David L. Hagen: who he? ... dave souza, talk 11:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral: The article frequently emphasizes critics position and often fails to mention the corresponding ID position.
  • Concise Intro: The introduction poorly summarizes Intelligent Design. e.g., The present introduction has 1 line on what ID is and 15 lines against it. To be featured, this introduction should summarize the main arguments presented by ID proponents, as detailed in the rest of the article, and summarize criticism against it with about similar space.DLH 06:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The intro is not concise, with lengthy descriptions by critics and little on what ID is.DLH 05:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment DLH's many objections (now moved to the article talk page) are a textbook example of the sort of the policy- and guideline-devoid disengenuous objections from ID promotors long term contributors to this article have had to contend with. Before anyone cries foul I'll point out that User:DLH has in his 1.5 year at Wikipedia yet to make any meaningful contribution to an ID related article but has an established history of using Wikipedia articles to promote ID views and rhetoric while discounting the mainstream view and ignoring WP:NPOV, as well as link spamming ID-related articles to his pet project, an ID wiki researchintelligentdesign.org: [10]. FeloniousMonk 05:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's also worth pointing out that DLH has a history of recruiting meatpuppets offsite at the pro-ID ISCID forums to inflate the ID POV into the article: [11] Odd nature 18:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See NPOV: Undue weight. .. dave souza, talk 11:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By my count, the article introduction has 4 sentences about what ID is. Seems like plenty to me. It then has 3 sentences stating that ID is controversial and opposed by some groups, which is true. You want to pretend that this is false? Give me a break... It finally has 5 sentences talking about the history of ID and what has happened recently, which might not have been the way the DI wanted it. However, this is an encyclopedia, and this is what the readers want to read and need to read. So please...put a sock in it.--Filll 12:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist, it is neither well-written prose nor of appropriate lengthy. More specifically, it is too verbose by at least an order of magnitude, and the nearly two hundred sources should be snipped down to the most relevant and informative. Finally, as judged by this page even, the article is subject to significant controversy, and from the edit history does not appear to be particularly stable. >Radiant< 09:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If the goal is to have only stable articles on here, then no controversial articles should probably be FAs, or possibly even in WP. However, my feeling is that these are quite valuable for the reading public. The public does not care or even know in most cases what is rated FA or GA or A or B etc. They just want to get information. And this article provides it. Suppose I am a parent whose school board is under attack by ID supporters (or I support ID, and I want to know what the arguments are on the other side so I can be prepared to defend myself against them) and I want to understand the situation. I can come to WP and understand the pros and cons, the issues and recent history and major players, and where to go for more information on both sides. Suppose I am a legislator or a political aid or a lobbyist. I can find what I need here, and links to other important information. Suppose I am someone preparing for a school debate. All I need is in the article, or in its links. If we "pare this down", a huge amount of valuable information will be flushed away and lost. If the goal is to make something pretty for our own vanity, this article might never make it, according to some arbitrary narrow definition. If the goal is to make something useful for the readers, then this article is on the right track (although it still can use work of course).--Filll 12:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure my support will help it, but I fully support all or most of DLHs suggested changes. I commend his patience in dealing with it. I havent the least idea of where he stands on the issue personally, and that is just as it should be. These changes alone may not be enough for FA--Radiant suggests much more drastic changes. DGG (talk) 10:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Editorial Concerns Registered: In her invitation to comment, SandyGeorgia noted:
  • "If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status."
  • For the record: I provided explicit details on the editorial policies that RelHistBuff has moved to the discussion page. Unless those detailed concerns are addressed by July 23, 2007, I recommend that this article be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list per the stated policy. DLH 17:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. As I mentioned above, I agree with the article's critics on one thing, which is that it shouldn't be a "Featured Article". I advocate a voluntary give-back of FA status by consensus of participants in the article, if such consensus can be achieved. The problems here are not, on the whole, with the article, but with the FA criteria that simply are not designed with the more complicated and controversial topics in mind. Many of those criteria are readily subject to endless bickering that requires a patient, diligent analysis to sort through the many issues and arrive at meaningful collective judgments-- something that relatively few, if any, participants appear to have the time and inclination to do.
    Taken as a whole, the feedback given thus far in this FAR amounts to a colláge of contradictory statements about the article that would be impossible to implement in any meaningful way. Please send the FA rating back to from whence it came via whatever procedural method can be devised-- IMO, this discussion has become largely a waste of time. ... Kenosis 13:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here here. Orangemarlin 17:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly is the purpose of the FA? Aside from making the editors involved feel good, and being another FA scalp to hang on the proverbial wall? It should be about improving the writing and the articles. But in this instance, it is not clear to me that this is the purpose. It is acting at cross purposes, perhaps to what should be the goal of this article, or what is even possible.--Filll 14:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The purpose of the FA is to identify our great articles and to encourage editors to get articles up to that level of quality. The purpose of the FAR is to assess how well an FA maintains its qualifications as such, to suggest improvements in case the article does not meet some of the FA criteria, and to provide a path toward FARC in case it doesn't seem like the article can be brought up to snuff. Several people have suggested improvements to the article, and several others have indicated they think it should go to FARC, so I think this FAR is serving its purpose. Gnixon 15:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately I know too much about your past edits Gnixon, so that colors my response to this post.--Filll 16:12, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, and we're not alone apparently. Orangemarlin 17:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kenosis, from the stated policy, I understand that unless the editorial concerns are corrected, this article will automatically be transferred to "Featured Article Removal Candidate". Then there will be the vote of whether to Keep or Delist.DLH 17:26, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think you mean the valid concerns. Sadly, many of the converns raised here (yours among them) are not really valid, are they. You basically want us to reproduve a DI page on the granseur of ID. Ain't gonna happen. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 18:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Got that right. Odd nature 18:26, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I said before, this kind of review is bound to bring out the aggressive, aggrieved minority viewpoint, in the form of Gnixon and DLH. they are all excited thinking they can finally strike a blow and "hurt" this article and the NPOV "pro-science cabal" that has been protecting the article from the minority pro-ID, pro-DI predations and attacks. I do not care if this article gets re-rated as start class, there is NO way...and I mean NO way we will ever give in to a view like that of Gnixon or DLH. I would rather have the article deleted completely than see that happen. This page just gives these agents of intolerance and ignorance another platform on which to parade their completely biased views and not-so-hidden pro-right wing Fundamentalist agendas.--Filll 18:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm curious what exactly my "minority viewpoint" is. Gnixon 20:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as FA - While every article can be improved (and this one is subject to constant discussion and change), I see no reason to delist this article. Sure, there are people who dislike the article because it doesn't simply regurgitate Discovery Institute talking points - and Sandy Georgia appears to be out there recruiting them for this FAR - but having an NPOV article is no reason to delist. Then there is nonsense like Radiant's "too many references". If he had bothered to pay the least attention to the article history (or maybe, you know, read the discussion on this page) it would be obvious why that many references are needed. Guettarda 00:15, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • hmmmm ... yet another case on this FAR of "what people don't know they make up". Guettarda, as any number of people can tell you, for a very long time I have done all the notifications for all the articles at FAR (although DrKiernan has recently started helping, thankfully). And, for at least a year, the goal of notifications at FAR has been to cast the widest possible net by notifying every relevant WikiProject and involved editor to maximize the chances that someone will pick up an article and bring it back to featured status (this is not a typical FAR article; many of them are older, abandoned FAs). Further, FAR is often criticized if an article is defeatured and an involved editor wasn't made aware, so you'll notice recent additions to the FAR instructions which further expand the notification requests, to ask nominators to do the notifications (they rarely do) and to include all top editors of the article. This article has more main editors than any I've encountered recently, hence more notifications. I'd ask for a retraction and apology for your charge, but those seem to be in short supply for the misinformation about respected editors that is going 'round this FAR, so never mind. It would be helpful if people coming to this FAR would read and understand the instructions at the top of WP:FAR regarding not only the notifications of relevant parties, but also the purpose of a review. Keep or Remove are not declared during a Featured Article Review; the review is for identifying and hopefully resolving deficiencies. If deficiences are not addressed, then the article moves to FARC, where Keep or Remove may be declared. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:02, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, y'all got my vote in advance. Get it in there as quickly as possible and get this article off of the FA list. I'd like to include a letter to the following effect: "Dear FARCing committee: We'd sure like to keep this FA award, but in good conscience we must give it back to the judges [cameras pan to show stunned audience in tuxedoes], because the advice is all over the map and variously cherrypicks the FA criteria to suit the particular bone that each judge cares to pick.[camera pans back to audience--hear shouts of 'boo' and 'ya' jerk'] And son of a gun, taken together they don't add up to an FA, or even a GA, but something conceptually resembling Mr. Potato Head. [Camera pans again to now-jeering audience; shouts coming from the balcony 'Get off the damn stage!'] And so, to paraphrase Jim62sch's famous words (I forget from where), ¥%$@#&*$#¡^&¢! Thank you. Sincerely, the participants in the article on intelligent design. [two security guards quickly escort Kenosis backstage; dodging objects thrown from audience onto the stage]" I recognize there's not consensus for this; but that's my opinion at this stage of the proceeding. It's become completely ridiculous. ... Kenosis 02:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Having just now re-read the entire article for the first time in awhile, I must say I'm impressed by the information content. Moreover, I'm shocked to find that the article has been improving over the last few months---in content, in the quality of its writing, and even in NPOV tone. On the last point there is still work to be done, particularly in the lead. I have to admit that when I glanced at the article before my recent comments, I wasn't able to get past the lead (which has been in exactly the same sorry state for many months) and the attitudes that seem to prevail here and on the talk page. Apparently some editors have done a lot of good work while others did most of the fighting. The article still suffers from a noticeably critical tone, in some places more than others, and the talk pages are still hostile to anyone who doesn't swear an oath of anti-IDism (which ends up biasing the article), but the article seems to have gotten closer to FA status while I wasn't looking. The upshot: I'm no longer convinced it isn't salvageable. I doubt this FAR will generate many suggestions that can be implemented in the current environment, so I still think the article should move toward delisting, but I'm slightly optimistic that in a few more months the current trajectory might carry Intelligent design to deserved FA status. I think I'll try to avoid commenting further until FARC. Good luck and best wishes to those who are working to bring the article up to snuff. Gnixon 03:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Up to snuff? It's been there for a while. Admittedly, you've never liked the article, but then you've never really contributed to it in any substantive way either Pretty much you've confined yourself to disrupting the talk page, not a very auspicious record for someone who claims to want the best for Wikipedia. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 21:50, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close FAR.
(1) Grammatical and syntax issues already addressed in the article, such as unnecessary redundancies, run-on sentences and other syntax issues. The three additional issues raised by FOo at the start of this FAR have been previously resolved as follows.
(2) Multiple strings of footnotes in article are appropriate for a controversial article like this, to make plain to casual passersby that it's been well researched, that the article is not the product of a left-wing conspiracy to keep God out of the public schools, but rather is drawn from multiple reliable sources on each important issue within.
(3) The outline and organization of the article is extremely reasonable and is consistent with a highly competent presentation of the various permutations of the topic.
(4) The article, contrary to FOo's fourth point, is not excessively long. It is adequately long to present an extremely competent explanation of the topic, with three to four levels of depth-of-summary provided to the reader, depending on how they wish to proceed. The reader can choose to read just the lead, or the lead and the beginning of the overview and scan the rest, or focus in on other specific aspects of the topic as desired. If the reader wishes to pursue further research, the numerous footnotes are excellent points of departure, as are the many links to related WP articles and topic forks. In short, its length is perfectly appropriate to the topic.

Other issues raised above amount to individual preferences by individual commentators, with no consistent set of recommendations for the article. Rather, taken as a whole, the article strikes an excellent compromise between conflicting recommendations when all the above comments are viewed in their totality. ... Kenosis 16:15, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kenosis, you seem committed to improving the article. Without getting into the more substantive issues raised on this FAR, here are some trivial things I typically correct myself on articles at FAR, but are probably best left to someone else on this article. This FAR is coming up to the two-week mark, and these items are still not fixed. Perhaps you'd be willing to work on getting these minor, easily fixed things out of the way?

  • Review external links per WP:EL, WP:NOT and WP:RS; it looks like some pruning could be in order.
  • Format all references; there are currently bluelinked citations which don't include basic biblio info like publisher, author, publication date, last access date, etc. (see WP:CITE/ES). I see that Marskell cleaned up one today;[12] that could serve as a sample. For example, see:
  • 82. ^ Entropy, Disorder and Life
  • 83. ^ Evolution's Thermodynamic Failure
  • See also could use a run-through per WP:GTL. Ideally, relevant links are incorporated into the article and not repeated in See also. There seem to be articles in See also that are already linked elsewhere on the page. (Also, there's an External link in See also.)
  • Not sure why there is strange use of bolding in a reference, see WP:MOSBOLD
  • There are unspaced emdashes in the article (see WP:DASH).
  • There is incorrect use of italics in the list following "For a theory to qualify as scientific, it must be:" (see WP:MOSBOLD)
  • There are incorrect use of italics in a quote at "Dembski has written that ... " (See WP:MOS#Quotations).

Getting the little stuff out of the way would be helpful at this stage of the review. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:03, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it was clear, from the getgo, that this FAR wasn't brought because there are bluelinked citations without a publisher name, and other such minutia. Rather, it was brought because a recent participant didn't succeed in persuading participants that her/his preferences constituted improvements to the article and wished to take the issues to a higher court, so to speak. But since the FAR is here, these points are indeed minor issues that do not require an intimate familiarity with the topic to properly implement them and which would be quite expedient to resolve in accordance with current stylistic preferences in WP (with the possible exception of the chosen external links provided in the article which will require a much closer look by the participants familiar with the article). Offhand, speaking for myself, I'd say by all means feel free to correct these formatting issues and other minor quirks. And Marskell has already standardized many of the references in the process of moving to a slightly different citation format than the article used before. One thing to be cautious of here, for those unfamiliar with the details of the topic, is to avoid giving the same ref-names to references that cite to different sections or page #s in a particular source, of which there are a good few (in other words, don't combine'em--AFAIK most if not all are correct).

That said, are there any significant substantive issues by SandyGeorgia and others in the community of FA reviewers? Because quite frankly, as I stated, the problem at the moment is not with the article. We haven't heard one significant substantive issue here that hasn't already been closely examined by and debated among at least a half-dozen participants intimately familiar with the topic and the reliable sources from which its content is drawn-- i.e., there has been no consensus in this review about any particular criticisms of the way the article approaches the topic. Rather, the substantive opinions and organizational preferences have been, as I said, all over the map and substantially driven by differing personal POVs. Hence, lacking a clearly justifiable consensus about anything major here, it's time to close this FAR once we take care of these little details. ... Kenosis 18:46, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as FA I must confess I did not get through the whole article because I have to run to a meeting now... but I agree with what Kenosis said. This article is not perfect (even in my cursory inspection, I found a couple paragraphs that I would have liked to have seen better sourced) but overall it is extremely high quality and definitely worthy of featured status. In particular, I was impressed how it succeeded in presenting a truly NPOV stance, without pandering to, ahem, a certain side of the argument that has been widely debunked by the vast majority of reliable sources. It doesn't overly criticize intelligent design, but it doesn't give it a free pass either. I think it's an excellent article. --Jaysweet 19:02, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Should the article be primarily about ID or primarily about the controversy over ID? Gnixon 23:10, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Surely we should teach the controversy? .. dave souza, talk 23:49, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close FAR per Kenosis. We all know that this FAR is bogus and it is clear from the evidence that FOo filed this FAR as revenge on those of us who did not give props to his wisdom and vision, and who did not support his edits (yet, if we look at the evidence we see that no one disagreed with Margareta's edits as they were quite good). In addition, the canvassing by Sandy of DLH, a well-known troll and POV-warrior, and of the ever slippery Gnixon who contributed nothing to the article but has disrupted the talk page at will, seems hard to accept as an AGF tactic.
As was also noted by Kenosis, there are only minute issues left to be tackled, none of which effect FA status, and all of which fall well within the purview of the careful editor to correct (if necessary).
Finally, before I hear anything about civility, allow me to note that I call them as I see them, and am not stating anything that a number of editors here know to be true. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 21:30, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, I didn't "canvass" anyone. Per the intructions at the top of the featured article review page—and as I have done for at least a year—I notified relevant WikiProjects, original nominator, and all main editors of the article. I don't know who most of these people are, which "side" they're on, nor should that be relevant to the outcome of a review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sandy, maybe you didn't canvass, but some of the editors you contacted are hardly "regular editors" -- DLH had 48 edits, most of which were POV vios. Rbj had 40, most of which were also reverted as POV vios. RoyBoy has very few edits and it's been a dog's age since he edited. Ed Poor had more, but many were reverted as POV vios, and he hasn't edited in a long time either (although you can find him on Conservapedia). I see you didn't invite Gnxon, so sorry about that (also note that he has 6 edits on the article, but 159 on the talk page). FuelWagaon's last edit was almost two years ago, on Setember 25, 2005, well before FA status. In other words, I'm none too clear on how you picked the "main" editors. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 23:15, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since this is a very busy FAR, I'm likely to miss a question like this; FAR typically has 30 to 40 reviews running at a time, and I usually run through them more or less once a day. As your own analysis shows, I had no idea who most of the editors were or what their positions were, but I did dig far enough into the stats to notify Margareta because she was mentioned in a positive light by regular editors of the article here. If you have any concerns about FAR notifications, please raise them at WT:FAR. In case you're interested, the articlestats script is a new part of the process and there are also discussions about FAR notifications (and continual efforts to improve them) in the talk page archives. The goal is to obtain the broadest possible input to maximize the chances an article will retain featured status during the long month allowed for improvements; I've been criticized many times for undernotifying, but never before for overnotifying. Your accusations have assured that I, at least, will no longer be doing the courtesy of notifying editors as I've been doing at FAR for over a year, so if older abandoned articles lose status because of lack of participation, so be it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:52, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sandy, I think you missed the point -- being selective is not a bad thing as long as it is based on logical criteria. One criterion might be, "how mant edits out of the total?"; another might be, "has the editor been active on the article over the past 6 months to a year?"; another might be, "has the editor ever been blocked for vios on the page and if so, how frequently?" &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 23:42, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I came here because I noticed the review mentioned at Talk:Intelligent design. Neither Sandy nor anyone else recruited me. Gnixon 23:08, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jim, we don't "know" anything of the sort. Again, I request that you retract your personal attacks. "I call 'em as I see 'em" is not an excuse for this kind of conduct here. --FOo 22:35, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FOo, you weren't in the "we". As for my WP:SPADE observations, with the exception of my remarks about Sandy, they were observations made by other seasoned ID editors on this very page. (I'm not going to ref them, I just ask you to read the page). &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 23:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The comments made about me are discussed on my talk page, where the discussion belongs (noting that the person making the charges hasn't responded). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:21, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Diffs? I couldn't find it, but I could just be blind this morning. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 10:31, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. Which is a more reliable source on the beliefs of ID advocates: statements made by those advocates, or interpretations of those statements made by opponents? It seems to me that the best possible source for a claim such as "Joe Foo believes proposition X" is a reliably-sourced assertion by Joe Foo that asserts proposition X ... not an assertion by some third party that "the wicked and treacherous Joe Foo claims to believe proposition X". --FOo 22:33, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Actually quite unrelated. This FAR was motivated by stylistic concerns, not with sources for reports of people's beliefs. But your bringing it up does tend to show the ingrained hostility that seems to go with this article. You folks have been fighting intellectually-dishonest creationists for so long that you now think that anyone who disapproves of the state of the article must therefore be a creationist. Well, you're wrong. As Nietzsche put it, "He who fights with monsters should beware that he himself does not become a monster." --FOo 00:14, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that you want to distance yourself from your own post speaks volumes--Filll 00:53, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Once again we see the fallacy that underlies the hostility surrounding this article: Anyone who disagrees must be a secret creationist trying to destroy the article. The hidden, evil intentions of such conspirators must be exposed and destroyed. Relax, dude. Not everyone who disagrees with you is your enemy. I know there are a lot of real communists creationists out there ... that does not mean that everyone who sees problems here is one of them. Have you left no sense of decency, sir, at long last? --FOo 02:13, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FOo, do not ever accuse someone of personal attacks again...you went way over the line here and have managed to attack every regular editor on ID. Your comment regarding McCarthyism is utterly untoward (and besides, you're no Joe Welch), unbecoming and patently false. As noted by several of us: no one objected to Margareta's changes because they were productive, or to Marksell's changing the ref style as that too is productive. In addition, the sylistic concerns are an ever shifting target here and there is no consensus on what these concerns are (as has also been pointed out above). &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 10:43, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment. Ouch. This reminds me more of the Tower of Babel and confusion of tongues than it does of the McCarthy hearings or the Inquisition. Seems to me what we're left with is a lot of irrelevant interpersonal arguments and little or no necessary work to do on the article.

It appears that relatively few who've posted here understand the specific procedural methods that might have achieved consensus among FA reviewers for FAR and FARC. Other than the note at the top of the page which says that "keep" or "remove" are not declared at the FAR stage, it's not at all clear what the procedure is expected to involve and specifically how the decisions are expected to be made. This lack of clarity is manifested in the comments. As of now, there are 13 users above who've advocated retaining FA status or to close the FAR as it stands with no change in article rating. None of those have offered reason to believe that they intended it to mean that anything needed to be done to the article in order to keep the status quo. Four users have advocated delisting as an FA, which, since hardly anyone around here understands the procedural process, can reasonably be interpreted as advocating going to the next step towards removal from FA, which is FARC. None of these four have proposed reasons for removal or promotion to FARC that could reasonably be interpreted as having achieved a consensus about what things might actually be wrong with the article, i.e., they have not achieved anything even remotely resembling a consensus about specific things that would need to be repaired in order to merit continued FA status.

FOo gave four reasons for the review. The first of the four has been resolved and the other three did not have any consensus as being valid reasons to prevent continued FA status. SandyGeorgia raised some procedural issues with the original FAC. No additional participants appear to have expressed agreement with those specific procedural concerns on this page, and in any event this appears to require a separate discussion among the "FA community" to publicly resolve any collective questions about what the expectations are for the procedural aspects of such decisions in the future. SandyGeorgia also unilaterally proposed a number of very minor stylistic issues with this article, most of which were quickly resolved without the least hint of disagreement. As to SandyGeorgia's list-item about the see-also section, I removed two links that were either irrelevant or only marginally relevant, and left the rest untouched. Each of the see-also links is relevant to some particular aspect of the topic, irrespective of whether some of them have been linked in the article already; all of the ones that presently remain in the article involve a consensus that they are sufficiently worthy of note to be included in the "See-also" section.. That leaves one minor issue that SandyGeorgia raised, which is the number of external links in the EL section. Presently it's broken up into three sections, one with 8 "ID perspectives" links; one with 13 "non-ID perspectives"; and one with 13 "media articles". I think it's fair to say this does not constitute a link farm, but is an extremely reasonable list of external links for an article such as intelligent design.

The discussion above, taken in its entirety, can only reasonably be interpreted as consensus to keep FA status for the article. Lacking any consensus about specifically what might be a genuine impediment to continued FA rating, it's time to close this FAR and move on, I should think. ... Kenosis 15:53, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When 4 out of 17 disagree, there is not "consensus." Gnixon 21:57, 18 July 2007 (UTC) I would add that all my attempts to suggest improvements to the article have met hostility---not just disagreement, but hostility. If anyone thinks it might be useful, I'll be happy to come up with a list of issues I see, based on the FA criteria. However, I'm not so interested in getting kicked around for daring to suggest the article has problems. Gnixon 22:02, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I recommend, then, getting consensus for any specific proposals Gnixon may assert to be necessary conditions for continued FA status. ... Kenosis 22:26, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Gnixon's idea of consensus is that allow a small minority to bend to its will over a substantial majority. Consensus is impossible with a minority group of POV warriors blocking consensus. However, if Gnixon wishes to make some specific proposal, we should assume good faith and see if he has the ability to gain consensus. Orangemarlin 05:08, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It sems to me that the article is below FA standard but salvageable. It's certainly strong on information and copiousness of referencing. On the other hand, it is very hard to read, in my opinion, for three reasons: 1) the sentence construction is often poor and in some cases faulty; 2) the article is far too long and one has to take breaks from it to get through it; 3) the rows of tags are unprofessional-looking and distracting. These are all quite curable. As Slim Virgin says above, tag rows can be reduced by combining references. A good copyedit could improve the writing. And a comb-through could remove relatively insignificant information, for example that "at least one Muslim" has signed such and such a thing, and thereby reduce the length. qp10qp 02:19, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding "The rows of tags are unprofessional-looking and distracting" Yes, this has been debated and is understood to be debatable; please see the discussion above and in the article talk page for further details. In a nutshell, the most recent agreement among participants was to leave them separated to make clear to passersby that certain statements in the article that have proven to be controversial are not invented or biased by the WP editors, but rather are derived from multiple reliable sources. Regarding "The sentence construction is often poor and in some cases faulty" Kindly provide specific examples of any other faulty sentences you identified (I found the one recently inserted sentence at the bottom of the article and repaired it). In the case of "poor" sentences, please provide examples, and recommendations for how it, or they, might be improved. Regarding "The article is far too long" Please provide specific recommendations of what might need to be removed in order to achieve this stated objective. Point by point, please. ... Kenosis 02:45, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On the matter of poor and faulty sentence construction, it would probably be useful to refer back to the list of dangling modifier examples that I posted to the article talk page. Some of those have since been fixed, though. --FOo 04:24, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, those recommendations can be found here. Two examples of dangling modifiers were given, and one has since been repaired. The other was the sentence that reads: Intelligent design proponents also raise occasional arguments outside biology, most notably an argument based on the concept of the fine-tuning of universal constants that make matter and life possible, and allegedly are not attributable to chance. I'll go fix that now. Thanks. Any others? ... Kenosis 04:37, 19 July 2007 (UTC) Duly edited here. Presumably that is adequate to make clear to which portion of the sentence the last clause refers. ... Kenosis 04:49, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kenosis' pointing to talk consensus is valid but not definitive. The whole point of review is to allow uninvolved people a chance to comment. Thus, for instance, 32 external links most certainly is a link farm. "Links should be kept to a minimum" because "Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links." By having so many you reduce the worth of each individually and distract the reader. Also, after a couple of hours work, I'm not even 20% through the refs. I'm sorry, but when people haven't added author and publisher we can't call it our best work. If weblink + title is enough, let's just go back to throwing in embedded links and leave it at that. These things do need to be done. Marskell 04:51, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I was primarily referring to consensus, or lack thereof, here. There is, thus far, no consensus here on what problems there may be with the article, just a miscellaneous bunch of advice and complaints, often directly conflicting, set in between numerous statements that the article is OK as an FA as it presently stands. Jaysweet, above, recommends more citations; others have said there are way too many; several have said they should be combined; Marskell appears to already be tired of going through the formatting minutia of the footnotes, and so am I. I disagree that the inclusion of publisher and such in each and every footnote is a significant issue. Do others have opinions on this particular issue of the footnote formatting? ... Kenosis 05:11, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh my. If you really thinking listing the publisher is not important, you should go to our sourcing policies and suggest as much. If you don't list the publisher, you might as well not have the citation at all. Literally, just throw in the weblink and leave it at that. Marskell 05:22, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ordinarily the publisher is right at the top of the linked page. What's the actual advantage of putting in the form field for cite-web? ... Kenosis 05:28, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
From a certain perspective, there is no advantage. The reader can simply follow the link and find the publisher. Similarly, we don't actually need to list the author, date, or even the title of an article. It's all there in the link. So, why not, as certain pages still do, simply have a reference section consisting of bald urls and nothing more? Because insofar as Wikipedia has any pretence to reliability and professionalism it should do what other reliable, professional publications do: consistently unpack its references. I click down, see "Goodstein, Laurie. New York Times", all well and good, I click back up and carry on my reading. Note with book sources one can't follow a link, so the publisher needs to be listed. If we do so for books, surely we should do so for journal and news weblinks. Marskell 05:46, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Point taken and duly noted. ... Kenosis 05:49, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, it is tedious as hell ;). Marskell 05:54, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I personally prefer making the references and footnotes here as much like references and footnotes in a "real encyclopedia" article. And that means including dates and publishers, volumes, issues, etc. Sure you can follow the weblink to get more information. But that means the reader has to click on something. Which might or might not be active. And the web address might have changed, and have to be updated. Any updating is far more simple, the more information that the reader has. Many of our readers are not just reading, but mining Wikipedia for reports or articles of their own. They need to have this sort of publisher and date and issue information for their own articles. We do them a disservice by not including it. Also, I can tell a lot about the quality of the citation from the date and publisher. I do not necessarily want to click through a huge list of weblinks just to find out that information.--Filll 12:13, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In accordance with WP:Consensus, I suggest the process begin on this particular issue of whether 32 EL's, split up into ID, non-ID, and media perspective, constitutes a "link farm" with respect to the topic of intelligent design. Thus far Maskell and SandyGeorgia have said it's way too many links and contrary to WP recommendations at WP:EL. I've said it's extremely reasonable and that it's consistent with the local consensus, and I think the present set of links is appropriate to the topic. Anybody else? ... Kenosis 05:11, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kenosis said, "Thus far Maskell and SandyGeorgia have said it's way too many links ... " Misquote—I've said no such thing. I asked that the External links be reviewed per Wiki guidelines; please review my exact wording, and please don't attribute wording to me that I never said. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:28, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying. I took your statement to mean you were taking the position that there were too many links. WP:EL, indeed, makes no specific recommendations on the depth and breadth of "External links" sections, leaving this aspect very much to local discretion. Point noted. ... Kenosis 16:09, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, just clarifying. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:52, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • About linkfarms This is an example of blindly following some arbitrary rule to get some sort of goldstar, without actually doing any thinking. On some articles, like Way of St. James, the external links become rapidly clogged with commercial and nonsense links that we have to regularly cull out. I have been keeping a list of them over the last few months as we cull them and it has become impressively long. That is a very different situation than the external links at the bottom of intelligent design. These might be copious, but they are hand-chosen, approved by consensus, organized and useful to the readers who want to research this subject and understand it. Trimming these down to 2 or 3 would not serve the readers well in this instance, but only serve some arbitrary "one size fits all rule". That is why I have often expressed scepticism about the value of things like FA and GA status in all cases. When FA and GA encourages better writing and articles that are more useful to the readers, they are valuable. When FA and GA encourage nonsense decisions, they are no longer helpful. It is a case of the tail wagging the dog.--Filll 12:22, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The issue of the "External links" section, then, lacking any specific criticisms about irrelevance or clearly demonstrable excess or other lack of quality of thought processes that went into compiling it, ought be considered settled. Anyone disagree? ... Kenosis 16:14, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • enough already. I've seen a large number of vague objections, some contradictory. Some people think some sections are too long, others think some are too short. Others think the entire article is too long, but don't explain how they would intend to shorten it. Still others claim POV problems but give no real details (and don't address that the current version has long-standing consensus between many users trying to hammer out POV issues). If people are going to give substantial objections they should have specific details, not just pithy objections or attempts to game the system. Can we get this process over with? JoshuaZ 13:38, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Although I understand that a lot of effort went into making sure all the references are there, defending the article against creationist POV-pushers, etc., I still feel the end result is an article that is not an example of one of our best. As the editors defend the article with such vigour, it appears to be pushed toward the other direction and thus it fails criterion 1d. Now before anyone starts to accuse me of being one of those POV-pushers, let me state right now that I completely disagree with ID! However, in my view, this article needs a lot more work (within a less heated environment) before it can be an FA. I give some suggestions below on improving the neutrality.

  • That ID is a “pseudoscience” is clear and the AAAS reference is fine. However, calling it “junk science” does not add anything. To me they are the same. The latter is just a pejorative way of saying the former.
  • The words of “intentionally” or “deliberately” assumes the mindset of an ID supporter. But is there any way to assume what was intended? The adverbs can be dropped without damage to the article.
  • There are clearly plenty of the arguments against ID. But must all of them be used? Some of them appear less important (for example, "What designed the designer?" argument). The editors are a better judge of the priority arguments, but this could help reduce the length of the article and reduce POVishness.

There are many other areas where work is needed to reduce POV. It is likely that the editors will feel that they have achieved a delicate balance and any changes would most likely disrupt the careful compromise they have achieved. However, in its current state, it is not a FA. --RelHistBuff 15:05, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this position was noted above as among those who disagree in broad terms that the article is, or should be, an FA. And they are broad terms. As to the specificsjust mentioned by RelHistBuff:: First, the article does not "call" ID "junk science". Rather, this characterization has been applied by notable members of the scientific community in their published writing and the article states it accordingly. Second: Numerous times in the article it is shown that the conclusions of reliable sources such as a US federal court and many, many competent, notable, published sources, some of them self-admitted by leading ID proponents, have agreed that the omissions and redefinitions of standard scientific and educational terms by the ID proponents is quite calculated. And the article also makes quite clear this is the case -- if one actually reads the article -- I recognize the topic is not an "easy read", so to speak. The article also makes eminently clear in a number of places that this does not refer to supporters, but to proponents, leading advocates, those who framed the issue as part of a legal strategy to meet the Supreme Court criterion set in Edwards v. Aguilard for what's allowed to be taught in public school biology classes in the US. Thus, the use of the word "intentionally" is most certainly not an assumption made by the WP editors. Third, the observation about having the potential for parsing through and thereby making new editorial decisions about which arguments rendered by notable, reliable sources could be removed in order to reduce length is duly noted. I'd speculate there may be some that don't absolutely need to be there.

Do any other participants in this FAR and/or participants involved in the article itself have opinions about this issue of what notable counterarguments to the assertions of notable ID advocates can be removed from the article? ideally without detracting from the compehensiveness and thoroughness of the article? ... Kenosis 16:55, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let me add that I think the point-counterpoint style of the article, where each paragraph about an ID position is followed by a paragraph about its critics, has two negative effects. First, it damages readability: for those who are familiar with the positions of critics, or can easily guess them, (and likely for anyone else,) this style is highly distracting and makes it difficult to read the article to just learn about ID. Second, it damages neutrality by leaving the impression that the article is going out of its way (see point about readability) to emphasize the positions of critics. It's not clear to me why each point needs to be addressed in-line. Why can't the general response of scientists, for example, be given in a single section, with examples of their rebuttals to ID positions and links to articles such as Objections to evolution that appropriately cover things point-by-point? Gnixon 16:51, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Gnixon was also included in the informal count I gave above as being among those in general opposition to the article's FA status. If I read this comment correctly, it appears Gnixon is advocating that the ID advocates' positions be presented separately from those of the critics and other objective, reliable sources who have responded to the claims of ID advocates, such as the scientific community and the federal court system, with opportunities for the ID advocates to re-respond to those positions. Gnixon, please correct me if I misinterpret what's being advocated for the article at this stage. Anybody else on this issue just brought up? ... Kenosis 17:01, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You misinterpret me at least on the point that ID advocates should have a "re-response" to their critics. Perhaps you think I'm arguing the critics' positions should be shunted off to some corner of the article to de-emphasize them, but that's not at all the case. Let me give two specific examples from the article. The Overview section has 6 subsections, two of which are historical. The remaining four are Irreducible Complexity, Specific Complexity, Fine-tuned Universe, and Intelligent designer. First, Intelligent designer is entirely a section of criticism, containing no element of "Overview" of ID---I think it belongs in the Controversy section. Second, consider the remaining sections, which are "complexity" (x2) and "fine-tuned universe." Presumably these are the main positions of ID. Yet each subsection actually contains more words about the criticism of these positions than about the positions themselves. I think it would be much more valuable to provide more detail about the 2 main positions of ID in the Overview section instead of emphasizing the criticism of those positions. With only 2 positions to cover, it would be easy to address critics' positions within the Controversy section. Gnixon 17:29, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying the point about re-responses. In other words (Gnixon, correct me again if I'm wrong) Gnixon's principal assertions are 1) the article doesn't meet WP:NPOV, and 2) it's poorly organized. Personally I have no objection to a reorganization of the article, assuming there's a sufficiently strong consensus to override long-term inertia. These articles can of course be well written in any of a wide variety of ways. I also have no objection to reconsidering the extent to which ID positions are summarized in the sections on basic ID concepts such as irreducible complexity, specified complexity, FTU and the "intelligent designer". Remember that the last of these four is largely avoided by ID proponents in the strategy of attempting to make their case that ID is science and not religion, thus the weight of pro/con balance in that section. Remember also that the proponents have made contradictory assertions about the designer (e.g., Dembski telling one audience that well it could have been "space aliens";, while telling another audience that well, we know the designer is God as described in the Gospel of John). As to the remaining three of those sections, two of them, irreducible complexity and specified complexity, have raised the hackles of the entire community of biologists, mathematicians and other experts who've chosen to actively analyze them. These two sections are already presented in very careful, extensively discussed accordance with WP:NPOV#undue_weight and Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Pseudoscience. See also the federal court's analysis of this issue in Kitzmiller v. Dover. As to "fine-tuned universe", what would be the advantage of not putting this perspective forward to the reader in the Overview section and waiting until later in the article? It's an extremely interesting philosophical and theological debate, and the main point is that it's said by the reliable sources not to be scientific, but quite speculative as to what conclusions might be drawn from observing fine balances arising from late-20th century cosmology and physics. But either way, I have no objection to a revisiting of the organizational approach in the article, a more detailed discussion of which should be reserved for the article talk page. The central question here on this page, as I see it, is whether the present organization is such that if it is not changed, should the article be removed from FA status (i.e., start the FARC process)?. Anybody else on this set of issues? ... Kenosis 19:10, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your response. I think you've understood me. My main concerns are NPOV and readability, and I think the organization damages both. The structure of the lead, I think, is similarly problematic. We could certainly discuss further on the talk page if you like. Most of my other concerns, e.g., the awkward footnotes and shoehorned pejoratives like "junk science", have been raised by others. Gnixon 20:09, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kenosis, there's only one person who is "demanding" these changes, mostly to fit a POV that that is outside of consensus. Time to move on. Orangemarlin 20:17, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Who are you quoting? Gnixon 20:47, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Outsider comments. I know nothing about this process, and have had difficulty following all the arguments above. However, these are the things that come to mind to me.
  • I think I saw six footnotes, 38-43, lined up in a row after a sentence. Is this normal for featured articles? I can see some possible redundancy to these multiple footnotes, unless they all somehow say something that the others don't.
  • This seems to me to be pretty much an article about an idea which was created in the courtroom. I could be wrong, and probably am, of course. But has anyone ever contacted some of the editors at Wikipedia:WikiProject Law, who might have some more experience in dealing with articles which substantially deal with matters like this, about maybe some improvements they might be able to think of, at least in some sections? Or, alternately, maybe for some ideas on how to perhaps change the existing overall structure?
  • My own personal feeling is that the article may well be the best article which can be arrived at regarding a very contentious, difficult issue, and I would honestly like to express my appreciation and gratitude to those editors who have worked to balance it as well as it is. Having said that, I'm not sure, personally, that the results necessarily reach featured article standard, although I am less than sure exactly what that is. My own primary concerns are the multiple, possibly redundant, footnotes, and the article structure. I could see maybe some form of reorganization might help improve it, but am not knowledgable enough about the subject to really be able to say much about that.
  • Shutting up now. John Carter 19:28, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:Can we end this process now? We have a POV-Warrior who's alone in insisting that NPOV changes are necessary, two others who appear to have some agenda in battling one or two editors, and one individual, FOo, who seems legitimately concerned about the article. This has gone on too long. Orangemarlin 20:17, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are a few other editors in addition to FOo who have expressed legitimate concerns about the article's readability and length (Radiant, DGG, and RelHistBuff come to mind, and I think there was one other I am forgetting). I also found it interesting the comments of a couple of folks who thought that by taking ID point-for-point, this article has lent an undeserved legitimacy to ID... I never thought about it that way.
I am sorta reconsidering my "Keep as FA" vote, but not strongly. Although there have been some legitimate concerns expressed here, I sort of agree with Orangemarlin that it is getting time to end the process one way or the other. The signal-to-noise ratio on this project page is way too low for any worthwhile consensus to come out of it. --Jaysweet 20:57, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let's end the process. Given the contentious nature of the topic, the article is surprisingly good. The FA status is well deserved. Raymond Arritt 21:00, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I noted above, it's time to close this FARce. No one has given any concrete examples of what is wrong, they merely speak of vague issues, using ephemeral concepts, "I don't like the writing" (OK, so explain where you don't like it,and why); "there are too many footnotes" (OK, read the archives, familiarise yourself with the topic, realise that many of the footnotes are in response to {{fact}} tags and the decide which ones should go, by presenting a clear,comprehensive argumengt why); "I don't think it meets NPOV" (yeah, why? where do you disagree? details, details, details).
It also cracks me up that the biggest crier of "I don't think it meets NPOV", and who is allegedly so concerned with the article has a whopping 6 edits on the articles (5 of them minor), but 163 comments on the talk page (mostly raising spurious issues): a signal to noise ratio of 1:27.2.
The point about people who have problems with the article not having many edits has been raised several times. I think the explanation is simply that those people's first few edits were quickly reverted, and so they followed the standard practice of discussing changes they wanted on the talk page. That was certainly my experience. So I think it's unfair to dismiss myself and others because we haven't been allowed to edit the article. Gnixon 16:29, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Enough's enough. As Raymond said in his edit summary finis. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 21:41, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Someone is going to complain, but can someone close this thing? The article needs tweaking, not wholesale POVing. Orangemarlin 22:27, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jim, btw, LMAO. My count is six edits, two minor, but who's counting :) The response back will be, of course, that we don't listen to their POV, so they don't dare edit. Orangemarlin 00:14, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Even though this is not a FARC and there should not have been any voting, it seems to me that, despite my own opinion, there are enough people supporting to merit a keep and an ending of this process, in which the quantity and ferocity of the defenders far outstrips the quantity and determination of the opposers.qp10qp 22:47, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto. Seems to me there's been only one consistent complaint here, which is that the multiple strings of footnotes could be combined. I'd sure like to see this partiuclar issue left to the local consensus to resolve, dependent on what the level of drive-by shootings turns out to be in the near future. Unless there's clear agreement on something that must be fixed, kindly end this procedure and let's go do something more productive. ... Kenosis 23:08, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Break

[edit]

I am undoing the closing per long-standing talk page discussion and consensus with the featured article director, Raul654; featured article discussions aren't closed by just any admin (as other processes are) because that would destabilize the processes and result in a free-for-all at FAC. FACs are closed by Raul, and FARs are closed by Raul, Marskell, and Joelr31. While the ultimate result for this article is most likely to be the same, it's important that—as with featured article candidates—featured article reviews are closed accordingly. Let the process run; let the article benefit from a review, which it hasn't yet enjoyed because of the shouting. To any admin closing this FAR; you are contravening long-standing support and consensus of Raul654 as the featured article director. If anyone disagrees with the long-standing consensus regarding the featured article director, please take that up on the FAC and FAR talk pages (where it has been discussed many time) with Raul654; allowing any admin to close FARs and FACs will only result in a free-for-all at FAC. Because I haven't seen an endorsement of this closure from Raul, the featured article director, I'm re-opening the FAR. Please discuss with Raul654 (talk · contribs). It's not about this article, but in this case, allowing the process to run will be better for the article in the long run. Please don't open the door that allows any FAC and any FAR to become contentious in the future, and will not give a full and conclusive result to this FAR. The article deserves to have a correctly-closed FAR to avoid future criticism of the process. Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:28, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion from several pages consolidated at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review#FAR closure. Also, apologies from the editor who closed prematurely. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:54, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Close it, folks. As I mentioned above, this is a WP:SNOW situation now. Thanks to (a) a few creationist bias-pushers, and (b) paranoids who think that everyone who isn't their buddy is a creationist bias-pusher, there's not a snowball's chance in hell that this is going to produce a useful review of the article. Sigh. Depressing, ain't it? --FOo 12:57, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We have identified a few problems, which have to be fixed. We have uncovered the true motivations of a few POV warriors. We have established how far some DI supporters are willing to go. I would say, all in all, that this has been quite useful and revealing. I do not know what will transpire if it continues.--Filll 13:20, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stick to the process as agreed: "Nominations last for two to three weeks, or longer where changes are ongoing and it seems useful to continue the process...If the consensus is that the deficiencies have been addressed, the review is closed." The nomination has been up for 2 weeks. It is not useful to continue the process. There is no consensus that the deficiences have been addressed. Hence, move to FARC. DrKiernan 13:02, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The article deserves an indication from the broader community of whether it deserves FA status in its current state. Gnixon 16:33, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • On strings of footnotes: I realize that this seems ugly and unseemly according to some arbitrary standard that has been gratuitously adapted by some style police here. However, this format for the references has not been reached cavalierly, or thoughtlessly, or been adopted out of laziness. This has been considered, and reconsidered, and changed, and changed back, over and over and over during the history of this article. The footnotes are in this form for a reason. Perhaps another form would be better. In the case of multiple footnotes, perhaps repeating footnotes so that one could say "this sentence is covered by footnotes[4]-[9]" or something like that. I am not even convinced that this style would do the trick. The consensus that has developed, and been maintained with considerable discussion and other experimentation, favors the present format. The reason for this? To demonstrate overwhelmingly and convincingly to a certain determined, angry, relentless, dishonest viscious combative group that the apparent "chink in the armor" in section X is sealed, and plugged by a preponderence of the evidence. It is essentially an effort to stand up to the obnoxious bullying that this article must endure, to protect it. Without it, I and other editors fear that it would soon descend into a worthless religious tract. In fact, if someone wants to try an experiment, why do we not let the anti-science forces have at it, unimpeded, for a week? Of course, this is pointless since they are reading this very page with interest. But who here doubts what would be the outcome? What evidence to the contrary exists? --Filll 13:32, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You say: "On strings of footnotes: I realize that this seems ugly and unseemly according to some arbitrary standard that has been gratuitously adapted by some style police here."
Since I was one of those who raised the matter, let me defend myself. The point is not arbitrary but refers to the style that is used in scholarly publishing houses. The CMS says: "The use of more than one note reference (such as 5,6) at a single text location should be rigorously avoided. Instead, the notes referred to should be combined into a single note."
This isn't to say that you may not legitimately defend the present method in the article, since the Featured Article criteria only require consistent formatting and don't insist on one method; but it is also legitimate for reviewers to say that they find the present method unprofessional-looking. Responses like "arbitrary", "gratuitously" and "style police" therefore don't help. Reviewers of the article have been criticised for not going into more detail or helping out themselves; but it is offputting to be attacked for simply reviewing the article in good faith, and it rather discourages one from getting too involved and spending the hours required to provide a list of specific suggestions. My point about combining the footnotes, by the way, did not ask for any of the footnotes to be removed.qp10qp 16:45, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Qp10qp, I was not referring to you. I do not even know who you are. I was referring to the general and frequently repeated comment about the ugliness of the strings of footnotes. I have seen this comment above several times. I have seen it brought up on the article talk page often. I have watched the article reference format get changed, and then get changed back, over and over. People often mention the ugliness of the strings of footnotes as though it were something novel and they have had some great insight that everyone else has missed, which becomes somewhat tedious after hearing it for months on end. Anyway, we will now see how the present "experiment" progresses and what the conclusion is. I am not attacking you. However, frankly the footnote comment is just a cheap and easy one to make. Real serious article improvement efforts require much more painstaking and careful reading and checking to catch bad grammar and inaccuracies and distortions. Unfortunately, that requires real effort, instead of an easy observation about the ugliness of the footnote strings.--Filll 11:21, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think Filll was referring to the frequent encounters with passersby who fail to even look at the notes themselves. Previously the footnotes had been combined. The encounters with POV pushers in the article and on the talk page diminished significantly after the extent of sourcing was made clearly visible in the article. Heck, maybe it's pure coincidence. In any event, this issue of the strings of footnotes is the only issue that appears to have been consistently raised by a number of the commentators in this FAR. The regular participants in the article have by-and-large defended the practice. A few other unilateral recommendations here have been implemented without any disagreement or controversy. The rest of the observations and recommendations have been all over the map and have not achieved agreement that they're indeed a problem with the article. All this, of course is interspersed between about 15 commentators who have essentially said the article is a valid FA in its present form.

So, what should we do? Combine the footnotes, and see where it goes? Anybody else? ... Kenosis 17:33, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried out combining the reference links in the lead. Happy? Want me to do more? ... dave souza, talk 20:46, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This was closed and reopened. I'll repeat in miniature what's posted now on the FAR talk itself: those who want this kept should actually want this to be kept open. If it's closed without the full period (4 to 6 weeks), it will allow the next POV-pusher to come along and say "well, you don't want a full a review because you're all colluding to suppress info, just like happened on the last FAR, etc. and so forth." There's enough people involved that this certainly will go keep, but we should let this go through the entire FAR. Just one opinion, but in the long run it will aid editing the article: "no, we already a full and complete review, so you're ideas are off base."

Counter-argument: it's a circus. Well, yes it is. So let's just do the micro-issues: the ref formatting; weeding the weak refs from the strings of five or six; and, nicely and politely, auditing for POV language. Marskell 19:00, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quick point of clarification: In that first string of seven footnotes, there are no "weak refs". Each is vital because each conveys the manner in which different reliable sources have chosen to state the very counterintuitive fact that the Discovery Insitute is the sole nexus of the "intelligent design" movement, i.e., that it's not the product of many independently operating institutions and persons. The last of the seven deals with the same issue of lack of independent critical analysis in the context of the Sternberg peer review controversy, and notes the close relationship of fellows of the Discovery Institute and the ISCID. In any event, I see that Dave Souza has combined the first six, which is a sensible way to organize them. ... Kenosis 21:25, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well hell, it's already begun! Bravo. Marskell 19:06, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what's begun, but imo it's best to discuss proposed improvements on the talk page, which is currently happening. I suppose if this is kept open and no further arguments start, that's as good as it gets. ... dave souza, talk 20:46, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hold in review. Two weeks have elapsed, but there is long-standing precedent for extending reviews when work is progressing. This review got off on the wrong foot, and progress is now being made. Re-evaluate later whether the article warrants moving to FARC for the next phase of declarations. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:06, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, heck, give it a year just to be safe. See also, WP:Consensus (which, last I checked, also includes PR and awards departments). But, I sense a bit of contradiction here as to la différence between consensus as to what is WP's "very best" as one regular participant put it, and on the other hand the guy who's paid to sit in the "shoot'em'n'dunk'm" chair at the local carnival. There are some process issues here, to be sure. ... Kenosis 05:45, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What's begun is redoing the references so that a single note takes multiple sources; the lead looks a hell of a lot cleaner to me. I sense a bit of hostility. I thought we were working well Kenosis? Doesn't it at least make sense to finish the ref audit before closing? And it won't be a year—a couple of more weeks. Marskell 10:35, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was responding in part to the mass of new material that's now been moved to the talk page. Such a list would properly be presented at the beginning of the FAR period. As of now, about 15 users have said essentially "fine as an FA as it is", and about five or six have provided miscellaneous advice and criticism that has not gained agreement that these issues are indeed genuine problems with the article. The only thing that appears to have any agreement is the issue of the inline footnotes. Yesterday, Dave Souza combined the ones that were at issue in the lead here. Since then, DLH and FOo have incorrectly posted this issue as part of the list just placed by DLH. And, incidentally, removing DLH's material to the talk page (that Marskell characterized as "[making] the FAR ToC monstrous) now strands my comment just above to some extent. But, since there is a group of FA people that are presumed to be conducting this thing (i.e. several repetitively active FA reviewers that have asserted some type of authority over this situation), I would suggest some kind of "official" decision be made about how to handle this new approach proposed by DLH and posted publicly both here and on the talk page. Or, is this thing actually supposed to involve a consensus process? As I stated, there are some process issues here. . ... Kenosis 13:16, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, seems kinds like the Whitewater investigations, no? A vast expenditure of valuable time by the many to remove the bees from the bonnets of the few. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 20:29, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Marskell, just because the "new" reference format is being tried in the LEAD, do not be certain that the consensus will judge this trial to be a success. Do not be too quick to congratulate yourself and this "novel approach" and apparent success at herding recalcitrant regular editors.--Filll 11:38, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • On lengthy FAR discussions: Probably it is reasonable to keep this FAR open for the standard time period to avoid further claims of improper procedure. However, this process is not without cost. All the effort being made to defend the article from assorted sniping on both this page and the talk page would be far better spent in careful proofreading of the article itself and fact-checking. However, the problem with that is, it is too much like real work. Instead, assorted random comments and attacks have to be parried. People checking boxes on forms have to be mollified. Frankly, it is all a pretty big waste of effort for nothing more than a virtual gold star, in my opinion. But even on WP, bureaucracy reigns supreme...--Filll 11:38, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hm Filll, self-congratulation is not on my mind. I have been trying to proofread and fact-check. And there's no authority involved—I generally close FARs after the full period, but I won't close this one. Did people mind I actually cut the bit from below? Marskell 09:54, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think has a valid point. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 20:17, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A section somehow deleted "accidently"

[edit]

To further the review process, I outlined the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_criteria Featured Article Criteria below. See detail in discussion page.DLH 05:02, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken the liberty of cutting this for the talk page of the review. This makes the FAR ToC monstrous. Marskell 10:29, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Somehow, I sense a pattern in "monstrous" posts. But perhaps it is just me, and I am imagining things. I do not get the impression that these "monstrous" posts do much to further the review process. They do tend to produce evidence for a certain impression of a certain editor and his credibility, however.--Filll 11:26, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here is an example of why there are so many references:[13] This recent diff shows why the references are so copious. Even simple things, like statements about the contents of books of famous authors, are attacked as unreferenced statements. Does one need a reference to the reference to the reference as well? How many scholarly citations are necessary for this? I will note that this is not even remotely central to the topic of the article. If we adopted this standard for all of WP or even all of the FA articles, we would have a lot more citations in our articles and a lot would have to be substantially rewritten.--Filll 15:47, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
At one point do these requests for changes and citations cross over from reasonableness to unreasonableness, and just harassment? I am sure the DI will continue to push and push at every conceivable potential weakness, because in their eyes, we are doing the work of Satan, and evil beyond belief. We represent a threat to humanity, or worse. So of course, they will attack and attack and attack. Wave after wave. --Filll 15:51, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FAR closed, discussion moved

[edit]

This FAR was closed days ago. Please to do not to continue to edit this page, it is supposed to be record of the discussion leading up to the FAR being closed. Since DLH wants to continue on with this discussion, I've created a subpage in his userspace and moved his recent new sections rehashing this there, User:DLH/Featured article review Intelligent design, in order to preserve this page a record of the discussion and minimize the disruption endless rehashing of this will have on the rest of the project. Anyone who wants to continue this discussion can do so there or in their own userspace, but this is not the appropriate place. FeloniousMonk 06:32, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was no consensus to close. DrKiernan 07:23, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FA1 Review Criteria discussion

[edit]

Please Discuss Review/Editorial Issues and Actions in detail this outline. (NO VOTING List/Delist here) Place summary 1-2 lines in Discussion outlineDLH 03:29, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FA1a Well written?
[edit]
  • 1. Is it well written, comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral and stable?
  • (a) Is it "Well written" with engaging, even brilliant prose, and of a professional standard?
  • This is the most difficult of the criteria to judge. Personally, I found the lead interesting, but soon got bored in the first few paragraphs. Hence, I did not find it particularly "engaging", but of course it can be argued that this is because I'm just not personally interested in the subject, and would find it boring no matter how it was phrased. However, reducing the strings of footnotes certainly helps, as large numbers of footnotes, as well as deep and profound arguments, are offputting and unwelcoming to most readers, who are after all a general audience of laypeople, including children and users from developing countries or who may not have english as a first language. DrKiernan 07:49, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See above conversations for the reasons the footnotes are necessary. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 10:22, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, I do not advocate removal of footnotes, merely their re-formatting. Secondly, I understand your arguments for the strings of footnote identifiers but I am making a new argument: By having long strings of footnote identifiers you actually frighten off laypeople and children who come here looking for answers. They may not want to read this article, and will instead turn to a more simplistic one, maybe one written by the very people you are trying to counter, i.e. ill-informed POV-pushing extremists. By formatting the article in the "strings of footnote identifiers way", I believe you are helping to spread ignorance by failing in the fundamental purpose of wikipedia — to inform and educate — not because you support opinion or dogma but because you are not getting your point across to the very people we should be reaching out to. Merely by re-formatting the identifiers in the way originally suggested two weeks ago, and as currently shown in the article, this criticism and this danger can be easily overcome. That's why I'm against reversing the edits to the strings of identifiers, and in favour of removing their use in the remainder of the article. DrKiernan 10:48, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I stated above, perhaps we need a more accessible article like Introduction to intelligent design. I personally am always in favor of simpler and more accessible articles, if possible. This is what was done at evolution, and I think it was quite successful. However, also as stated above, this would definitely encourage coordinated attacks from the Discovery Institute and its supporters, and the article would have to become more like the present article if it is to continue to meet the criteria of WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. Suppose we started with a nice simple 17 KB article like the French WP version of intelligent design. Every point would be challenged over and over and more and more citations would be forced and extra material until the article became like the present article. For example, how long would an uncited and unsupported statement like "Most of the support for intelligent design originates with the Discovery Institute" last? With no citations etc, it would immediately be attacked. I would be willing to try this experiment, however. We can always delete it if we are unhappy with the result.--Filll 12:55, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Such an experiment would be counter-productive as it is taking us even further away from FA-status, not towards it. No-one is in favour of statements being unsupported by citations. DrKiernan 13:30, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I was misunderstood. I would advocate leaving this article as is, with appropriate reasonable minor edits for which there is consensus, and adding a new article which is simpler and more accessible.--Filll 13:37, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, yes, I see. I did misunderstand. DrKiernan 13:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FA1b Comprehensive?
[edit]
FA1c ?Factually accurate?
[edit]
  • (c) Is it "Factually accurate" with verifiable verifiable against reliable sources which accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge? Are claims supported with specific evidence and external citations? Are "References" section sources adequate and complemented by inline citations where appropriate?
    • This is pretty hard to dispute. This is what accounts for the unusually large number of citations. Interestingly, this is one of the major complaints by POV pushers. They are essentially complaining that it is factually accurate. And demand that it be changed. And this page has plenty of evidence for their desires. Interesting, isnt it, that this major criteria is the one they want relaxed?--Filll 13:10, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FA1d Neutral?
[edit]
  • (d) Is it "Neutral", presenting views fairly and without bias? see neutral point of view.
  • Endemic anti-ID POV. Filll notes: "Without a cadre of associates with the same viewpoint as him to defend it, his article would quickly be destroyed. . .". Since ID is a minority position, this article is endemically anti-ID. Almost all efforts to state ID positions in an neutral objective basis are systematically decimated by anti-ID editors. E.g., under "International Status" the article states: "Intelligent design has received little support outside of the U.S." Yet it proceeds to discuss ID groups in the UK, Australia, and Denmark, (with creation science in Turkey.) Efforts to note that international interest was growing with citations were reverted. Most present editors presume deleting almost any ID position is justified under NPOV, accusing almost all such editors as being pro-ID rather than recognizing good faith editing efforts. They do not recognize their own actions as systemically biased against ID. DLH 04:18, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Example of anti-ID POV Filll states above: "To demonstrate overwhelmingly and convincingly to a certain determined, angry, relentless, dishonest viscious combative group that the apparent "chink in the armor" in section X is sealed, and plugged by a preponderence of the evidence. It is essentially an effort to stand up to the obnoxious bullying that this article must endure, to protect it. Without it, I and other editors fear that it would soon descend into a worthless religious tract." . . . "they are all excited thinking they can finally strike a blow and "hurt" this article and the NPOV "pro-science cabal" that has been protecting the article from the minority pro-ID, pro-DI predations and attacks. I do not care if this article gets re-rated as start class, there is NO way...and I mean NO way we will ever give in to a view like that of Gnixon or DLH. I would rather have the article deleted completely than see that happen. This page just gives these agents of intolerance and ignorance another platform on which to parade their completely biased views and not-so-hidden pro-right wing Fundamentalist agendas" Filll thus presumes bad faith and pro-ID POV by all editors (such as Gnixon and DLH) who attempt in any way to correct erroneous anti-ID statements, or correct the common anti-ID statements to objectively state the ID positions.DLH 04:29, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Example of anti-ID bias: Jim62sch similarly states above: "You basically want us to reproduve a DI page on the granseur of ID. Ain't gonna happen" He similarly presumes editors stating ID positions, and that such a priori pro ID and must be deleted.DLH 04:34, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • These comments seem focused on the arguments surrounding the article rather than on the actual content of the article. You should discuss specific changes you want made to the article, i.e. this is what it says, this is what it should say. I don't agree with you regarding the UK's position on Intelligent Design; it has received no major coverage, is not taught in schools, is not a public issue, and, if anything, is regarded as a purely American phenomenon. DrKiernan 07:33, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DLH, see Undue weight. In the meantime I'll check out avoiding typos. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 10:20, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DLH is confused about the difference between talk page discussions, and the actual article. DLH, the rules of WP state that since ID is a minority view, most of the material in the article must describe the majority position. We have to follow WP rules.--Filll 12:59, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FA1e Stable?
[edit]
  • I believe the article is as stable as can reasonably be expected, given the evidence one sees above and on the talk page. Perhaps we can find other mechanisms to make it more stable, like we did at evolution, but I doubt it. This page is the subject of organized coordinated attacks. I think most other pages do not have such opposition.--Filll 13:07, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FA2 Comply with style manual, WikiProjects?

[edit]
FA2a Concise summary?
[edit]
  • (a) Is the lead section a concise summary of the topic, preparing the reader for the higher level of detail in the subsequent sections?
  • The lead indicates that the article will be split into the following sections: definition and explanation of ID, opposition to ID, legal status of ID. That doesn't match the actual structure of the article. DrKiernan 07:38, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The content and "structure" of the lead, contrary to several complaints that amount to a demand to change it altogether, is in keeping with both the FA criteria and WP:LEAD. A lead section is not required to be a quick trace of the exact outline of the article, but rather is expected to summarize and introduce the topic and be capable of standing on its own. The present lead does all three of these, summarizes, introduces the rest of the article, and is capable of standing on its own, independently of the rest of the article. Frankly, this one's about as good as it gets in the business of presenting complex and controversial topics. The first paragraph says what ID is said to be by its proponents, what it actually is (a modern synthesis of teleological arguments for the existence of God), summarizes in two clauses who its leading proponents are (all affiliated with the Discovery Institute) , and summarizs in one sentence what its proponents assert to be the class of thing that ID belongs to (a scientific theory). The second paragraph summarizes the response of the scientific and science education communities. The third paragraph gives a very brief picture of the legal history, the emergence of the words "intelligent design" as a term followed by the founding of the Discovery Institute, the gradually increasing visibility of the ID movement, and its culmination in a federal court case that resolved the question whether ID is science and whether it can be taught in public schools,
    The article then proceeds to explain all of these things. Indeed, each of the subsections on particular aspects of ID summarizes the battle between ID proponents and the scientific and science-education communities along with other notable critics, as to each basic class of ID-related concept, as to the strategy of proponents and the responses of critics and the court system, as to whether it is scientific such that it can be taught as science. Additionally noted in the article are a number of criticisms by notable commentators that go beyond the issue of whether it's scientific, illustrating to the reader typical debates about the teleological argument itself, irrespective of whether it's scientific per se, which has also been a notable part of the stir about ID. Where this is done, the article so notes (e.g., by stating "[B]eyond the debate about whether intelligent design is scientific..."). That said, of course it could be written differently; and so what? To reiterate: there is no requirement that the article precisely duplicate the internal outline and/or every little point of emphasis mentioned in the lead-- it presently serves the accepted purpose of a WP lead exactly as it stands, and exactly as the article is currently written. ... Kenosis 16:21, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

The introduction contains a long 7 sentence discussion of the legal status, BUT the overall article has no Legal Status section. It only has about three references to Kitzmiller with a few sentences here and there. Recommend moving this material from the introduction to a new Legal Status section with reference to Kitzmiller v. Dover page for further detail. Then summarize to one sentence in the introduction. See proposals in ID Discussion page. DLH 05:47, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You missed the material in the body about the trial? --Filll 13:00, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, he's obviously trying to remove from the lead the origins of ID and the conclusion that ID isn't science and can't dissociate itself from creationist & religious roots. .. dave souza, talk 21:00, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FA2b Hierarchical headings?
[edit]
  • (b) Does it have a system of hierarchical headings?
FA2c Substantial table of contents?
[edit]
  • (c) Does it have a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents (see section help)?
FA2d Consistent inline formatting?
[edit]
  • (d) Does it consistently format inline citations, using either footnotes[1] or Harvard referencing (Smith 2007, p. 1)? . . .Is the recommended meta:cite format used?
FA3. Images & media?
[edit]
  • Has it images and other media where they are appropriate to the subject, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status?
FA4. Reasonable length, focused?
[edit]
  • Is it "of appropriate length, staying focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style)?"
  • It is repetitive in places, and therefore too long. For example, "the Department for Education and Skills (DfES) stated that "Neither creationism nor intelligent design are taught as a subject in schools, and are not specified in the science curriculum..." essentially duplicates "the UK Government made it clear that creationism and intelligent design should not be taught as science". DrKiernan 07:40, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Minor changes might be appropriate in places.--Filll 13:01, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Length is fine. Only about 50kB is body text; the vast majority of the rest of the "length" is in the footnotes. And that 50kB or so is intensively focused on presenting the various permutations of this topic in several levels of depth, depending on how far they wish to read. Beyond that, the footnotes, "main articles" and external links allow the reader to pursue further research as far as they care to branch out. ... Kenosis 14:38, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FAR is indeed closed

[edit]
Contrary to what is said above, this FAR is indeed closed. A little investigation just revealed to me that this FAR was definitely closed on July 20 by User:BozMo: [14]. Unfortunately, the notice at the top of the Talk:Intelligent design page has not been updated accordingly.--Filll 18:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ignore that [hu]man behind the curtain. It was semiofficially closed, then quasiofficially reopened, citing tradition, but is presently placed as an active archive available for further editing. A "break" was declared, then DLH proposed a new format for the FAR; Marskell moved it to the FAR talk page, an "anon IP" from the midwest US moved it back, and I moved it back again to the talk page. DLH moved it back to both the talk page and the project page; FeloniousMonk took the more-or-less duplicate part that was on the talk page off the talk page and put it on DLH's page, citing userfication and noting that the FAR had been closed already, possibly thinking that the "archive2" was actually an archive (silly of him, right?). Whether intentionally or not, this left DLH's approach on the project page, and AFAIK neither Marskell, who was in this morning to have a look, nor anyone else including myself has chosen to complain at this point or actively contest DLH's approach, which I think should properly have been implemented at the beginning of the FAR, if at all (no?). Then I myself moved a newly developing mass of material, about how French and German Wikipedians write their lead sections, onto the talk page, susequently moved to the ID talk page. I can't seem to figure out who's who, who's advocating what, who's working with whom, who's on who's side and who's not, if indeed that matters at all, and who's doing what, nor how we're to proceed, how we're expected to proceed, and by whom, nor how the decisions have been made, nor how they will be expected to be made in the future. I wanted to let off some of the steam about the situation, so I began by conceptualizing it as it might be seen from the POV of everybody's opponents, critics, and detractors, and it ended up looking like this pictorial parody of the situation as seen from the eyes of everybody's detractors, including mine, and including those of the hard working FA community. I hope no one's terribly offended, because what we have in common is that the procedure is confusing to almost everybody, and fully understood by no one AFAICS. I figure it's summertime and community common sense just went on a little vacation. I fully trust that these many procedural confusions can arrive at a reasonable conclusion in the end. At the moment, though, nobody appears to be quite sure how this will happen.

In the meantime, a bunch of little stuff has been improved in the article, I think, ongoing POV arguments notwithstanding. And the footnotes, which previously were consistent and thus met the FA criterion about being well cited with a consistent reference format, are now inconsistent and in transition to a template-based reference format with form fields. But these too, I trust, will become consistent enough again in due course. Either way, the clear consensus, despite protests from the FA community that "that's not the way we do it", clearly has been that the article is a valid FA even as it presently is, as well as as it was at the beginning of the FAR. So personally, I trust that the various little improvements will continue to be implemented through whenever the FAR does end, and perhaps beyond its closing. ... Kenosis 19:30, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow so it really isn't closed

[edit]

Man oh man, now I *AM* confused. Well, um...what do I respond to that? Good heavens. Isn't anyone in charge?--Filll 19:42, 23 July 2007 (UTC) Bold text[reply]

I have no idea what's going on here, but whatever it is, it's inappropriate. The FAR was closed by an administrator as "keep." It was then re-opened by an editor who had seriously abused the writers of the article during the previous discussion, and is in a personal dispute with one of them. I've asked her to remove herself from the situation. I suggest this be left closed, and that we move on before the situation becomes any more confusing or toxic. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 05:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It was not closed properly—not moved off the page or archived. The reviews are only closed early when there is basically unanimity that the article is within criteria. Granted there are people who are obsessed with this one, but there were also multiple actionable suggestions posted in good faith; there's no reason it can't go through the full review like everything else. It's been two-and-a-half weeks and it's at the bottom of the review section, so we can at least expedite this by moving it to FARC. Marskell 05:37, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah well, I see you have (sort of) closed it. Out of sight out of mind and all that. Marskell 05:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the reason it couldn't go through the full review is that the page had become toxic, and there was clearly no consensus to change the FA status. Also, these things are never written in stone. If an admin decides it's time to close it as a "keep," that should be respected. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 05:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've decided to close it once and for all. See the comments on my talk page for more details. Raul654 13:53, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
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 10:49, 17 July 2007.

William Butler Yeats

[edit]

Review commentary

[edit]
Messages left at User talk:Filiocht, Biography, Arts and entertainment, Astrology, Irish literature, Poetry and Ireland. LuciferMorgan 13:14, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This page is messy, the "Popular References" being a particular eyesore. A random jumble of every Yeats reference under the sun does not make it encyclopedic. --Peripatetic 09:04, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • The WP:LEAD needs attention, mixed reference styles, I fixed one WP:DASH that I saw (there may be others), and I noticed a minor ce need — Other early collections include Poems (1895)., The Secret Rose (1897) and The Wind Among the Reeds (1899) — indicating perhaps the article hasn't been reviewed or tuned up for a while. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:41, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good photo, but the photographer should be credited if at all possible. (From which book was it swiped?) The rest of the thing on the top right is a joke. The absolute height of presumably unintended humor is: "Occupation: Poet" -- Gee, and till I read that I'd thought he was a fishmonger! Cute little flag for the Netherlands whoops no I read it sideways France, cute little flag for India or South Africa or somewhere: it all helps to make this article appear to have the relationship to a real encyclopedia article that USA Today has to a real newspaper. Luckily the rest of the article seems to be unaffected by this moronic tendency; though yes, all the stuff about pop songs and so forth could easily be cut. -- Hoary 14:06, 21 May 2007 (UTC) [dreadful prose edited 10:00, 22 May 2007 (UTC)][reply]
    • Update: Some kind person (not me) has zapped the silliness and pointless duplication of the "infobox" and removed the section about name-dropping in pop music, etc. Fine. -- Hoary 10:02, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • It looks very elegant without the userbox—much the best style, I always think. But in my experience, it will be impossible to keep the userbox from returning: they spring out of the ground like dragons' teeth who feel impelled to act upon finding an article without one of those monstrosities. qp10qp 13:44, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Lots of progress by a number of editors since nom. A lot has been written about Yeats, to put it mildly, and the article is easy to cite; though the text is uneven in places and needs to be expanded. A thorough copy edit is also required. Ceoil 22:03, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Just to note, the photograph at the top has incorrect copyright information, claiming it is a pre-1923 picture and then clearly stating it was taken in 1933 at its page. It may well actually be public domain, but not with that tag.--Jackyd101 14:34, 26 May 2007 (UTC) I appear to have misread the copyright tag, sorry.--Jackyd101 16:13, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Status: let's leave this one up here a little while as well. Marskell 08:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments Ceoil asked me to offer some suggestions on how to improve this page. Here they are.

Lead:

  • In general, I felt that the lead did not summarize Yeats' life. More specifically on the lead:
  • First paragraph of lead should give a better idea of his importance. I am not sure why the genealogy is necessary there.
  • The second paragraph of the lead seems too detailed; it also does not provide motivations. I would generalize more here.
  • The last sentence of the lead left me hanging.
  • Could you name some of his most famous works in the lead?

Small points of clarification:

  • In the "Early life" section, it is not clear what family is moving to England - is it the extended family or the Yeats family?
  • Even before he began to write poetry, Yeats had come to associate poetry with religious ideas and sentiments. - Do we have any idea why? This statement just begs for an explanation.
  • It is based on the lyrics of the Fenian Cycle of Irish mythology and further shows the influence of both Ferguson and the Pre-Raphaelites. - No mention of Ferguson up until this point, so it can't be a "further" influence for him.
  • The poem took two years to complete and introduces what was to become one of his most important themes: the appeal of the life of contemplation vs. the appeal of the life of action. - not clear - which one is to be preferred?
  • His other early poems are meditations on the themes of love or mystical and esoteric subjects - "mystical and esoteric subjects" such as?

Organization and content:

  • In his early work, Yeats's aristocratic pose led to an idealisation of the Irish peasant and a willingness to ignore poverty and suffering. - This sentence begins the "Later life" section, but nowhere is such a topic addressed when discussing his early poems.
  • The third and fourth paragraphs of "Later life" need to be reorganized for coherence - a clear topic sentence and a clear through-line to help the reader would be appreciated.
  • I think that the "Mysticism" section can easily be broken up and inserted into the biography section - it is broken down by date pretty clearly. Also, there was a moment when the biography said that Yeats knew someone through occult circles - that is unclear unless you know he was part of that subculture.
  • The first paragraph of "Modernism" I would also insert into the biography where it belongs date-wise.
  • The last paragraph of the "Modernism" section I would ideally put in a section entitled "Poetic style" that discussed his writings, but there is very little information for such a section in the article. You should therefore either create such a section and add a great deal more material or integrate it into the biography. I would place it around the "Nobel" section, perhaps?
  • It would seem that a "Legacy" section is missing as is any detailed analysis of his writing based on the work of literary critics. I think that the "Works" section was trying to be a "Literary analysis" section but instead got bogged down in biographical detail. Creating such a section would take a huge amount of work, unless the editors already know something about the subject matter, though, since (as has been pointed out), there is so much written on Yeats.
  • Some more quotations from his poetry would probably not be amiss. Awadewit | talk 18:19, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanked Awadewit on her talk; much to work with here. Ceoil 21:29, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

[edit]

Comment. A lot has been done here. Just moving it down because it's been four weeks. Let us know when you're satisfied Ceoil. Marskell 08:31, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The "Poetic style" section is riddled with original research and needs proper verification. For example;
  1. "Yeats is generally considered to be one of the twentieth century's key English-language poets" - By what literary critics? What have these critics said? Also, what critics have went against this and criticised Yeats' poetic style?
  2. "The impact of modernism on Yeats's work can be seen in the increasing abandonment of the more conventionally poetic diction of his early work in favour of the more austere language and more direct approach to his themes that increasingly characterises the poetry and plays of his middle period, comprising the volumes In the Seven Woods, Responsibilities and The Green Helmet." - That's a mouthful to say, so needs cutting into two sentences. The above is all opinion, so needs attribution to whichever critics hold that opinion.
  3. "Yet, unlike most modernists who experimented with free verse, Yeats was a master of the traditional verse forms." - An opinion, same as above, which needs attribution to the critics which hold this opinion.

Thanks for your time. LuciferMorgan 01:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree Lucifer, this was always going to be the most difficult section; I'm leaving it to last. Ceoil 22:13, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cool - it's only a minor concern anyway, and I don't intend to register a vote on this specific FAR. LuciferMorgan 08:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I'm as far as 1914. It will take another two weeks to finish. Ceoil 16:32, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Bio finished. "Poetic style" to be expanded, and a general copy edit. 1 more week?. Ceoil 21:31, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I had a look to help you with the refs, but found a named ref Foster294 pointing at page 293, so decided not to mess around in there :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:08, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mmm. Need to do a ref audit before I sign off. Ceoil 21:22, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have a past filled with unfilled promises to finish by last thursday. While I am happy now with the bio section, the critical analysis and legacy sections are still absent. I've been researching these for a while now, but I'm not finished reading up, and it will be another week befoe I can sign off on a synthesist I am happy with. Ceoil 02:43, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One of the first things I did was spint that out, but it came back today. Its gone again now, and somebody has nom'd it for deletion.[15]. Ceoil 18:13, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
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 17:54, 14 July 2007.

The Bus Uncle

[edit]

Review commentary

[edit]
Messages left at WikiProject Hong Kong, KP Botany, Night Gyr, DGG, Eagle101, Yannismarou, Tony1, Raphaelmak, HongQiGong, Jacklau96, Raul654, Pomte, Kusma, SandyGeorgia, Pjacobi, Kylohk, Tony Sidaway, and WikiProject Biography.
FAC

This article is taking a lot of flack, including attempts to remove it from the list of Featured Articles and some rather nasty things said about it. Thus, I'm bringing it here. Discuss the article. Improve the article. Then let's all decide whether it should be Featured. -- Jonel | Speak 20:27, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Couple things I see here. The names don't help this at all, and are unneeded. They dont add to my comprehension of the article, unless I should know these people already, it's just fluff. The article goes to great length to explain what happened, but not really why it's important. Notable, yes, it shows exactly why it's notable. But I'd like the article to explain why this topic is important. There's a small bit of that towards the end, but not nearly enough. -Mask? 20:55, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For starters, the opening paragraph includes this line, "Contrary to reports in Western media,[1] the word "uncle" was never mentioned." The article then elaborates on the word "Uncle:"
Bus Uncle
In Chinese culture, it is common for a person to refer an older person as "阿叔", roughly translated as "Uncle". The English title of the video is hence called "The Bus Uncle".
.... without telling us if the young man addresses the older man with this form of address in the video. Does he?
This whole section, title "Bus Uncle," is in fact a bunch of disconnected comments, and needs connecting phrases that take the reader from one to the next OR that shows the reader how all three are related to each other or to the section:
The name is also a reference to football commentator Lam Sheung Yee (林尚義), who is nicknamed "Uncle" and whose voice resembles that of Chan. Lam's name appears as part of the title of the original video.[2]
So? Did the name "Bus Uncle" come from Lam? And is he nicknamed Unlce in the term or respect or as a familiar relationship form, now that we've introduced these concepts about what uncle is and isn't.
The "Bus Uncle" was revealed to be a restaurant worker in his early fifties, Roger Chan Yuet Tung (Chinese: 陳乙東),[8] a Yuen Long resident. As of June 2006, when the "Bus Uncle" incident had become well-known and after his identity was revealed, Chan was criticised for reportedly demanding remuneration for interviews.[9]
We've moved from etymology of the title, to casting without so much as a blink--this doesn't belong in this section, and the section should probably be split, one about how the title came about, another about who the people in the video tape are.
Just for starters. And I agree with User:AKMask. KP Botany 20:57, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Just a note - I know many editors will read this as a biographical article, and while the rules of WP:BLP definitely applies, the article is more of a topic of an Internet meme than anything else. That's what the topic is notable for - a huge internet phenomenon that was covered in mainstream media. And that's a good reason why the article is not named for the main person involved, it's named as what the incident is known as on the internet. So please try to frame it in the context of an article about an internet meme and not as a biographical article. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Yes, I think that's what the poster above is trying to get across, the article basically reads like a story of these two men, but that's not really what it's about--it's not even about the incident, as much as it is about the place of the incident in popular culture. I didn't catch this, until you stated it explicitly, but this, imo, what's most wrong about the article, it's failure to make clear its relevance. KP Botany 21:22, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another point is that, there used to be a transcript of the entire exchange in English in the article. But it was transwikied to Wikisource. If you click the link there, you can find that the word "Uncle" was never mentioned. At the same time, Reference 3 of the article links to the video with English subtitles. Again, you will find that the word "uncle" was never mentioned.--Kylohk 21:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    A question I have on this point: In the English translation on Wikisource, Elvis calls Roger "boss" a number of times. What is the Chinese that "boss" is translated from? Specifically, is it "阿叔"? -- Jonel | Speak 21:22, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Also, I think this is simplified Chinese, " 巴士阿叔", not traditional. KP Botany 21:17, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Having looked at the other language versions of the article, particularly the Cantonese Wikipedia version, I found a timeline section outlining how the word spread out. That section highlighted the exact date and the radio and television programmes it spread out through, hence it is possible to add a "The Word Spreads Out" section using those radio programmes and newspapers and magazine articles as sources, and that can address AKMask's concern.--Kylohk 21:38, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, it doesn't. Thats more what happened, not why it's important. The bit in there about the high-stress enviroment in HK making this a more common occurrence is a start, but delve more into it. Other incidents like this, government or scientific studies on stress in hong kong, more commentary from shrink-types. Thats what Im looking for.-Mask? 21:49, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Having reread the "Along for the ride" article, I actually found that there are more "experts" than I thought on the subject. I will add them tomorrow.--Kylohk 22:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • For anybody who hasn't watched the video yet, here it is[16] with both Chinese and English subtitles. Hahhah, I get a kick out of it everytime I watch this thing. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:40, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Thanks. Bus Uncle was a bit nastier than I thought from just reading this article. Young man will hold his tongue before getting in a last comment, next time. It is rather funny, although certainly a commentary on our times. KP Botany 21:48, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: What is wrong with note 12? In general, when I read this article in WP:Biography review, and then in FA my opinion was that it was FA quality. Now, I'll read it again, and I'll come back with further comments, in order to say if IMO this FAR is justified or not.--Yannismarou 22:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The recent general application of Wikipedia: Biographies of living persons to maybe twenty articles is under Wikipedia:Arbitration at the inadequately titled Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff. Specifically, I put these events at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff/Evidence#Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons meets Wikipedia:Featured articles.2C with a loud crash but suspect much of the rest of the case is also relevant. Any decision made in that case is likely to be highly relevant, maybe even decisive, here. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:19, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Appears to be a much more complicated matter than I previously thought. I suppose that decisions made in the ArbCom case affect only to the biographical portions of the article. However since the statements are already sufficiently attributed, there is not much they can argue on this article.--:Raphaelmak: [talk] [contribs] 16:26, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ah yes, it might be useful to split the biographies part into new articles, so that this article concentrates on the incident. However since this is involved in an ArbCom case, my suggestion is to wait until the final desicion is made before making further major edits on the biographies part.--:Raphaelmak: [talk] [contribs] 16:33, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Some extra information about "Life in Hong Kong" has been added. They discuss the video clip culture, apathy of Hong Kong people and a survey on youngsters about the incident. In fact, that particular section is getting rather large. It may be a good idea to further divide it into subsections to classify the concerns of those experts. As for the "character introduction" section, I don't think it violates WP:BLP right now, due to all statements being properly sourced. P.S. I'm really surprised by the mentioning of the article in BDJ's Arbcom Case too.--Kylohk 19:34, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I consider that part of my objection addressed after reading these additions, which are very nicely done. I would still advise that the names are inappropriate and do nothing to add to my or others comprehension of the article. -Mask? 23:35, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It'd seem a bit demeaning to call him the "Bus Uncle" throughout the article, like he deserves to be known only through a nickname coined by others. It'd ruin the flow to say that his identity was revealed and then not give it, which begs the question, "so, who is he?" Also, "young man" would sound awkward throughout the entire article and he's not exactly young. –Pomte 00:27, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In the social impacts section, I replaced most mention of Bus Uncle and young man in person with Chan and Ho repesctively. As for the names of the experts, they have been retained for flow. (If you can remove them without disrupting the flow, feel free to do so.)--Kylohk 08:23, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It looks like this article was mentioned in the ArbCom case because an editor wanted some feedback on Tony Sidaway's behaviour[17], which to me was extremely out of line. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 00:05, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Dangling modifier there--not sure which you mean was out of line, the mentioning in the case or the behavior by Tony. But heck, I'll probably disagree with you either way, so, oh well ;). Anyway, this isn't really the place for discussing behavior; I'll post comments to your talk page. -- Jonel | Speak 01:35, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I noticed I was mentioned at the ArbCom page. I never supported the promotion of this article, or edited it other than to add back references which were inadvertently deleted twice in the reverts and to correct the talk page article history. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:41, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • We need to define some parameters here. First, it's not clear this article should even be at FAR, since 3 months is the usual lag time between promotion and review. Exceptional cases are considered. Since there is an intense, ongoing discussion about whether the article is a BLP violation, it needs to be established whether the article needs review on the basis of a BLP exception. For now, can editors focus on defining the issues that necessitate an exception to the normal 3-month lag period between promotion and FAR? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:41, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ok, let's talk about the BLP with respect to this article. The rationale behind BLP is the impact of Wikipedia on the lives of the subject, due to it being a top 10 website. Therefore, any contentious or "out-of-this-world" statements without proper reliable sources should be removed. However, this article has been clearly sourced, from top to bottom. Therefore, no matter how farfetched the content sounds, it is not a violation of BLP. Same goes for the names, since they have been repeatedly mentioned by the press. (In fact, Roger Chan did attempt to run for Chief Executive of Hong Kong in 2007, and his name, along with his Bus Uncle nickname were quoted by Ming Pao, one of the most creditable newspapers of Hong Kong.--Kylohk 08:28, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm of the opinion that this article is about an internet meme, and not a biographical article. In light of that, I do wonder if some of the information about the people involved are trivial. Information like Roger Chan's attempt to run for Chief Executive may be notable for a biographical article about him, but I don't think it's necessarily a notable piece of information for an article about the Bus Uncle internet meme. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:49, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Later in the article, there's talk about whether his behaviour in the video is typical of someone in Hong Kong. Three attempts for that position seems rather atypical, and this information may be able to fit into that section instead of the "biographical" section. Augustine Tan of Asia Times Online wrote, "Since the law requires a chief-executive candidate to have resided continuously in Hong Kong for not less than 20 years prior to the election and not to have a criminal record, Bus Uncle clearly told some very big lies in filing his candidacy, or maybe he just has a good imagination."[18] This is relevant to his reaction to the media, and other viewpoints put forth in the article. –Pomte 16:37, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Presently this article is blessedly free of the biographies of living persons problems that blighted it before. The level of extraneous personal detail is much lower.
One exception is the Aftermath section, which goes into considerable detail about the consequences for the Uncle. Details of his personal relationships, and his subsequent personal tragedies, are given. I would prefer to see this rewritten, while retaining references, to say something very roughly like:
"The recorded outburst came at a time when his personal life was in some turmoil. As a consequence of his identification he received a proposition from journalists to visit the young man's office to apologise and offer a joint venture. This was rejected by the young man, who threatened to sue the journalists. He was later forced to give up a job because his new employer's wife and daughter heavily pressed for his dismissal due to adverse publicity."
This would retain the factual content while not going into harrowing detail about suicide attempts and whatnot. It's just a matter of taste and decency. The article should focus on the phenomenon, not the people.
It strikes me here that we're also missing a story about the manipulation of the two men by the journalists. However we can't report this unless someone has studied this issue. The Agnes Lam reference, cited in the "Criticism of Hong Kong media ethics" section, seems to touch on this. I can't find the text f that on the South China Morning Post site, sadly, so I don't know whether there's enough material there. I think there's a potentially good article here, but it needs more material from commentators on press ethics and sociology, if such material exists. --Tony Sidaway 02:54, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That particular article is found on the South China Morning Post archives, and requires a subscription. Anyway, I know about at least 1 other source regarding the media ethics ba Ta Kung Pao, and can add it if you wish.--Kylohk 08:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've added that editorial commenting on the professionalism of the Hong Kong media. According to that editorial, it seems that the Bus Uncle's extraordinary claims about his life may have been a lie after all. (Such as him having 3 degrees, being imprisoned in Belgium for 4 years etc.)--Kylohk 08:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now that the buzz has died down, this article needs a longer lead. Raul654 15:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

[edit]
Suggested concern was BLP violations. Marskell 14:18, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or, at least, that's what I gathered at the initial flare-up. Not sure what people have decided on, so moving it down. Marskell 14:18, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't read it with a fine-toothed comb, but I don't see anything wrong with this article as it now stands. Raul654 14:19, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think sufficient action has been done to keep it satisfying WP:BLP. Having read through the "people involved" section, I now can only find information regarding the incident. As for the Aftermath, it's completely related to the Bus Uncle incident, so, no breach of privacy has been made.--Kylohk 16:11, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, I have temporarily commented out the second paragraph of the aftermath. It mentions how the Bus Uncle was badly beaten up while he was newly hired as a restaurant PR director, and how the wife of the restaurant owner nearly killed herself due to all the publicity. If no one finds any problems with including that paragraph, feel free to uncomment it. Otherwise, there are no BLP violations, having checked again.--Kylohk 09:14, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think it is really "one of the best articles Wikipedia has to offer"? Steve Dufour 10:23, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The problem here is, during the FAR period. There were few explicit suggestions on how the article could be removed. In fact, it seems the users lost interest after the Badlydrawnjeff case cooled down. Read the article. Are there any BLP violations anymore? If there are any problems. I hope you'd suggest ways to rectify it, since the FAR was insufficient in detailas to what actions should be taken.--Kylohk 10:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I remember reading this article when the various lurid (and unchecked) details of the Bus Uncle's life were in it. Now those are no longer there, the BLP concerns have, in my opinion, been resolved. The article reads much more like the social commentary it should be. I probably wouldn't support it if it came fresh to WP:FAC, but I don't think it should be removed either. More work should be done on it over time though, to improve it still further. Carcharoth 15:20, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Closing: I can see that this one raises existential issues about what Wikipedia should and should not cover. But as there is no importance requirement in the criteria, and people are happy with the BLP coverage, I think we can keep it. Marskell 17:50, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
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 17:54, 14 July 2007.

Pioneer Zephyr

[edit]

Review commentary

[edit]
Original nominator aware. Messages left at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Missouri and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains. Marskell 18:23, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also notified Wikiproject Chicago, second leading editor and 3rd leading editor TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 19:11, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The new WP:WPChi assessment department is attempting to take inventory of all relevant articles. We stumbled upon this and I determined that it is not up to current WP:FA standards. It especially violates, WP:A or WP:RS because it is essentially unsourced. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 21:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tony, per the instructions here, please notify the original (nominating) editor, other involved editors, and all relevant WikiProjects with {{subst:FARMessage|Pioneer Zephyr}} . You can see older FARs here for an example of how to notify. Thank you, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:23, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I notified all editors (including the nominator) with at least 5 edits to the page who have made edits on WP in 2007 and both of the other WPs. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 16:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please notify involved Projects. A list of people you've noticed here would be helpful; for a sample, see other FARs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:19, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Erm, he did yesterday. Slambo (Speak) 13:37, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What she's saying is put a note on top of the FAR indicating who you notified. See all the other FARs. Quadzilla99 23:31, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see. <voice style="Emily Litella">Never mind.</voice> Slambo (Speak) 13:43, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm planning to get to editing this article this weekend to get the inlines in place. Most, if not all, of the paper references listed are in my personal collection. Other than the references...? Slambo (Speak) 16:54, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone back through most of the online references that were included originally and inlined them as appropriate. I also took a quick look to grab two more refs from the IRM website and added them as well. I'll be back with further inlining, and expansion of the cited US patent references later. Slambo (Speak) 22:15, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and before anyone else mentions it, I've also taken on ensuring that fair use images in the article have full rationale statements. Slambo (Speak) 22:35, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So, now almost every paragraph has at least one footnoted citation from the various references, and I still plan to update more. Any other tasks that need doing besides the fair use rationales that I'm already working on? Slambo (Speak) 01:07, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While you're in there, have a look at WP:UNITS and WP:DASH; both need attention. Also, make sure all sources, including websources, specify the publisher (I saw one missing). Have a look at WP:MSH; I'm not sure some of the section headings don't need cleanup. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:56, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, thanks for the feedback. I expect to look further at that later tonight. Slambo (Speak) 12:50, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can see, all the measurements have appropriate unit conversions already. Were there specific measurements you were concerned about? In the headings, only the first word and proper nouns are capitalized (but I did find one letter that is now lower-cased), so I'm not entirely sure that anything needs to be updated here. I just went through with my understanding of the use of dashes converting as appropriate. Slambo (Speak) 18:51, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All fair use images now have fair use rationales on their description pages. I also found an image of the passengers who rode the train during its record-setting run (and ensured that it had a fair use rationale too). So, unless there's anything else that hasn't been mentioned yet, all that's left is for me to finish off with the inlining of references and add more references as appropriate. Right? Slambo (Speak) 13:37, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at WP:MOS#Images. Also, I did a sample edit of work still needed throughout per WP:UNITS (you might consider {{Convert}} instead, as it prevents wrap and does the conversion at the same time). There are numerous external jumps in the text that should be converted to references or Wiki articles. Also, see WP:MSH regarding shortening long section headings and repeating words in headings. Please identify publishers on all websources; several are missing (see WP:CITE/ES). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, thanks. I'm coming off a rather busy week IRL, but I should have some more time by tomorrow evening to address these issues. Slambo (Speak) 10:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, current WP:FA standards are to include at least one citation per paragraph except the lead which can either have all paragraphs or no paragraphs cited. You may want to add some citations and merge some paragraphs. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 19:00, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The criteria don't say that, Tony. Can this one go or is there much left to do? Marskell 09:40, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing formal that says you have to have a citation in every paragraph, but try and get an article through at WP:FAC without doing it and see what happens. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 15:44, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By "go" do you mean to close the review and maintain the article's FA status? The last actionable items that I've seen are to clean up the unit conversions and add/expand some references, both of which I am working on still. As it is now, I think the article is well-referenced to multiple independent sources from reputable publishers (the original US patents, a few museums, professional journals, a few books from publishers well known to rail historians, etc.). I even went beyond the stated objections and found a few more items on my own to improve the article (additional details, image licensing, etc.) that weren't stated by any of the objectors. Looking back at WP:WIAFA today, I don't see anything missing for this article to remain as an FA. Slambo (Speak) 16:07, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, great. (Yes, I did mean close the review and retain :) Any other serious concerns Tony? Marskell 17:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There is no requirement, unwritten or otherwise, for one citation per paragraph. There are jumps to external links throughout the text, but particularly in "Models of the Pioneer Zephyr", which are mostly commercial links. If those sites meet notability, they should be wikified; if not, the links should be references, but not external links. Are they really necessary? The Patent links could also be references. External jumps belong in External links, otherwise, and commercial links don't usually meet WP:RS. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:03, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That's what I was looking at earlier today with the patent citation templates. I plan to put more work into this tomorrow too. Slambo (Speak) 02:40, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article may pass WP:FAR without achieving the standards that current WP:FACs are held to. I have no problem with that. However, if you attempt to meet more of the current FAC standards instead of the bare minimum FAR standards it will be longer before you are back here. There may be a day in the near future where the implicit citation/paragraph that new FACs are held to becomes explicit policy, I would advise adding one citation per paragraph. Since possibly a majority of FAs do not meet this standard which has arisen in the last year you may be lazy and get away with it, but I don't think it is a good idea. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 23:42, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

[edit]
Suggested FA criteria concern is referencing (1c). Marskell 08:33, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Moving this down because it's not unanimous not to. Marskell 08:33, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
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 17:54, 14 July 2007.

Rail transport in India

[edit]

Review commentary

[edit]
Messages left at Wikipedia talk:Notice board for India-related topics, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains and User talk:Nichalp

As I was translating this article into French, I was quite surprised to see it was a featured article whereas it isn't verifiable (it almost never gives sources for precise facts, whereas this is part of the FA criteria). benji 18:14, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since when are red links unacceptable? They're an integral part of how Wikipedia works since they show us what articles we need to write. — Brian (talk) 03:48, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Red links are not an FA criteria concern and won't impact the article's status. Marskell 05:32, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Concerns have been raised for inordinate amounts of redlinks (Someone commented about that about a small cluster of them in a FAC of mines recently, but are not a criterion per se. THey do be one for Featured lists, though.Circeus 18:35, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not too difficult to put in the citations. At the time of nomination inline citations were not a criteria. A 2 hr job should satisfy your concerns. --Nichalp 07:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

In addition to significant citation needs:

  • WP:DASH attention needed throughout (mostly incorrect use of ndash where mdash is needed, but there may be other problems).
  • Templates placed incorrectly at ends of sections (see WP:GTL).
  • External jumps
  • Most of WP:UNITS is attended to, but not all.
  • WP:MSH issues (I fixed).
  • Unformatted Notes.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:19, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

[edit]
Suggested FA criteria concerns are verifiability and formatting. Joelito (talk) 11:32, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update
  1. WP:DASH — attended to. However, one guidance is needed. In case of railway lines (mentioning more than two stations) what dash to be used? em or endash? In the article, endash has been used in such instances.
  2. Templates now placed properly per WP:GTL.
  3. External jumps corrected.
  4. WP:UNITS— all attended.
  5. WP:MSH issues fixed.
  6. Notes formatted.--Dwaipayan (talk) 17:49, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update 2

Besides the above-mentioned changes, inline citations are being added. Here are the changes done in last two days. Some sections now have good inline citations (eg Signalling systems, Accommodation classes, Locomotives, Production units) while some are deficient. Further works will be done soon.--Dwaipayan (talk) 10:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DASH has been extensively reworked by Tony1 and others; have a new look at WP:MOS to see if it answers your questions. I think it's an endash, but not sure. Wiki preference is for no spaces on emdashes, if you can fix those. Can the WP:LEAD be expanded to summarize the entire article? I'm finding a lot of sentences with no spaces between them or after the ref; hard to catch all of them. I'm also finding no spaces after commas, and inconsistent dates (16th April rather than April 16 and 22nd December 1851 rather than December 22 1851). I need to be convinced that the Indian Railways Fan Club is a reliable source; it appears to be a maillist. What makes it reliable? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:16, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
IRFCA started off as a mailing list, and then developed into a mini-encyclopedia on Indian railways of sorts. Content on the site is taken from various sources (list of documents and sources are available here: http://www.irfca.org/docs/index.htm). Statistics and other figures have been sourced from reports published by Indian Railways or the office of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India. The site is notable (see the wikipedia|article and citations in Indian publications). It would fall under a reliable source as 1. authors are generally regarded as trustworthy, or are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. 2. Material on the site are peer reviewed by members of the mailing community. As per WP:RS, peer reviewed material by experts in the field can be considered to be reliable. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:02, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update 3

Inline citations have been added since "update 2". Dates have been fixed, lead has been expanded to summarize the article. WP:MOS has been maintained. Please see.--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:02, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is close to Keep, but there are still some issues. I don't think the endashes on different train lines (see Private railways section) should be spaced. The article seems undercategorized. And there are still some copyedit issues, samples:

If a seat is not available, then the ticket is given a wait listed number; else the ticket is confirmed, and a berth number is printed on the ticket. A person receiving a wait listed ticket will have to wait until there are enough cancellations to enable him to move up the list and obtain a confirmed ticket. If his ticket is not confirmed on the day of departure, he may not board the train.

He? I can't figure out what this is saying, and it seems like a how-to manual.

Discounted tickets are available for senior citizens (above sixty years) and for various other passengers ... various other is redundant.
...at Lucknow is the R & D wing ... not everyone knows what R & D is.

Maybe an independent person can run through the prose? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:32, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

endash issue fixed. Categorization is probably ok now.
Independent editors are having a look, and concerns are being raised in the article talk page. Hopefully, copyediting issues will be solved shortly. Thanks a lot. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 12:36, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Closing: I'm off to India myself in two days, so maybe I'll do some original research on the train system :). I want to clear some of these old ones out of here, so I think we can call this default keep at the moment. Significant work since nom and I trust people will keep at the little stuff. Marskell 17:53, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
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 08:31, 9 July 2007.

Blue whale

[edit]

Review commentary

[edit]
Messages left at User talk:Pcb21 and Cetaceans. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:58, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm concerned about the low number of references in this article; in particular there are at least two sections which are entirely unreferenced. Regrettably, therefore, as this aside it's an excellent article, I'd like to put it up for FAR. Hopefully the problem will be quite easy to fix. SP-KP 22:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please notify editors and related WikiProjects. See the instructions on top of the FAR page. Quadzilla99 22:56, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Description and behaviour is one, first para of Size, Feeding, first para of Life history, and The hunting era has only 1. it also has a See also section which would be good to incorporate into the body of the articel. Overall I feel this is a much easier job than the overhaul we gave Humpback Whale recently, but depends on the interest and availablility of the ususal suspects methinks. cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 06:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- As far as I can see, references on such an important and well-known topic should be fairly easy to locate, so I don't think there will be much problem fixing the problem posed by SP-KP, nor anything to worry about. Anonymous Dissident Utter 07:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Cas -- the refs are coming along very well now. Just a few more and we should have satisfied the concerns. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk -- (dated 12:55, 21 June 2007 UTC)
  • Comment It's coming on OK, but some of the size descriptions are terrible. We need to find some proper measurements rather than have its heart which is "almost the same size as a small car" be forced to push babies through its veins, while 50 humans stand on its elephant-sized tongue in its small garage sized mouth and try to push a beach ball down its throat. Also, how do we know about Linnaeus' sense of humour? Yomanganitalk 17:29, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I was wondering where that came from. It's right but unless it came from somewhere starts to veer into OR territory. Some of the comparison sizes I don't mind but some numbers would be good. The government action plans tend to avoid making such frivolous comparisons.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:15, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I quite agree with Yomangani on this one. It is not encyclopaedic (at least, in this context) to refer to other objects when alluding or describing size. Anonymous DissidentTalk 11:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was musing on this - tried looking for refs for Blue whale heart size (one of those valuable pieces of info we all need to know) and couldn't find dimensions but a alot of comparisons with Volkswagons etc. I know its not formal but it does give a very vivid and clear image of how big the thing actually is. Ultimately I guess I'm saying the heart car sentence is fine by me in an FA if no dimensions are actually available, similarly tongue elephant an throat beach ball. However, I'm not fussed and will go with consensus cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:51, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So - a report? How is this FAC coming? How can I further help? Anonymous DissidentTalk 09:51, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I can see Yomangani's done some more bits and pieces. For mine, it's over the line though I am easier to please than some other folks 'round here. How do you feel about it? cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:53, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the paragraph on the subspecies needs some expansion as it's an extremely cursory and incomplete overview at the moment (some pieces from the Pygmy Blue Whale article might help here) and there are still some statistics in the size subsection that need citations. Yomanganitalk 11:48, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see a significant problem with the "spin-off" article Blue Whale conservation. That article has two sections - "illegal whaling" and "climate change". The first section appears to be complete nonsense. Blue Whales are almost never caught - the Japanese take the odd Fin Whale and maybe possibly might mistake a Blue for a Fin, but that would be rare. The whole section seems to be written under the mis-conception that a "whale"="blue whale". It should be junked. That leaves with the climate change section. I am not sure whether this section is true or not... it is certainly speculative. My recommendation would be to merge the best of that section into the main article and then redirect. The main article itself seems pretty good, and better than when it was originally featured. Pcb21 Pete 22:57, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree about the subpage. Was musing on nominating it for deletion as it was extremely general in nature. OK, suggested fixes could be accomplished relatively quickly. Let's go then. Anyone have a reference book handy? cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:10, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad that has been taken care of, though now looking at the added Conservation bit some of it might be veering into OR territory (?).
I think Blue Whale conservation should redirect more specifically: rather than just blue whale, perhaps into a section of blue whale? Anonymous DissidentTalk 13:11, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we need Blue Whale conservation as a redirect at all. It is an unlikely search term and the only pages that link to it are internal process pages like article assessment and this review. I'll delete it unless anybody has a burning reason to keep it. Yomanganitalk 13:16, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I meant to say should redirect more specifically, for the record. And Im not sure Yomangani - I can see some knowledgeable-on-fauna (? lol) people looking up conservation of Blue Whales. Then again, it is pretty left field... Anonymous DissidentTalk 13:21, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with deleting it so I guess an AfD is in order..... cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:06, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Call me old-fashioned but we NEVER used to delete these sorts of redirects. There is no downside to keeping such a redirect, and we presevere the history of the contributed work by keeping it. An AfD just creates busy work for everyone.
I'm not really sure why I suggested deleting it (probably was think about something else), but the point was that it doesn't matter where it redirects to in the article as there are no links to it anyway.Yomanganitalk 23:56, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was reading the Recovery Plan, which mentions a few hazards but the bulk of what we have now (warming/altering of currents etc.) isn't mentioned so given that I was musing on we should do with material that is currently unreferenced. How long do we give ourselves to do it/find stuff? cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 16:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


FARC commentary

[edit]
Suggested FA criteria concern is references. Marskell 07:53, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I know this has seen extensive work. It's been six weeks in the review section, so just moving things along. If it's ready for keep, we can keep it now. Marskell 07:53, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
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 07:59, 8 July 2007.

Warsaw Uprising

[edit]

Review commentary

[edit]
Original author aware. Messages left at Poland-related Wikipedia notice board, Military history, Polish military history task force, World War II task force and History of Poland. LuciferMorgan 15:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article was awarded FA status in late 2004, but I don't think it satisfies current standards. The important Life behind the front lines and Casualties subsections are stubs, implying it's not as comprehensive as it should be. There are not enough inline citations, and some facts have been flagged as needing citation. One editor has suggested on the talk page that the article has a pro-Polish nationalist slant. A script posting there also listed a number of inconsistencies with WP:MoS. nadav 05:43, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • The article is on my 'to update' list. I will try to improve the article in the same way I did this FAR but I will admit WU is older and in worse shape than HoP45-89 was. Any help other editors can offer would be appreciated (I asked on Polish and MilHist noticeboards few weeks ago for it but none volunteered...). In its current state its certainly remove, but please check back in two weeks or so.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  06:43, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm on short vacations right now (Kraków and Żywiec), but I'll be back in a week or so. Next monday I could start sourcing and rewriting the article the "Mauthausen-Gusen way", with Davies, Chlebowski and all the stuff I have on my bookshelf. BTW, it could be a good moment to incorporate all the splinters back into the main article. After all the 30kb limit is no longer observed and I believe the idea to divide the article prior to FA nomination was a bad choice. The past 2 years of this article's history prove that the splinter sub-articles are barely ever read and receive no attention. //Halibutt 10:36, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to hear you'd be helping, now I am confident we can do it. And yes, splinters are bad, 9 times out of 10.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  18:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update. Major work on rewriting the article has begun. Feel free to comment here on current inadequacies, in addition to rewriting and restructuring the article we are well aware of lack of inline citations and will try to provide them in the coming days. Help of native copyeditor would be appreciated.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  18:32, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus beat me to it, so I'll only add that we'd appreciate as many {{fact}} tags as possible. Really, that helps a lot in sourcing articles as for me some things seem too obvious. //Halibutt 19:54, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update: article has been expanded and is more comprehensive, we are working on style and citations.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  03:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

[edit]
Suggested FA criteria concerns are comprehensiveness (1b) and citations (1c). Marskell 03:52, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Status: how do people feel? I notice work has stopped but it remains tagged. Marskell 08:28, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We can wait a couple more days for Halibutt and Piotrus. I left notes for both. Marskell 19:48, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If they make an attempt to improve the article, can you message me on my talk page to return to this review and reassess my vote? Thanks Marskell. LuciferMorgan 22:41, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's been five weeks, and work seems stalled. Unless someone lets us know soon that work is progressing, I'll be a Remove. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:45, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am working on it but I am alone. Since without a native speaker we cannot do a good copyedit, I am afraid the project will not move forward enough :( -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  01:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Given I had ancestors die in the uprising I'll have a look if i have time. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I find it slightly slanted to reporting from the Polish perspective. The German perspective isn't bad but lacks depth and coverage from the Soviet perspective is superficial. There is some repetition, but I think this is probably as a result of the rewrite, so could be cleaned up (and is listed on the "To do" list). At the moment I'd say remove, but I don't see any urgency to close it as Piotrus still seems to be slowly working on it. Yomanganitalk 00:47, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to call this a default keep. I believe this review, at about 10 weeks, has set a record. There's been significant work since the removes were noted and I trust Piotrus and others will keep at it. I'll leave a note on talk. Marskell 07:57, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

Removed status

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

The article was removed 08:57, July 28, 2007.

Armand Jean du Plessis, Cardinal Richelieu

[edit]

Review commentary

[edit]
WP French MilHist, WP Catholicism, WP Biography (politics), WP France notified. DrKiernan 06:55, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominating due to criterion 1c, no inline cites --RelHistBuff 15:15, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re-nominated. I don't understand why the previous nomination was ignored - the article has no citations at all. Maybe RHB didn't go through all the steps to make sure it appears. Anyway the article either needs a lot of citations right away, or should have its FA status removed. John Smith's 22:37, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I saw this renomination by chance, so I will come out of semi-retirement. To clarify, I removed my own original nomination because at the time, the FAR queue was quite overloaded. There is one inline cite, a Harvard reference, at the end, but that's it. As for style, the use of parenthetical elements should be reduced and there are some bizarre uses of mdashes. I would be willing to help fix the style, but only if someone else can handle the citations. This is a Lord Emsworth contribution and he is on extended holiday, so I don't know if anyone around would be willing to help fix it. --RelHistBuff 15:54, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well it needs to be fixed, whether or not anyone wants to volunteer for citation work. Otherwise it probably will be removed. John Smith's 21:10, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

[edit]
Suggested FA criteria concern is citations (1c). Marskell 17:58, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
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 08:57, July 28, 2007.

Johannesburg

[edit]

Review commentary

[edit]
PZFUN, Rfwoolf, Impi, WikiProject South Africa, WikiProject Africa and WikiProject Cities notified

No citations. Epbr123 18:33, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

[edit]
Suggested FA criteria concern is citations (1c). Marskell 17:57, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove per 1c. LuciferMorgan 19:35, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep in mind, the article does contain references, but they are not associated directly with the text. The (1c) criteria clearly states complemented by inline citations where appropriate.. It does not, however, state inline citations are required to meet the criteria. If you are challenging the sources, please advise if you have reviewed any of the references cited in the article. Alan.ca 13:54, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Construction of the Gautrain Rapid Rail started in October 2006" - all the sources were written before October 2006. This is at least one piece of unsourced infomation and an example of why citations are necessary. These are some other events that occured after the sources were written: "University of Johannesburg was formed on 1 January 2005", "with snowfall having been experienced in August 2006". Epbr123 16:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
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 09:05, July 27, 2007.

Irish theatre

[edit]

Review commentary

[edit]
Brilliant prose promotion. WikiProject Theatre and WikiProject Ireland notified

Very old FA. Fails criterion 1b and 1c, since it is quite short and has no inline citations. --Peter Andersen 18:27, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A huge portion of the article was removed by a vandal about a month ago. That should take care of the shortness problem... --- RockMFR 19:27, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

[edit]
Suggested FA criteria concerns are comprehensiveness (1b) and citations (1c). Marskell 13:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed 14:20, 23 July 2007.


Bhutan

[edit]

Review commentary

[edit]
Messages left at Bhutan and Countries.

This article was last promoted to FA status on 2005, however I feel it does not meet current criteria regarding FA country articles. My main objection is about the (c) "Factually accurate" requirement. There are only 10 footnotes for an article 44kb long. Thus, most paragraphs are unsourced. It needs urgent and major work to incorporate inline citations. There are also several one-sentence paragraphs. For illustration purposes compare it to other country articles that have attained FA status recently such as Cameroon and Japan. --Victor12 00:08, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You should have pinged me on my talk since I helped feature it. =Nichalp «Talk»= 16:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I also assisted at the time. I can look at the language if Nichalp can help with the references. Tony 09:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We can leave this in FAR a little longer if you want to work on it Nichalp. Marskell 15:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to significant citation needs:

  • WP:UNITS attention needed
  • External jumps
  • Mixed reference styles (some imbedded links that need to be converted)
  • Unformatted Notes and incomplete References

Two weeks have elapsed, no progress, and as far as I can tell, one or two citations have been added. diff since nom. Nothing happening. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:58, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


FARC commentary

[edit]
Suggested FA criteria concerns are reference sufficiency and formatting (1c), prose (1a), and structure (2). Marskell 20:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I never ever comment on these things normally, but... this article had nothing on the refugee problem which has been in the news again lately (I've since added a short paragraph on it- plenty of Google hits here). Sure, there was a non-referenced paragraph in the History of Bhutan spin-off article, but kicking 100,000 citizens out of a country of ~600,000 is a pretty dramatic event. If this article was missing an event like that, I wonder what else it might be missing? SnowFire 02:50, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very busy in real life to see to this at this moment. Could this be suspended for two weeks? I would take care of it in July. Thanks! =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:16, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Keep us informed. Marskell 08:35, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working on the citations, but the problem is that I've sourced most of the text from www.loc.gov, which does not provide a static URL for the article on Bhutan. Please advise. =Nichalp «Talk»= 16:54, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be a static address for the main Bhutan page, although individual chapters still have only temporary URLs. Since the country study is published as a printed volume, one solution would be to cite it as a book; chapter information can be provided, although page numbers may be hard to determine. Abecedare 07:08, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's what has been done, but inline citiations would be unnecessary. =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:12, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Should a FA class article rely so heavily on a single source? It seems to me that should not be the case. Furthermore, www.loc.gov only qualifies as a tertiary source. --Victor12 14:25, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
LOC contains unlisted references from different sources. And why is LOC a tertiary source? =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:13, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, wrong wording. What I meant is that LOC, by using "unlisted refereces from different sources", is an encyclopedia and I don't think that, for instance, an article based mostly on its corresponding "Encyclopædia Britannica" entry would pass WP:FAC. --Victor12 15:25, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So basically you're saying that no single source is credible? =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:41, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, just that heavily relying on a single source is not enough for FA status. For instance A substantial number of the highest quality reliable sources available on the subject should be consulted thoroughly according to Wikipedia:Featured article advice. --Victor12 18:14, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But the real criteria for featured status is Wikipedia:Featured article criteria. 1c states that Factually accurate" means that claims are verifiable against reliable sources and accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge. There are actually more than one source for the article (the Bhutan portal has been cited), but the problem here are the inline citations which we cant accurately cite. I don't think there is much dispute on the veracity of content made available by LOC (afterall, it's their sole purpose of existence). Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:39, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Does www.loc.gov + a couple of references from the Bhutan portal and some newspapers accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge? I don't think so, the article deserves better research work. Why are the books in the "Further references" section not used? --Victor12 19:26, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove: Mainly due to insufficient referencing (especially important and needed for the statistical information given) and MOS issues as mentioned in the FAR commentary. I would also note to merge one-sentence or short paragraphs and to prosify the Cities and towns section. --RelHistBuff 10:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think this now holds the record for longest. Ah, but records are made to be broken. I just feel bad for poor Nichalp, who had a bunch of his up at once. Another week/ten days to see if work begins. Marskell 18:13, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree; he's worked tirelessly and skilfully to advance the quality of articles on the subcontinent. Tony 15:28, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Closing: Eleven weeks now; I think this will have to go :(. I'll leave a note for Nichalp. Marskell 14:16, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
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 09:39, 22 July 2007.

Color Graphics Adapter

[edit]

Review commentary

[edit]
David Gerard, Trixter, Ropers notified

An article that was promoted to FA in 2004, it has failed to hold to the standards of modern FA. It has very little references, all which do not have footnotes attached to them, and there is a section which looks like OR, please review --wL<speak·check> 09:12, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wl, please notify relevant parties per the instructions at WP:FAR with {{subst:FARMessage|Color Graphics Adapter}} Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:41, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is OR bad? Some of the article was researched by myself specifically for the article; for example, the proper color of color index 6 and its origins. Other parts of the article are simply common knowledge to anyone who has worked with the card. I don't mind the Featured Article review; if it doesn't meet the criteria then that's fine with me. My fear is that the article itself is in jeopardy, which is distressing because I personally spent at least 4 to 6 hours researching and altering it. --Trixter 19:17, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OR is bad, per WP:OR. Also, be careful about what you call common knowledge. Wikipedia is a general purpose encyclopedia; people who haven't worked with the card will also need to be able to know where the information came from. Jay32183 20:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

[edit]
Suggested FA criteria concerns are citations and possible original research (1c). Marskell 07:51, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
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 18:24, 17 July 2007.

Spring Heeled Jack

[edit]

Review commentary

[edit]
Messages left at Shauri, JeremyA, Allen3, and WikiProject Paranormal. Resurgent insurgent 01:16, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prose is choppy with many short paragraphs (1a), and poorly cited (1c). In particular, the line "One of the guards shot at him, with no visible effect; some sources claim that the soldier may have fired blanks at him...." has been tagged with {{fact}} since February. Lastly the article is unbalanced; about 1/4 of it is devoted to appearances of Spring Heeled Jack in popular culture. Resurgent insurgent 01:05, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I believe this is the best article we have on Monster in my Pocket #46. The popular culture could do with some trimming (it shows a lack of balance between the different elements at the very least), but, bearing in mind the subject, I would think a large amount of the article should be dedicated to it. Citing will be difficult as I'm sure reliable sources are hard to come by. I'll come back to it if I get time and nobody else has picked it up. Nudge me if it's headed for Remove. Yomanganitalk 00:30, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A jolly article, pleasantly illustrated. The slightest examination, however, shows that it's a complete mess.

  1. Consider this one passage: In Linby village, just outside the city of Nottingham, Spring Heeled Jack is referenced to ["referenced to"?] on a Linby public service map printed by Ordnance Survey, [What's a "public service map"? Did the OS really print it and not map it; and if it did print it how is this important?] opposite the Horse and Groom public house in the centre of the village. [Oh, we're back to the village again. Did the writer lose his way within this sentence?] A map [Another one? Or "The map"?] describes the local area and the many stories and myths surrounding the village. The exact comment regarding Spring Heeled Jack is: "Spring Heeled Jack, in the months of winter, Spring Heeled Jacks [As this is the "exact comment", I hesitate to add an apostrophe.] footprints are left in the snow along the route of Quarry Lane." Quarry Lane runs for about 3 quarters of a mile until [Until what?] on the map stated as only "[a] site of scientific interest": a large enclosed forested area bordering with the grounds of Newstead Abbey, which is known locally as "Devils wood." Admittedly, this is at the crappy extreme of the article, but it does not stand out: much of the rest of the article is little better (and about as long-winded).
  2. The article is stunningly under-referenced. The referencing system is horrible, using some system of footnotes that should be killed and buried. A lot of the notes that do exist say just "Peter Haining, op. cit." No, no page number. This suggests to me that Peter Haining's opus will be explained in an earlier note. It isn't. (It is explained below.)
  3. Yes, "Peter Haining" is a book written by this writer about TV shows and published by Frederick Muller, which I hazily remember as somewhere near the bottom of the barrel of London publishers. I haven't seen this book or any of the other "references", and thus may be doing them a huge disservice when I say that they all sound more or less trashy: books written less to inform than to entertain. The article mentions sociological or social-psychological notions of mass hysteria but there's not a single reference that seems sociological, seems psychological, or (with the possible exception of the one book from Dodd, Mead) comes from a publisher (e.g. a university press) whose name inspires respect.
  4. Poor logic, even on its own (I suspect underinformed) terms. Thinking that I shouldn't just complain about this article but help it, I've tried to do some rewriting. But I can't satisfactorily rewrite passages that make no sense. My (crappy) ending (after link-stripping): Although lacking durable literary value, the Spring Heeled Jack series exerted an important influence as a predecessor of modern day pulp magazine and comic superheroes, taking into consideration that they began to be written over fifty years before the first Zorro adventure and almost eighty years before other fictional characters like Batman or the Lone Ranger were created. Such lasting influence and its consequent cultural importance were, for most part of the 20th century, practically forgotten. Yes, he's a predecessor of the 20th century's miscellaneous spandex-clad caped crusaders. No, I wouldn't be surprised to see a demonstration that he was influential. But in this article there's no evidence whatever that he was influential; rather, it seems that we're supposed to think that if X preceded similar Y, then X simply must have influenced Y. At best, this is shoddy writing. At worst, this is amazingly shoddy thinking: unfortunately unexceptional for Wikipedia as a whole, but utterly inexcusable for something touted as a "Featured Article".

In short, nothing like FA material. (My previous edit was to the FA S. A. Andrée's Arctic balloon expedition of 1897, a world apart.) Do a thorough reworking, with good sources; or demote. Morenoodles 11:13, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS I printed this article out and read it in the train home from work yesterday. I don't want to ridicule the work of my fellow editors, but this article is stunningly, even hilariously bad. I've posted a long but certainly not exhaustive list of problems on its talk page (voilà). I wish its authors well, but suspect that the only way to improve it in the short term is to delete most of it. Morenoodles 05:53, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have quite a strong interest in anything to do with the paranormal, however, how the article on Spring Heeled Jack could have made it to "Featured article" status is beyond me. It lacks too great an amount of citations - I would try and help in finding such citations, but possess no material relating to Mr. Spring Heeled. Frankly, I have my doubts whether an article about an alleged creature which has never been studied, or documented with any significant degree of scientific backing can ever be a feautured article. It's akin to trying to write a featured article on The Bell Witch. MaxCosta 18:19, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

[edit]
Suggested FA criteria concerns are prose (1a), referencing (1c), and balance (4). Marskell 17:45, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
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 18:06, 14 July 2007.

Alchemy

[edit]

Review commentary

[edit]
Whateley23, IPSOS, Sj, WP Egypt, WP Ancient Egypt, WP History of Science, WP Chemistry notified

Featured Article criteria 1c requires that "Claims are supported with specific evidence and external citations...complemented by inline citations for quotations and for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged." The article has been tagged with a "Needs inline references" template for over a month now as it is lacking inline citations. Additionally, the article may not qualify as "stable" given the significant edits that appear to be ongoing. --ElKevbo 12:52, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised that this article is FA in the first place. I notice some refs like http://www.planetherbs.com/articles/processing_chinese_herbs.htm and http://www.herbalist-alchemist.com/benefits.htm are really, just rubbish. Not WP:RS. The "Medical alchemy" section makes claims which are really unscientific. --Rifleman 82 13:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article has several deficiencies. Besides the lack of references, there are some likely POV issues and some things that look just factually wrong. --Itub 17:44, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

[edit]
Suggested FA criteria concern is referencing (1c). Marskell 14:19, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
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 18:06, 14 July 2007.

Niagara Falls

[edit]

Review commentary

[edit]
Messages left at New York State, Canada, Rivers, and Waterfalls. Marskell 07:46, 3 June 2007 (UTC) Message left at User talk:Sfahey. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are three occurrences of {{unsourced}} on this article. Furthermore, there are {{fact}} tags everywhere, which are not supposed to appear anywhere on any featured article. Because of these deficiencies, it is not factually accurate and could have original research. V60 干什么？ · 喝掉的酒 · ER 4 19:23, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • <Large sig file above> Per instructions here, please use {{subst:FARMessage|Niagara Falls}} to notify the main contributors to the article (identifiable through the edit history page), the editor who originally nominated the article for Featured Article status (identifiable through the article history), and any relevant WikiProjects of this review. You can see examples of notifications on other FARs on this page. Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:43, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The lack of inline citations is rather frightening and inappropriate for a featured article. Listing sources simply as "Encyclopedia Britannica," for example, is wholly unhelpful. ~ UBeR 20:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are we reading the same article? Of the 22 footnotes, 21 cite sources - none the Britannica. They are not the best sources, in many cases; but little of this is challenged, or likely to be challenged. The Britannica is cited as one of the general sources; and doubtless it was. But it would be difficult to spot a sentence which depends solely on it now. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:37, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is unsettling that most of this article is not sourced. The extensive (and informative) Formation section has only three inline cites, even though it contains such statements as "Some controversy exists over which European first gave a written, eyewitness description of the Falls", and "There is credible evidence, however . . . .", with no supporting reference. The next section, Impact on industry and commerce, is similarly sparse in citations despite a huge amount of information. Much of the balance of the article suffers from the same problem. I'm surprised it was rated FA.
It might be a good idea to initiate an intensive effort to take each section and source it with inline cites as quickly and thoroughly as possible. Otherwise much of it should be deleted since it has been tagged for nearly seven months with little or no improvements.
—  Jim Dunning  talk  :  14:49, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

[edit]
Suggested FA criteria concerns are citations and factual accuracy (1c). Marskell 11:15, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
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 10:35, 13 July 2007.

Isaac Asimov

[edit]

Review commentary

[edit]
Notified WP Columbia University and WP Science Fiction. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wiki alf, JHunterJ, Raul654, Anville, WP Bio, WP Atheism, WP Russia, WP Rational Skepticism notified. DrKiernan 14:47, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First and foremost, for a writer of such a prolific standing as Asimov, there are far to few references. 12 references is too few. Most of the statements in this article are not referenced, and as a FA this should not be so. That is the reasoning behind this review. More citations are needed; much more. --Paaerduag 13:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please notify the relevant wikiprojects, as it says on the top of this page.
  • Not actionable. Most of this is, evidently, from Asimov's two volume autobiography, listed, almost alone, in references; some of it I recognize. What statements that are "challenged or likely to be challenged" do not have an obvious source, either Asimov or Goldman's 15-page DLB entry?
The article, can, of course, be improved; all articles can. The quotes can be sourced, and go to Wikisource; but they are both well-known, and from works which have been printed often, with different paginations. Sourcing them will not be much service to the reader. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CITE says that quotes should be sourced; it's utterly relevant whether you think they should be cited or not. Whatever you think or feel, WP:CITE is crystal clear on the issue. LuciferMorgan 09:37, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please consider that WP:CITE is a guideline; but in this case, I agree it would be better away. (But this is an absurdly minor flaw.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:27, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Quotations" is an unneeded section, so should be scrapped. LuciferMorgan 09:39, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Most of them are already at Wikiquote, and sourced; but "Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent" should stay (as part of the summary of the Foundation Series. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Removed to talk for now. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think we should just retitle "criticism" to "sour grapes" and leave it at that :-) Seriously, criticising one of the best-selling writers of SF ever for writing in a style his readers liked and was clearly developed for a defined and well understood (by Asmiov) market, is a weak kind of criticism. Doc Smith writes two-dimensional characters, Asimov writes three-dimensional stories with characters that have precisely as much definition as is needed to satisfy their role in the story, and no more. So they're not novels - big deal. What they are is extraordinarily good books that my 13-year-old is reading and loving despite the archaic view of future technology. Great stories, why complain that they are not more? To quote Mrs Feynman, why should he care what other people think? Guy (Help!) 10:27, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

[edit]
Suggested FA criteria concern is referencing (1c). Marskell 10:12, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
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 10:35, 13 July 2007.

San Jose, California

[edit]

Review commentary

[edit]
Messages left at User talk:Gentgeen, Cities, California and SF Bay Area. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:03, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Okiefromokla. The article is full of unsourced statements and OR. I don't know how this got to be labeled a FA, but as it stands, I doubt it would even pass a GA review.--Loodog 02:19, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed a couple of refs that weren't displaying. It looks that they had been that way since November 2006! Many refs need to be formatted. Pagrashtak 16:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please notify editors and related WikiProjects. See the instructions on top of the FAR page. Quadzilla99 22:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My fault. I have now notified the last 8 or so people to edit this page.--Loodog 03:33, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't really need to notify me; I'm presumably aware of this review, having commented above. In fact, I only edited the article because of this review. I wouldn't bother bringing this up, except that your notification on my talk page was for the wrong article. You should check your other notifications and correct them if needed. Pagrashtak 16:40, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean that I had directed you toward San Jose instead of San Jose, California?--Loodog 17:03, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hey, easy now. While it may seem messy compared to today's FAs, this was once one of the best city articles Wikipedia had. I moved that 18kb "History" section to its own article at History of San Jose, California. Will you review and copy-edit the new "History" section? --maclean 05:38, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments, extensive work needed to meet current FA standards; if editors are involved and working on it, I will provide a list, but initially at least, referencing work needs review (see examples). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:20, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment on comment Agree. This is my concern. Either FA articles required less sourcing back in the day or they required less detail and a ton of unsourced material has been added since then.--Loodog 17:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment on comment on comment - A little bit of both. At the time it was promoted, this article stacked up well against any other city article on the 'pedia, both in terms of detail and supporting references. Since then, the standards for FA have evolved, and, sadly, this article hasn't kept pace. However, I do believe that the editors will be happy to bring up to the new level. Gentgeen 05:45, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fixes needed (most of these are examples only, indicating extensive work needed throughout):

  • WP:LEAD should be a compelling, stand-alone summary of the article.
  • External jumps (see for example the City Charter in San Jose or San José
  • Please fix dashes throughout per WP:MOS: example, (1850-1851) should be an endash.
  • Extensive copyedit needs throughout. Examples, and the San Jose High School's three-story stone was also destroyed ... three-story stone what? It then became part of the United States, after it capitulated without bloodshed in 1846 and California was annexed ... it capitulated? San Jose did? This is not a sentence: Both of which would prove to be harbingers for the economy of San Jose, as Reynold Johnson and his team would later invent RAMAC, as well as the disc drive, and the technological side of San Jose's economy grew.
  • NUMEROUS citation tags.
  • Where are the citations for third-largest city in California and largest in Northern California? Data is introduced in the lead that isn't covered elsewhere in the article; the lead should summarize the article.
  • Please see WP:UNITS on non-breaking hard spaces between numbers and units of measurement.
  • Article doesn't stay tightly focused; Stanford isn't part of San Jose, for example, and San Jose has no reason to lay claim to Stanford, UC Berkeley, or any other neighboring University. Education in San Jose should be discussed, not schools around San Jose.
  • Overlinking, see WP:CONTEXT and only link first occurrences of important terms (World War II, for example, is linked in three consecutive sentences.
  • Mixed reference styles; some cite.php, other imbedded links.
  • Image alignment off; images spanning across sections, leaving large white spaces.
  • Attractions is just a large list and should be prosified.
  • Notes and references largely unformatted blue links; see WP:CITE/ES
  • Media, summary style but contains no content
  • Cultural references, a list, and looks like further reading; should be prosified.

There is so much unsourced opinion and dubious content in this article, in addition to MOS issues, that it is going to require a lot of elbow grease to get this job done in a reasonable amount of time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:27, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Lists and {{fact}} tags don't really do it for me. Suggest it be de-listed.--trey 18:08, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It has been well over a month since this FAR began, and the article is still no where near being up to featured article standards. I hate to sound pessimistic, but the article is so far gone that at the rate it is progressing, it won't be close to meeting standards for a very, very long time. How much longer should this FAR go on? Okiefromokla•talk 22:46, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

[edit]
Suggested FA criteria concerns are factual accuracy (1c), and formatting fixes (2). Marskell 10:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
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 16:02, 11 July 2007.

Margaret Thatcher

[edit]

Review commentary

[edit]
Original nominater gone. Message left at British Government and England. Marskell 08:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And also Bio/Politics and government. One Night In Hackney303 09:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Messages left at User talk:Cryptfiend64, UK notice board, Politics and Political figures. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:52, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article fails criterion (c) "Factually accurate". While the article may be factually accurate, there are many unsourced statements that require inline citations in particular the "Legacy" section. Examples:

  • Her policies were emulated around the world, and, though divisive, even left-wing politicians such as Tony Benn have stated their admiration for the straight-forward, unflinching way in which she conducted her policies.
  • She has been credited for her macroeconomic reforms with "rescuing" the British economy from the stagnation of the 1970s, and is admired for her committed radicalism on economic issues.
  • Many on both the right and left agree that Thatcher had a transformative effect on the British political spectrum and that her tenure had the effect of moving the major political parties rightward.

In addition to these I currently count 15 "citation needed" tags, at least one of which has been there since December 2006. One Night In Hackney303 05:32, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't read this article in detail from beginning to end, but even on a cursory glance it's clear that it fails the featured article criteria on several counts:

  • Well written – much of the prose is clumsy, confusing or just plain dull. "She graduated with a degree and worked as a research chemist for British Xylonite and then J. Lyons and Co." is hardly of a "professional standard".
  • Factually accurate and neutral – there are too many "citation needed" tags and far too few inline citations. The Legacy section in particular needs to be completely rewritten according to reliable sources, rather than consisting of one person's unsourced interpretation. My impression based on a quick scan through the article is that it is too biased in favour of Thatcher.
  • Includes a concise lead section that summarizes the topic – the lead section is far too brief. It includes a couple of trivial facts but says nothing about why she was one of the most important, influential and controversial prime ministers of the 20th century. "The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, summarizing the most important points, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describing its notable controversies, if there are any."
  • Of appropriate length, staying focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail – 83 kb is far too long. There is too much detail about relatively minor affairs, such as her dealings with Northern Ireland and South Africa, that would be better off in a more relevant article. The chronological approach is hard to follow and leads to long, dense sections; IMO it would be better to have a brief summary of her career, with separate sections on her most notable policies (privatisation, the unions, foreign policy etc.), and with detail farmed out to separate articles if necessary. "Post-political career" in particular is full of unnecessary trivia. The overall impression is of not being able to see the wood for the trees.

The first and third of these points would be relatively easy to address; the others will take time. In the meantime it should be delisted as a featured article. --Blisco 22:58, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

[edit]
Suggested FA criteria concerns are factual accuracy (1c), comprehensiveness (1b), POV (1d), and LEAD (2a). Marskell 10:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I find it inappropriate that the life and work of Thatcher´s father is discussed with some detail, while her mother is just mentioned in passing, to say that she bore two daughters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.4.111.200 (talk • contribs) 16:17, July 4, 2007

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
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 16:02, 11 July 2007.

CPU cache

[edit]

Review commentary

[edit]
Messages left at User talk:Fennec, Computing and Computer science. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article does meet the FA criteria of 1]c) "Factually accurate" most, if not all of the claims made in this article are unreferenced, there are no reliable sources to check the accuracy of content against. Slowbro 22:33, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After reading the original nomination, it appears that "Evaluating Associativity in CPU Caches" and "Cache Performance for SPEC CPU2000 Benchmarks" may be sources disguised as links. Pagrashtak 20:26, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Still, a FA that's entire contents was sourced from two references?! no matter how realiable the sources are, and their authors, i still think this article is missing a reference or two, or 50. The article may as well just be a link to those documents. Slowbro 06:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let us know when you find a factual problem. The {{fact}} for the assertion that a 2Mb cache system will cost in four figures, which seems very likely to be true. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

[edit]
Suggested FA criteria concern is factual accuracy (1c). Marskell 08:34, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
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 16:02, 11 July 2007.

Cyberpunk

[edit]

Review commentary

[edit]
Messages left at Anville and WP Science Fiction by --P4k Additional messages left at Eluchil, WP Rave, and Kasha. — Quadzilla99 23:28, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Too much of this article is uncited and the "music" and "fashion" sections in particular read like fanfiction. "Homeless traveling squatter punks armed themselves with digital equipment and fused technology into their street sounds." In addition I get the impression that the standards for featured articles have changed a lot since 2005. It's hard for me to imagine that this could be a featured article today. --P4k 00:30, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P4k, per please use {{subst:FARMessage|Cyberpunk}} to notify the main contributors to the article (identifiable through the edit history page), the editor who originally nominated the article for Featured Article status (identifiable through the article history), and any relevant WikiProjects of this review. You can see examples of notifications on other FARs on this page. Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:41, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Concur with P4k. There is a lot material needing citing: a mixture of very interpretive material where a source needs to be given for the origin of the opinion, (e.g. "Cyberpunk provides people an outlet for creativity and self-expression") and vague statements which should be refined and sourced to become verifiable fact (e.g. "Whole groups have formed of people who embrace the ideals of cyberpunk. These groups of people center mostly on the Internet, but have been known to congregate. Groups of cyberpunks can be seen gathering to do LARP and as a culture is often connected to the rave scene."). I would also suggest a rewrite of the lead section, and a review of the prose lists (e.g. of authors). Regards, The Land 11:05, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

[edit]
Suggested FA criteria concerns are citations (1c) and prose quality (1a). Marskell 17:43, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
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 08:15, 9 July 2007.

RMS Titanic

[edit]

Review commentary

[edit]
Messages left at User talk:JustPhil, Belfast, Disaster Management, Shipwrecks, Irish Maritime and Ships. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This may have been of featured quality at the time of its promotion (July 2005), but it is no more. Issues:

Missing citations: Most sections are either entirely without inline citations or have insufficient citations.

Incomplete citations: Both inline citations and general references (Notes and References, respectively) are often incomplete per MOS. I refer both to the numbered external links, and to the references without any publication information.

Irrelevance: Name change is a sub-section of Long-term implications. This is neither long-term nor does it appear to have any relevance to the topic. In any case, it is a one-sentence section. Use of SOS is also in the the wrong place.

POV Statements include, among many others:

  • "common rooms were considered to be as opulent as those in the first-class sections" from Unsurpassed luxury, which is an entirely POV section anyway.
  • "Regardless, the disaster ranks as one of the worst peacetime maritime disasters in history and by far the most infamous" from Disaster
  • "it was believed that the Titanic had sunk intact" from The break up
  • "This became the accepted way the ship had sunk" accepted by whom?
  • "No single aspect of the Titanic disaster has provoked more outrage than the fact that the ship did not carry enough lifeboats" Outrage from whom? Penguins?
  • "the most notable being Lifeboat #1"

Lead: The introduction does not introduce material that is covered later in the article. It presents information that is otherwise not mentioned. The lead is also too long.

Short Paragraphs: There are several 1-2 sentence paragraphs.

--Cryptic C62 · Talk 18:46, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ignoring the other concerns you present, I don't find your indications of POV problems very compelling. For instance, in your third example you would need to show that it was not generally believed that the Titanic sunk intact (or at least indicate that this might be doubtful). Otherwise the sentence is just a statement of fact like any other. There's nothing in your nomination, or on the talk page that I can find, which explains what significant views are not being fairly represented in the article. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:19, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with the third example is not that only one viewpoint is being presented. It may very well be that everyone believed the Titanic sunk intact. It doesn't specify who believed this, nor is there sufficient context. Is it talking about the people who were investigating the accident? Is it talking about the people who built the boat? Is it talking about just British people? Much of the article seems riddled with weasel phrases and nonspecific wording. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 15:59, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously only one viewpoint is being presented. By only presenting that view the article implies that effectively everyone in a position to study the problem believed it. If there was indeed only one viewpoint in reality, then the article is (perhaps) simply lacking a citation. If there were other viewpoints of any significance, then there would be an NPOV issue with the article, but you haven't shown that any such viewpoints existed. Christopher Parham (talk) 16:35, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"the article implies that effectively everyone in a position to study the problem believed it." Perhaps the article shouldn't imply this and should actually specify the groups of people involved, yes? Yes, definitely. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 16:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Quite possibly not -- if indeed this belief was general, the groups of people involved might be a list of 10 or more groups. This would be rather wordy. And unnecessary, given that if everyone believed something, the fact that these particular groups believed it is not of much interest: excess specificity clouds the important point. Christopher Parham (talk) 17:04, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
“The voice of the majority is no proof of justice.” Friedrich von Schiller .... or factual accuracy for that matter.--Svetovid 23:58, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, if it was really the case that consensus was reached among everyone that the ship sunk intact, that statement should have a citation immediately following it. If (and I think this is more likely) it was believed by those who studied the problem (as you suggested earlier), then that should be explicitly stated, not implied, and cited. In either case, the phrase and all those like it should be more specific to prevent confusion. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 17:16, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cryptic, per instructions here, please use {{subst:FARMessage|RMS Titanic}} to notify the main contributors to the article (identifiable through the edit history page), the editor who originally nominated the article for Featured Article status (identifiable through the article history), and any relevant WikiProjects of this review. You can see examples of notifications on other FARs on this page. Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:03, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One thing bugging me here is the lack of references, and some of them are just external jumps. One [21] is even missing! Alientraveller 17:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to the ship breaking or not, I would suggest referencing it to the conclusion of the inquiry panels that were convened. Their reports should be in the public record by now. This should then be followed by a citation as to the dispute. This article: [19] may help. FrozenPurpleCube 04:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments-:
  • Unsurpassed luxury- POV, unreferenced.
  • Entire sections are unreferenced, and many averments in referenced sections are unreferenced.
  • Comparable maritime disasters—belongs in a separate article. These incidents have nothing to do with ‘’Titanic’’.
  • Popular culture— much improved with the deletion of the trivia section. It could be improved even more with an informed discussion of the sinking’s effect on public consciousness, as in Steven Biel’s Down with the Old Canoe: A Cultural History of the Titanic Disaster.
  • Notes--- many incorrectly formatted, some no more than bracketed numbers.
  • External links—still too long.
The article attracts a lot of edits ranging from rumors to trivia to vandalism, and has not always been timely maintained. Stability therefore has been a concern. While the piece is much improved lately it is not a great or even very good article overall. Kablammo 22:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

[edit]
Suggested FA criteria concerns are citation sufficiency and formatting (1c), LEAD (2a), POV (1d). Marskell 11:14, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delist: While work has been done on the article, it has only been minor touch-ups. The problems with the citations and weasel phrases still persist. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 21:13, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
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 08:15, 9 July 2007.

Geography of India

[edit]

Review commentary

[edit]
Messages left at Talk:Geography of India, WT:INB and User talk:Nichalp, Additional messages at India, Geography

While doing a research on Geography of West Bengal, I noticed that the article Geography of India, a FA is in a bad condition, probably it will not meet even the WP:GA criteria. The article was featured on June 8, 2005 that is about 2 years back when the Wikipedia was not much organised, so it got FA easily. I am pointing out some of the errors in the article:

  1. Excess importance is given to the highest point in the lead. Remove it and replace by other suitable statement
  2. Location and extent-eastern, western and northern tip missing, IST must be included, neighbours of India may be incorporated
  3. Political geography – must be written in a prose form rather than list.
  4. Geographical regions-
    1. Mountains
      1. Image:Indiahills.png and Image:India topo big.jpg must be replaced by svg image,
      2. remove list of mountains, no mention of upper and middle himalays,
    2. Indo-Gangetic plain-No mention of Bhabar and Khadar, Terai formation
    3. Highlands-Highest peak in Deccan plateau missing, Central highlands (Malwa) missing, eastern Meghalaya plateau and Karbi Anglong plateau missing
    4. East coast-No mention of Northern Circas
    5. West coast- Kachchh and Kathiawar coast in Gujrat, back waters in Kerela and presence of important ports missing
    6. Islands-
      1. Andaman- seperation by 10 degree channel, barren island missing, largest island, no of inhabited island, longitudianal and latitudial extent,
      2. Lakshwadeep- seperation by 11 degree channel, largest island, longitudianal and latitudial extent all are missing
  5. Natural disasters-Drought missing
  6. Natural resources-More data needed
  7. Missing parts-Soil, Natural vegetation and wildlife
  8. Overall-Lack of grammar, spellings, WP:MOS and must be writen in prose form.
  9. To prevent further vandalism- semi-protection policy must be applied to the article
  10. Inline citations missing

This was the initial observation. Further comments are expected to improve the quality of the article. This must be imroved or get defeaturedAmartyabag TALK2ME 14:55, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with most of the assessment. The article is meant to be a summary of more detailed article and the chunk of the article has been sourced from the famous Manorama Yearbook which has gone into detail classifying the geographic regions of India, keeping into consideration the core classification. This article is not meant to be inclusive of specifics, that is why Malwa, Terrai and the Circas are intentionally omitted. There are simply too many regions that could otherwise be listed here. There is a SVG replacement for India topo, but the use of svg in such a case is not recommended. I'm also not sure why it is not in prose form. =Nichalp «Talk»= 16:49, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly try to add references to the text.Amartyabag TALK2ME 11:26, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to significant citation needs:

  • Listiness should be converted to compelling prose
  • Templates placed incorrectly at end of section (see WP:GTL)
  • Unformatted Notes and incomplete References
  • Image placement results in large white spaces (images don't *have* to be next to the text they discuss, if that results in text distortion.
  • Same strange, non-standard formatting in International agreements
  • Bolding throughout (see WP:MOSBOLD)
  • Is Bengal Tiger capitalized or not (used both ways)?

On the upside, WP:DASH andWP:UNITS have been attended to. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:11, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

[edit]
Suggested FA criteria concerns are citations, formatting, and comprehensiveness. Joelito (talk) 11:29, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments. Very little of the hard data is cited (see Mav's articles of a similar nature). The {{convert}} templates are resulting in an extreme number of decimal places (see Mountains); I believe there's a way to truncate the decimal places to 0 places. There are a few inline cites that are largely unformatted. The article has been at FARC for three weeks; I'm learning towards Remove in a few days if the article isn't cited and work completed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Updated and Referenced Though the article was highly unreferenced I found out the major source Manorama Year Book (see:ISSN ID on WorldCat) and added about 20 inline citations(note citations refering to same source get ^ a b c d e etc.) and now the article is highly improved in terms of referencing.--KnowledgeHegemony 14:42, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm my working my way through; pls see my edit summaries for samples of work needed. Capitalization in Natural resources needs attention; I don't know which of those should and shouldn't be capitalized, but there are problems there. Also, please ask Tony1 (talk · contribs) or Deckiller (talk · contribs) to evaluate hyphens versus endashes in Physiographic regions section. I can't work on your footnotes because I don't speak Harvard templates, but some of your notes link to references, while others don't; they should use a consistent style. The way Allaby and Balfour are done, for example, is different than Manorama Yearbook sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:52, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This can't be closed either way at present. I'll say remove. A topic like this may be given to lists, but we have too many sections with choppy two sentence paras and inconsistent orthography (the ampersand should be eliminated at least, and dashes checked). And then there's phrasing like this: "India has a varied geology spanning the entire spectrum of the geological time period." What does the "entire spectrum of the geological time period" mean? The entire history of the Earth? Finally, the refs are incosistently formatted and applied.

I know this was worked on and we've arrived at a point where we're leaving FARs up for months. If someone has the energy for refs, I'll help with the little stuff. If not, this should go. Marskell 07:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Remove. Too long at FAR, too little improvement to keep FAR going. Many of the same deficiencies present as when I last looked three weeks ago. References still unformatted, and still needing a copy edit for basic things like capitalization. Sample sentence with capitalization issues: Along with 56% arable land, it has significant sources of Coal (fourth-largest reserves in the world), Iron ore, Manganese, Mica, Bauxite, Titanium ore, Chromite, Natural gas, Diamonds, Petroleum, Limestone, Thorium (world's largest along Kerala's shores). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:25, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove. Unfortunately, the article really does not meet the FA criteria anymore. May be sometime later someone of us would find adequate time to improve the article and run it for FAC again. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 05:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
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 16:08, 1 July 2007.

Habsburg Spain

[edit]

Review commentary

[edit]
Messages left at DanielNuyu and WikiProject Spain.

Completely lacks citations to support facts (except for one inline external link, itself not listed under "References") so fails to meet 1(c). The list of references is very long but it's not clear which statements are supported by which book, let alone where in that book. This is an old FA (May 2005) which may explain the lack of citations. Purgatorio 14:51, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this is a mess. The first two sections are sprinkled with subtle but significant errors:
  • "Spanish soldiers distinguished themselves on the field alongside their French allies at the Battle of Agnadello" - no Spanish troops were present at the battle
  • "seeing a chance at taking both Naples" - Spain had already seized Naples nearly a decade earlier, during the Italian War of 1499-1504
  • "in 1516, France agreed to a truce that left Milan under French control and recognized Spanish hegemony in northern Navarre" - this took place after Ferdinand died
  • "In 1521, Francis invaded the Spanish possessions in Italy" - actually, Spain (and the Papacy) invaded French possessions in Italy
  • "In 1527, due to Charles' inability to pay them sufficiently his armies in Northern Italy mutineed and sacked Rome itself for loot" - this is an over-simplified explanation of the sack, at best
I can't speak for the rest of the article, but this needs actual fact-checking, rather than just insertion of citations for the material present. Kirill Lokshin 19:39, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Kirill; this is a really useful review. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:17, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

[edit]
Suggested FA criteria concern is factual accuracy (1c). Marskell 17:48, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove per 1c. LuciferMorgan 01:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove per 1c. Jay32183 03:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove per 1c. Article is all over the place. Says that Clement VII was cowed by Charles V after the sack of Rome. So why did he agree an offensive alliance with Francis I of France in 1533, sealed by marrying his kinswoman Catherine de' Medici to Francis's son Henri, attending the wedding in Marseilles himself? Repeated omission of such inconvenient details creates a simplified picture. Perhaps the scope of the article is too big.qp10qp 15:12, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
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 16:08, 1 July 2007.

Tlön, Uqbar, Orbis Tertius

[edit]

Review commentary

[edit]
Messages left at User talk:Jmabel and Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/GeneralForum - Atropos 00:07, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article was featured in April 2004, and I don't know if it was this way at the time or if it has degraded, but I strongly considered tagging it as reading like an essay and original research, and definitely would have if it wasn't a featured article (I'm not sure if I still should, I don't know the etiquette about that sort of thing). The plot summary, for example, analyzes the text rather than simply summarizing it. What's worse, the references that appear there are deceiving: they reference the story itself for the events that are described; none (or almost none, I may have missed something) are given for the analysis, which doesn't belong in the plot summary to begin with. The themes section is worse, every reference is also to the text. The next section is a bit of a trivia section, listing the many references made in the story. After that comes a completely unreferenced section about its place in Borges' life. Then comes the publication history, which isn't referenced with the <ref> tags like the rest of the article. After this are two lists of things inspired by the story and then a poor and improperly ordered External links section, which is one link that really belongs as part of the two previous sections. References is a subsection of the footnotes section, which is not normal style. Also, the references are deceiving in general: though there are 43 inline citations, only 16 of them are not to the story itself.

I love this story and love love Borges, but this article needs major work. Atropos 23:54, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I largely wrote this article, at a time when Wikipedia's standards for citation were quite different from what they are now. I am not currently very active in Wikipedia, and I have no particular willingness to go through and work on the article. I would consider myself genuinely expert on Borges: at that time, Wikipedia cared about such things. Now, Wikipedia seems more interested in seeing people cite someone else, even someone who (as often happens) honestly does not know whereof he or she speaks. This is, indeed, part of why I am much less involved.
The list of the many (mostly non-fictional) characters in the story and who they were is probably the best online guide to this thicket of mostly relatively unknown individuals. If people have now decided that is "trivia" and unencyclopedic, I think you are dead wrong, but I won't fight over it.
I did reread the section Tlön, Uqbar, Orbis Tertius#"Tlön…" in the context of Borges's life and works. I believe it is entirely accurate; I suggest that anyone with access to a biography of Borges should have no difficulty providing the citations that current Wikipedia standards require.
All Spanish-language publication information should be able to be confirmed from the Borges' Center's bibliographies, probably from the bibliography prepared by Annick Louis & Florian Ziche. As for the English-language translations, I don't know of an equivalent published bibliography, but I've had my hands on all of the relevant works, all of which are explicitly named in the text. I don't see what citation can possibly be needed beyond the book or magazine itself. I suppose someone could seek a citation for my claim that the Irby translation was the first to be published (that is, that there wasn't an earlier one of which I am ignorant).
I hope some of this is useful to whoever works on this. If someone has concrete questions for me, leave them on my user talk page and I'll do my best to help. But I am not currently keeping an eye on a watchlist, so that or an email is the only way you will get my attention (that is, I most likely will not be following discussion here). - Jmabel | Talk 05:27, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a problem with the list of references in the short story, as they are a big part of it. If they were just passing allusions the author expected the reader to know that would be different.
I wasn't around Wikipedia in 2004, but an encyclopedia is not a place to argue any interpretation, no matter how much of an expert you are or how supported that interpretation is by the text. Besides that, batty fringe flat-earth "theorists" think they're experts too; the fact that your claim is reasonable doesn't change things. The only issue with the article that I saw and that isn't easily fixed is the lack of citation. I'm sure it can be of current featured quality within the two weeks.
Thank you for participating in this discussion even though you're not very active anymore. By the way, I think Hurley might mention something about the first translation in his collected fictions; unfortunately I've lent my copy out, but I know the local library has it and I can check some time soon. Atropos 06:00, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've checked Hurley's section "A Note on the Translation." He is nonspecific, but he states that the first translation of Borges appeared in 1948, that (I'm going from memory) around 12 more works by Borges were published between then and 1962, when two collections of his fiction were published in English, one by Irby and a partner and one by someone else. The one by someone else may have been published first, just because he doesn't specify and he lists it before he lists Irby's. I'll get more details when I have my own copy back. Atropos 03:08, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I fully agree with Jmabel's comments, and regard all the footnotes to the story itself as redundant, especially since it has been printed many times, in many languages, with different paginations. The list of mentions is the chief justification for having an article on this at all; we should do something for the reader, or why not just send him to Borges, who writes better than we do?
The following sentence is a real flaw: According to an article by Alan White, Williams College professor of philosophy, the Anglo-American Cyclopaedia actually exists and is more or less as Borges describes it, although it is a reprint of the 9th Edition of the Britannica, not (as the story has it) the 10th. There is no reason to source this in text - as opposed giving the reference to White's paper (which should, of course, be cited to where he published it); The existence of the Anglo-American Cyclopedia is not controversial, even if it is news. This sets aside the point, not made here but well known: the 10th edition of the Britannica is itself a reprint of the 9th. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:30, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

[edit]
Suggested FA criteria concerns are referencing and factual accuracy (1c), focus and structure (4). Marskell 08:45, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retain. I don't see any factual accuracy complaints but my own, now dealt with; White expresses himself somewhat obscurely, and I think the original editor may have misunderstood him. The philosophical implications of the story are, I believe, more or less consensus; all of them could be sourced from White's article, or others in the same issue of Variaciones Borges. I don't follow the complaints about structure. It would be a shame to lose so good, and so complete, an article from the Main Page. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:57, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If they could be sourced, why aren't they? An article which states (in the plot summary section no less), "In a world where there are no nouns — or where nouns are composites of other parts of speech, created and discarded according to a whim — and no things, most of Western philosophy becomes impossible." completely without a source does not meet featured article criteria at all. It reads like an essay and original research. Atropos 23:41, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per my above comments. Atropos 23:41, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove This article has a bunch of lists which violate 1a - "Names deriving from this story" and "Inspiration for real world projects" are disguised trivia sections which need conversion into proper prose which ties it's subject cohesively together through the paragraphs. Also, the name of the former section needs "deriving" changed to "derived". Also 1c is in violation - ""Tlön…" in the context of Borges's life and works" has a lot of original research without verification which comments upon the works of Borge. LuciferMorgan 01:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/archive/July_2007&oldid=765517065"