Wikipedia:Featured article review/archive/March 2008

Kept status

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

The article was kept 14:17, 30 March 2008.

---

Constitution of Belarus

Review commentary

Notified: User:Stephenb, User:LonelyMarble,‎ User:Pharaoh of the Wizards, User:Prodego, Wikipedia:WikiProject Europe, Wikipedia:WikiProject Belarus, Wikipedia:WikiProject Eastern Europe, Wikipedia:WikiProject Law, User:Ascidian‎, User:Keilana‎, User:Diligent Terrier, User:JimDunning‎, User:Zscout370, User:Lacrimosus

This article fails several FA criteria (1a, 1b, 1c, 1d, 2b, 3). Given the large number of issues it is probably not even deserving of GA status at present. It was chosen as an FA with just four (five, if the nominee is included) votes to two.

It reads as a summary of the contents of the Belarusian constitution and uses phrasing such as "approved by the Belarusian populace" to describe the referendums of 1996 and 2004, which were not up to international standards (in the article, this phrase wikilinks only to Referendum), and were widely held to have been falsified by President Alexander Lukashenko. The article headings are all capitalized, and no indication is given as to whether these headings are, in fact, titles. Strike-through text The background on the constitution and its evolution from Belarus's Soviet-era legal framework is rather thin, and it states that the country's 1990 independence declaration occurred "when Belarus became independent from the Soviet Union in 1991". The competing referendums of 1996 (first called by the parliament, then a rival referendum called by the president) are not described at all, nor are the allegations of fraud surrounding Lukashenko's referendum, and the fact that its end result was largely to do away with the constitution altogether. The article rather drolly states "In this amendment voted by referendum a number of significant changes were made to the Constitution, usually in order to strengthen the grip on power of the president"; in fact, this was seen by the opposition as a constitutional coup that eliminated the influence of parliament altogether, replacing it with a bicameral rubber-stamp assembly answerable only to the president. Other articles, such as Elections in Belarus, do a better job of mentioning the irregularities (including state-sponsored assassinations) that hinder political opposition.

We learn that both "referendums" extended Lukashenko's "term in office": "The voter turnout for the referendum was nearly 90%, with 77.3% of the voters agreeing to the amendment.[25] The changes were implemented on 2004-10-17.[31] Two years later, Lukashenko ran in the 2006 election and won with 83% of the vote during the first ballot.[32] With no term limits, Lukashenko states that, depending on his health, he will not retire from politics and might run for reelection in 2011.[33]" That's an interesting way of putting things, but it's not WP:NPOV. The only indication that this might not be perfectly democratic is the final paragraph: "Both referendums were severely criticized by the political opposition inside Belarus as well as by international observers, such as the OSCE. They state that both referendums were non-transparent, and that the real results were not published. Observers were not allowed to see the process of counting ballots.[34]"

There has already been concern expressed about the FA status on the article's talk page. This article needs a lot of work just to address the issue of WP:NPOV and addressing all aspects of its subject.

ProhibitOnions ^(T) 10:18, 29 February 2008 (UTC) *Delist as nom. ProhibitOnions ^(T) 10:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The reason why that section is thin because me and everyone else on that FAC cannot find anything in either English, Russian or Belarusian. Keep in mind a lot of sources cannot be found about Belarus, since not many people write about certain aspects of the country. From what I notice here, most wanted more information about the referendums that modified the Constitution. We have articles about those said referendums, so we can add relevant information there. Trying to keep a balance on just describing this document, without making it a general bashing of just Belarus or Lukashenko, is pretty hard. That sentence pointed out by ProhibitOnions, that was a quote by Lukashenko himself to a Belarusian newspaper on his future plans. He did mention about his health as a factor for running for office in 2011. I'm going to look over this, and maybe try to fix POV issues, but I wasn't intentionally trying to put any. But just keep in mind of the undue weight I mentioned earlier and keep in mind of what I said about Belarus in general. PO, please work with me. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 20:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to, and I don't mean anything against you for posting this (I'll be the first to commend you for putting a lot of work into the article). However, at present I can't agree with it being a FA, and I can't see it being easy to fix it enough to remain one. You agree there is a lack of sources (or at least online ones), and the article leaves out the important issue of the opposition movement and the (credible accusations of) manipulation of the constitution and referendums to end whatever democracy there had been in Belarus and to eliminate any challenge to Lukashenka's absolute rule (even though he'd probably have won an election if it were free and fair). FWIW, I was in Belarus very often at the time of the 1996 referendum and I kept a clip file from the newspapers, I've been looking all over for it, with no success so far! Regards, ProhibitOnions ^(T) 21:26, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

And keep in mind that I am a US citizen since birth, so whatever knowledge you have about Belarus in general is going to be more than what I can ever dig up. That is what hurt me at the FAC, but it still passed anyways. Hmm...I'll see if I can add a section about the opposition to the Constitution, but I don't want that to dominate the article about the document. I also added links to the articles about the specific referendums, so any specific information and quotes about the irregularities can be placed there. The articles about the elections are supposed to be summaries anyways. Just give me some time PO, it will be made back to FA standard. I have a copyedit request going on now, so many of the issues discussed on the talk page about prose is going to be fixed when someone gets around to it. The headers have been toyed around with before, but I am not sure on how to make it shorter. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 21:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I added a section about issues with the document, so I hope that helps. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 21:01, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

About the headings, I just had them as Article 1, Article 2, etc; but when it was on the Main Page recently, users have asked if the headings can have titles. From the book I own at my house, each sections do have a title and are translated into English at the website of President Lukashenko. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 21:04, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

So, what now? Anything else needs to be done? Anything specific that needs to be fixed? User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 20:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

This article contains Politics of Belarus Template, which references Constitutional Court of Belarus article. The last article is very short, so the reader isn't able to find basic data about Judicial interpretation in Belarus. I believe that a FA should include links to needed articles. An article lacking its context cannot be FA, because a reader isn't able to understand it, even if the article is correctly written. Xx236 (talk) 14:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Constitution_of_Belarus#Section_Four:_The_President.2C_Parliament.2C_Government.2C_the_Courts contains a link to the Constitutional Court and some stats about interpretation about laws and the constitutionality of them. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 19:45, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Constitutional Court reviewed 101 laws and decrees; they were deemed to be constitutional. Wow!Xx236 (talk) 09:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• That is the latest stats I found when I wrote that line. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 09:18, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Plus, it has an image, so how can I fail WIAFA 3? It is an official booklet published by the Belarusian Government. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 04:15, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comments: I wouldn't say the problems here are anywhere near the depth posited by ProhibitOnions, but there are some significant issues. Mainly 1a. I used United States Constitution as a frame of reference in judging 1b, and I don't note any major "missing" items considering the sources available. I have attempted to call out examples as I think a dedicated copyeditor could fix up the article within the scope of this FAR. In examples where information is missing, some research may be required. I can help with copyediting but probably not with researching.
  • General prose concern: The article is written almost exclusively in the passive voice, which does not make for smooth prose. I recommend taking a look at each sentence - when the subject is known and when the subject is the focus of the sentence, rewrite in active voice. Example: "The first Constitution of Belarus was signed on March 15, 1994 by the Speaker of the Supreme Soviet and Head of State Myechyslaw Hryb..."
  • Some uses of the passive voice actually eliminate the subject of the sentence when it should be stated. Example: "Three drafts of the proposed constitution were submitted to the Supreme Soviet deputies before it was adopted into law on March 28, 1994." This use omits who submitted the drafts, and therefore we don't know who wrote them. In fact, I can't readily find this information anywhere in the article.
  • "nine sections (including eight chapters)" Does this mean each of nine sections has eight chapters? It's unclear.
  • "The structure and substance of the Constitution were heavily influenced by constitutions of Western powers and by the nation's..." I would name Belarus again instead of saying "the nation".
  • "The use of this constitution continued..." Why not: "Belarus continued to use this constitution until..."
  • That same sentence has some hyphens with non-breaking spaces. Please see WP:DASH. You want either unspaced em dashes or spaced en dashes. Check the whole article for these.
  • "After the implementation of the Constitution of the Soviet Union, Belarus, now the Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, adopted a constitution in 1927." Unclear.. what constitution did Belarus adopt at this time? Not the Soviet one, you seem to be saying, and not the one that is the subject of this article.
  • Is "Zvezda" a newspaper? If so, should be italicized.
  • "The delay occurred due to debates among members of the Supreme Soviet, who were also trying to stave off the opposition and democratic forces who wanted to close the Supreme Soviet down for good." Maybe it's outside the scope of this article, but I'm not clear why the Supreme Soviet still had a say in things after the Soviet Union was dissolved.
  • "When drafting the Belarus Constitution, its authors..." Again, who?

I'll have to pick this up again later when I have time to review the actual content sections. --Laser brain (talk) 18:11, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I am fixing some of the grammar issues, but I have asked for a Copyedit about a month ago; the same time the article was on the Main Page. As for the Supreme Soviet; each Soviet Republic had their own legislature, just like each American state or Canadian province has one. Each of the SSR's assemblies were called the Supreme Soviet. From 1991 until 1996, the Supreme Soviet of Belarus was the only legislature. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 03:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, maybe we can tag-team this one. Can you work on finding a source for who the authors were? I can do some copyedits here and there over the next few days. --Laser brain (talk) 03:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Fine by me. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 03:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I think my point in listing this has been made. The sources available are weak and one-sided; the Constitution of the United States is a false comparison, as the Belarusian constitution is barely in effect; as the article hints at only in the last section, has been largely swept aside in favor of a personal dictatorship for life of the previously constitutionally elected officeholder (this included credible accusations of murder and imprisonment of political opponents, ballot-stuffing, and the heavy skewing of parliamentary voting rights to favor the president's rural strongholds and exclude the larger cities). The controversy regarding the referendums is not mentioned. Neutral-sounding language is used where this is not appropriate, giving an impression of impartiality ("approved by the populace") to actions of one side, where there was a national dispute (which is not mentioned). Furthermore, the related articles linked to in the Belarus politics infobox are themselves weak and often incoherent and one-sided, and fail to provide adequate context. None of these is an issue that can be quickly fixed by some tag-team editing (and I'll be glad to help improve it when I have time). The article is a good start. But it's not an FA - not even close. ProhibitOnions ^(T) 10:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

ProhibitOnions, I didn't mean to suggest that the article could be "quickly fixed" or indeed, to impugn your comments at all. I simply disagree with them. I used the US Constitution article as comparison because ultimately, I think this article needs to be primarily about the document; the volumes of political strife surrounding it might be better covered in another article such as Politics of Belarus or even History of the Constitution of Belarus. I'm sure there were nefarious deeds surrounding the US Constitution as well but those would be outside the scope of the article about the document. Make sense? --Laser brain (talk) 14:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The status of other articles should not, and will not, affect the status of this article. The same issues with all referendums are hinted at in the last section on purpose; the article is supposed to be about the document itself, not around meta issues. Specific information about problems with the votes should be placed on the articles about the elections. As Laser brain said, and as I said before, this article should focus about the document itself. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 18:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Again, the phony referendums are not "meta issues". They heavily amended the constitution, allowing it to be set aside and used as an occasional figleaf for Lukashenka's policies; in effect, the constitution was totally changed in 1996 to allow absolute rule. This belongs in the article, and offloading it to a link that doesn't provide any information on the controversy, only two lists of questions, means that something is missing from this article. It's not FA quality, sorry. ProhibitOnions ^(T) 21:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

So PO, is this what you are looking for or not? User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 21:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I also expanded a bit about the 2004 vote. Honestly, I personally think with the information I am adding, more emphasis is seeming to be placed on just one or two sections of this article. I believe I am getting close providing undue weight. I am thinking of just putting more information, which can go more in depth about he votes, at Amendments to the Belarusian Constitution and link that to this article. Does this sound fair? User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 21:52, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the article is written well, comprehensive and neutral - to a reasonable extent; there are a few odd stumbling blocks like the "approved by the Belarusian populace" (we should make it clear that's the government claim) - but overall it is much better than most of possible FARCs. It was also recently promoted, and is quite up to our modern standards. I suggest reviewing in two years or such, there are other more important cases ATM :) PS. Changes like this are definitely a step in the right direction.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 05:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I've been away for a few days and had another look at the article. I'd say that a lot of the substantial issues have now been addressed. Good work, folks. ProhibitOnions ^(T) 09:08, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

To be comprehensive this article should cite works by legal scholars who have analyzed Constitutions of Belarus, without such references this article looks amateurish too. --Doopdoop (talk) 18:31, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I am looking for works by legal scholars about the document, no such luck. I have found so far documents saying legal scholars have said x or y, but not a true analysis that you seek. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 19:33, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - I have completed a "once-over" of the article to correct prose issues but I will go over it again to pick up things I might have missed. --Laser brain (talk) 04:49, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I've withdrawn my delist comment, as it seemed there was little participation in this review by outside editors. The article is now significantly improved, but, especially in the section regarding the referendums, it does lean heavily on Belarusian government websites -- ie, one of the parties in the dispute -- and is still rather one-sided (it omits the parliamentary referendum proposal of 1996, and brushes over the changes Lukashenko made in 1995 that allowed him to dissolve parliament on "corruption" charges). Issues such as the adoption of the Soviet-era flag in 1995 are also constitutional changes. ProhibitOnions ^(T) 07:45, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I wanted to focus on the document itself, but I understand what you mean about the flag and emblem are constitutional changes. Article 19 stipulates the national symbols of the nation and each article on the symbols are also Featured. I mentioned the 1995 vote, but when I look at sources, they mostly focus on the flag and emblem changes. Can you link me to the 1996 parliamentary referendum proposal so I can look at it sometime this weekend? But as for editor participation, you could have asked on the talk page and I would have helped you about this. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 07:58, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are prose (1a), comprehensiveness (1b), referencing (1c), POV (1d), and images (3). Marskell (talk) 19:14, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment: This has seen a good deal of article. Moving to get comments on status. Marskell (talk) 19:14, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep, the nominator has withdrawn his major objections. The prose needs another good copyedit to meet 1a, but that should be easy to accomplish. I was never sure how the article didn't meet criterion 3. The existing image has a correct copyright status and I'm not sure what other images could improve the article. --Laser brain (talk) 19:24, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I tried to ask about the images but I didn't get a response about them. The image displayed now is of a photo of a booklet printed by the Belarusian Government that I own. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 03:33, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
• Remove, per 1c (only one ref citing works by legal scholars).--Doopdoop (talk) 23:39, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Doopdoop, this is not a realistic expectation for this article. A serious scholarly work on this document, if it exists at all, would almost certainly be in Russian and probably inaccessible. --Laser brain (talk) 02:48, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
    • There are hundreds of millions of Russian speaking people in the world... --Doopdoop (talk) 22:34, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
      • If a Russian user wants to add legal commentary by scholars, then sure, he or she is welcome too. But I keep on looking for English sources and I have not found much yet. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 23:09, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep as main author. Doopdoop mentions that there is lack of legal scholars dealing with sourcing. I am going to look for more sources now, but I cannot promise to have everything cited by legal scholars. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 00:18, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep I acknowledge that the article is not as critical of Lukashenko as it could or should be, however, I'm not sure it's fair to oppose on the grounds that the article is too neutral. I have no problem with the other criteria. On a very minor (almost negligible) MoS point, the dates in the references are not uniformally formatted. DrKiernan (talk) 17:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

As for the dates, I used this as a way to format the citations. Some sources I have full dates on, and others I don't. If I find to happen more information about the dates, they will be fixed. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 17:45, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The article was kept 12:24, 27 March 2008.

---

Matthew Brettingham

Notified Wikipedia:WikiProject Architecture, User:Giano and User:Danny.

It's not in compliance with WP:LEAD, it's has poor citations, and there are certain other MOS issues. I realize that this has been nominated for FAR(C) twice before, and kept rather strongly, but standards change, and the last nomination was two years ago. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 00:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

My initial impression is that the article is a strong one. I intend to go through the article more carefully, and will try to address the issues raised above. DrKiernan (talk) 10:14, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Do people like this image or not:

The North Front of Kedleston Hall "has been described as 'the grandest Palladian façade in Britain, and with few rivals anywhere in the world'".

Unfortunately, there's scaffolding up at the moment so it's not the best. Also, the lighting's bad but there's not a great deal I can do about that when photographing a north front in winter. DrKiernan (talk) 17:16, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Consider asking one of the experts at Featured Images to see if they can improve the photo; otherwise, I don't think this photo will be helpful in bringing the article in line for featured status. Risker (talk) 18:58, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Good idea. I've uploaded a modified version. DrKiernan (talk) 08:44, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

What do you find poor about the citations? I don't quite follow. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:03, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I've added eight extra references since that original comment was made. DrKiernan (talk) 10:05, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I see, good work. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:31, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow DrK, you went above and beyond in actually going and out taking a pic for a FAR! I agree the lighting isn't great, but it's good enough for article space, IMO, and I think should be included.

Are people ready to keep this in general? Marskell (talk) 19:35, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, it should be kept. The lead, like the article, is short but succinct. It could be broken into 2 paras if that will make people happier, or added to, although it seems to include all major points. The citations, now improved, look sufficient to me. More pics are needed, and the Dr's excellent effort should certainly go in, improved or not. Country houses in the north of England don't spend much of their time basking in sunshine, and there is no harm in a photo showing a more typical situation. Johnbod (talk) 15:31, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, I'd be happy to close this too. I agree that the lead, though short, contains the relevant points. I've moved up the older picture of Kedleston to the lead, as the caption encapsulates the essence of the article, and moved the picture of Holkham to the "Architect" section. DrKiernan (talk) 09:17, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The article was kept 19:21, 15 March 2008.

---

Book of Kells

Notified Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland, Wikipedia:WikiProject Middle Ages,‎ Wikipedia:WikiProject Anglicanism‎, Wikipedia:WikiProject Religious texts‎, Wikipedia:WikiProject Visual arts, User:Dsmdgold

This is an outstanding well-written article. However, it has only a handful of inline citations. This was not much of an issue when it was approved as a featured article in 2005, but as I understand, it's absolutely essential today. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 02:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I was the primary author of this article. (Thank you for your characterization of it, by the way.) I've been half expecting this for over a year. When this article was nominated, the inline citation feature was very poorly implemented. I no longer have easy access to the materials needed to provide inline citation for this article, as I borrowed all of them via inter-library loan. Nor will I be able to work on this in this next few weeks. If someone has access to a university library, the most important sources were, in order,: Henry, Francoise. The Book of Kells, Henderson, George. From Durrow to Kells: the Insular Gospel-books, 650–800, and Calkins, Robert G. Illuminated Books of the Middle Ages. Dsmdgold (talk) 03:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I do not have access to the above sources, but may be of some help. -- SECisek (talk) 09:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I can get these and would be happy to help. Kafka Liz (talk) 12:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I have Calkins, and other relevant books (see my user page). I will see what I can do, but I expect Henry is needed really. Johnbod (talk) 12:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I've got the Henry, but not Henderson. I picked some other stuff up too while I was at it, but I don't think I can put much time into it until this evening at the earliest. Kafka Liz (talk) 16:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

You'd better go first with Henry - Calkins tends to ref back to her. Johnbod (talk) 18:03, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Will do, then. Kafka Liz (talk) 18:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The lead could do with some work if anybody feels like tackling it. Ceoil (talk) 21:55, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I can take a crack at it after I've put in the Henry refs. Kafka Liz (talk) 13:19, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Whoa, yeah. That's the very first thing I noticed. Helltopay27 (talk) 03:38, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Update: I've reworked the lead now and would welcome any feedback. I've tried to make it more concise without eliminating any of the essential information. Please let me know what you think. Kafka Liz (talk) 03:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

It needs to be a good deal longer (and I'm a lead minimalist). See WP:LEAD - this is a long article, so the lead should be close to the 4 para recommended max here I think. Johnbod (talk) 03:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. :) This is the first article of length that I've put any substantial work into, and I wasn't sure how long it should be. I'll get to work on expanding it. Thanks again, Kafka Liz (talk) 10:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for doing the donkey work! Btw, if you saw the "citations" para of WP:LEAD, I would personally think this is a case where no citations may be necessary in the lead, so long as everything is cited when it is expanded lower down, unless anyone disagrees. Johnbod (talk) 13:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I'm enjoying working on this a lot - I wish I had more time for it! :) I agree that the lead doesn't need citations; I think that the references below should cover things pretty well. My plans are 1) expand the lead; 2) do some overall light copyediting; 3) finish standardising the notes and references; and 4) do a final check for citations. Thanks again for your help and feedback. Kafka Liz (talk) 16:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• Sounds good to me. Johnbod (talk) 19:02, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Citations

Update: I've begun adding citations. Does anyone have access to In Search of Ancient Ireland: The Origins of the Irish from Neolithic Times to the Coming of the English? The reference is missing a page number. I should be able to find it on Monday, but if anyone has the information now, that would be great. In the meantime, I'll keep plugging away. Kafka Liz (talk) 22:09, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, no. Page numbers for Henry would be better too. She is in the References section, so just "Henry:99" or whatever. Johnbod (talk) 22:37, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

The page number(s) are there, just before the ISBN. I can shorten the reference so they are more prominent, if you think that would be preferable. Kafka Liz (talk) 22:52, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Everything is on page 150? Since the full details (less ISBN link etc) are in the sources, they aren't needed in Notes also. Johnbod (talk) 01:48, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I know it looks wierd, it really all is on 150. I'll shorten the citation as you suggest. Kafka Liz (talk) 12:08, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

You guys have been doing a great job here, thanks. For the contents section, if I remember correctly, Calkins has a complete list of contents in an appendix. Dsmdgold (talk) 23:53, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

That's right. I can do that. Johnbod (talk) 00:23, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Update: I've been plugging away at adding Henry references, but I'm at a point now -- the Decoration section -- where Calkins may be the better source. I'll keep working on it, but perhaps Johnbod may want to take a look at it? Thanks, Kafka Liz (talk) 12:06, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok - will do. Johnbod (talk) 12:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I think I've got everything out of Calkins & Nordenfalk now - some bits like on the pigments and the details are similar in calkins, but have extra info he doesn't. Johnbod (talk) 18:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll check through Henry again this evening then. I'll straighten out the references formatting for the notes and sources so we don't have unneccessary duplication. I can work on the lead and do some general copyediting as well, if no one objects. Kafka Liz (talk) 19:11, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment There has been a huge amount of work here in the last two weeks; I'm a keep in lieu of an more substantial lead. Ceoil (talk) 16:35, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• Hi, Ceoil. I'm working on expanding the lead should have something ready to post in an hour or two. :) Kafka Liz (talk) 19:35, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I think we are very nearly there, but perhaps need more art-critical stuff on why the book is so famous as art. I have added a bit to the lead and below, but we could use more. The usual WP puritanical attitude to any subjective etc appreciation may have held people back, but it is easy enough to reference. I'd be incline to move the lead sentence beginning "The lettering..." on the pigments etc down below, or shorten it in the lead. Nordenfalk says the scribes and the artists of at least the small text page decorations were the same people. If Henry agrees, this should go in. Johnbod (talk) 00:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I've been trying to pull together a short paragraph for the lead that summarizes the manuscript's importance without either being overly repetitive or requiring substantial additions to the main body of the text. There's so much that can be written about the Book that it's hard to reduce it to a few short sentences. Regarding the sentence on lettering and pigments, it may be best for now to shorten it in the lead and move the details to the main article. I had planned on adding a paragraph describing them, but until that happens, we should probably move it. I'll check on the scribes and artists; I also have more recent sources who have identified a fourth scribe, and this information should be added too. I haven't had a lot of time this weekend, but I should be able to add more tomorrow. Kafka Liz (talk) 01:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Great - I think we also need a brief mention of the importance of the book as an Irish national symbol, and (surely) Ireland's best known national treasure etc. Johnbod (talk) 02:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I think I've done all I can with the lead, unless you have any specific points that I've overlooked. Just let me know. I moved the bit on the pigments (as you saw) and made the lead more general. Regarding the scribes and artists, Henry implies they may be the same in some places, i.e. she discusses the lettering and the figures as though they were done by the same hand, she seems hesitant to commit to their being the same people. Other sources I've looked at so far seem to be generally ambivalent on the matter. Kafka Liz (talk) 15:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• I can't think of anything else to do -except we might have room for a new pic next to the TOC, with the longer lead; there's always one more thing! Better leave the artist/scribe issue. Well done! Johnbod (talk) 16:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks, and thanks for the feedback along the way! Kafka Liz (talk) 09:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep issues addressed; now 54 citations (I make it), a far better lead & various other improvements. Johnbod (talk) 02:36, 15 March 2008 (UTC)*
• Keep I concur with Johnbod. The issues initially raised have been addressed. Kafka Liz (talk) 09:43, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep The quality of the prose alone is something to be proud of. There is always more to be done, no article is perfect, but please don't demote this one.--GrahamColm^Talk 10:02, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Great work, everyone! Closing. Marskell (talk) 19:13, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The article was kept 14:46, 15 March 2008.

---

Music of Athens, Georgia

Review commentary

Notified User:TUF-KAT, Wikipedia:WikiProject Regional and national music, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Georgia (U.S. state).

Doesn't satisfy 1a: This article is in need of copyediting. Also, 1c is not satisfied: there are several unsourced statements. I question 1d neutrality as well. 2a: lead is not concise. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 00:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

• I've made some edits, fixing a few things, partially reverting a chunk of it to the version originally featured. There's still some things to do (e.g. update referencing to use the citation templates), which I'll get to in the next couple days. I may also be able to expand the article a bit. What specifically do you not like about the lead? At two rather brief paragraphs, it's definitely concise. Tuf-Kat (talk) 07:07, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't really thinking when I wrote that last part. (Hey, it was pretty late when I wrote that, and I was tired!) The section marked still needs some copyediting, though. The previous section also has some formatting issues. If those are finished, then I'll support it being an FA. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 03:39, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I've done some major copyediting on that section, and have boldly removed the "needs editing" template - feel free to reinstate it if you still aren't satisfied, I just like to get those sorts of things off featured articles unless someone actively wants them there. I've made various changes to the section before that, not sure if that fixes the formatting issues you mention or not. I've started fixing up the references to modern wiki standard, but I've gotta go now, so I'll finish up later. There's at least two dead links which I'll fix one way or another. Tuf-Kat (talk) 21:47, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I've fixed the references and all other issues I'm aware of. I'll do another copyedit tomorrow to see if there's anything else I missed, but I think it looks good. Tuf-Kat (talk) 03:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

• Question Under the Fair Use criteria is it okay to have as many as eight music samples in one article?--Peter Andersen (talk) 18:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  • As far as I know, the number in a single article doesn't really matter. If each sample were documenting the same thing (e.g. if they were all from B-52s songs) that might weaken the claim, because you couldn't say that each recording was uniquely irreplaceable. But these aren't all documenting the same thing, they're presenting a variety of different components of the subject. Tuf-Kat (talk) 00:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. Several issues:

• My main gripe with the lead currently is the fact it focuses on what people say about the city's music scene, rather than efficiently summarising its venues and major styles.
• The samples also need more explanation, and a wider range of music (or splitting the huge box) would be better.
• Prose, organisation and flow issues; one para in the Rock section starts with the B52's formation and ends with R.E.M.'s musical style. Let me know if you need some examples. CloudNine (talk) 01:24, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are prose (1a), citations (1c), neutrality (1d), and LEAD (2a). Marskell (talk) 19:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not aware of any outstanding concerns over citations or neutrality, and I'll take a look at the other stuff this week. Tuf-Kat (talk) 21:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I've made a stab at the lead. It still talks about what people have said about the city's music, but not as much and less prominently. I'll work over the prose issues momentarily. Please let me know if there are any further issues. Tuf-Kat (talk) 18:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
    • I'll try to look this over tomorrow, Tuf-Kat. Good work, as ever. Marskell (talk) 18:48, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
      • I did a bit more major surgery, including a little bit of expansion (nothing major, just a few facts here and there). Tuf-Kat (talk) 20:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Everything else looks good, but the prose is a bit rough going. Since I'm not a prose guru, I can't put a finger on it, but some of the sentences were hard to get through. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:47, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• I'll give it another go-through tonight or tomorrow. The changes you made look good. Tuf-Kat (talk) 03:13, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The article was kept 18:25, 13 March 2008.

---

Elias Ashmole

Review commentary

Notified User:PRiis‎, Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Science and academia‎, Wikipedia:WikiProject Astrology‎, Wikipedia:WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology

I stumbled across this article by clicking on a random FA from the main list. The article does not appear to meet the criteria of 1c and 2c concerning sourcing. There are no inline citations present throughout the article, although there is a list of references. The list does not document what facts, quotes, or other information it covers. The article does a good job concerning using free images, but there are also various MOS issues present in the article. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 04:52, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: Major problems here. 1b primiraly, and also there was a glaring and deliberate falsehood in the lead.[1] [2]. Ceoil (talk) 00:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Unfortunate; but any article can be attacked by cranks. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
• As for Nehrams's statement, The list does not document what facts, quotes, or other information it covers. That is simply false; it begins:
  • Both Garnett's 1891 entry in the DNB and Michael Hunter's 2004 entry in the ODNB agree on the facts of Ashmole's life. Hunter's is, however, more detailed and makes use of a wider range of sources and benefits from more current scholarship. Beresiner's article has additional details on Ashmole's connection with early Freemasonry.The most recent intellectual biography of Elias Ashmole is Vittoria Feola's doctoral thesis, "Elias Ashmole and the Uses of Antiquity", University of Cambridge, 2005.

Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Although the list has the initial paragraph mentioning that the two sources cover information in the article, it does not say specifically, along with the other sources, what they cover. The article does utilize the Harvard referencing, but more inline citations should be present throughout the article. The article would further benefit from either the Harvard references or if desired, using the citation templates, specifying what information comes from which source, page number, author, publish date, etc. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 01:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

• I plan on reading some material on Ashmole over the weekend, and will hopefully be able to make some edits next week to expand it further and introduce additional inline references. DrKiernan (talk) 14:06, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are references and their formatting (1c and 2c). Marskell (talk) 18:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• I guess it's OK to change parenthetic citations to footnotes? Gimmetrow 23:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep I've added extra material, sources and notes, and in the process converted the Harvard references to footnotes. The remaining references in parentheses are in the footnotes, where I think they are appropriate. DrKiernan (talk) 14:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Nice work! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The article was kept 01:41, 11 March 2008.

---

ESRB re-rating of The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion

Jmcc has notified Geuiwogbil, Sdornan, Ember of Light, WikiProject Video Games, Hermione is a dude, MTd2, 209.253.119.2, Koalorka, NTK, Yanksox, Awareshiftjk, Piotrus, 124.191.74.29, EnemyOfTheState, Zidel333, Eusebeus, Tempshill, Nydas, 76.186.199.89, Masterhomer, 58.111.132.29, SGGH, 66.234.51.139, Petepetepetepete, Oberiko, and Marskell.

I nominate this article on the grounds that it fails to meet the criterion of high quality writing. A featured article should have prose "that is engaging, even brilliant, and of professional standard". In my opinion any article that contains sentences over 50 words long has not been properly edited. By no stretch could the word "brilliance" be applied. For example the summary contains too much detail and yet does not summarise the whole article. The key issue should be concisely and clearly stated in the first or second sentence. As I understand it a publisher of a game was forced to re-rate a game because someone else had modified it without permission. Instead the article's second sentence could best be described as oblique, saying "In their press release on the decision, the ESRB called attention to the presence, in the published edition of Oblivion, of game content not considered in the ESRB review." This failure to explain clearly and concisely this decision by ESRB persists throughout the article. The article also uses jargon which is not linked to another Wikipedia article nor is it explained in the article itself. It should be possible for someone to read a featured article on a subject with which one is unfamiliar without losing the will to live after a few sentences. JMcC (talk) 12:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Response by Geuiwogbil

• Please notify relevant parties, as per the FAR instructions. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 14:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• I believe the WP:VG project counts as a relevant party. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 15:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• WP:TES, although perhaps quieter now than it once was, is still the primary Wikiproject overseeing this article. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 16:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• There are also large number of individuals who have commented on related talk pages, though they have not participated in article writing as of yet: Piotrus, Andreas Willow, NTK, Awareshiftjk, Eusebeus, Peter Isolato (on Wikibreak as of 9:20 AM EST this morning), and David Fuchs. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 15:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• You might also consider notifying those who participated in the relatively recent FAC: Lenin and McCarthy, HurricaneHink, Danaman5 and RockMFR. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 16:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• There is also the GA reviewer, H20, formerly known as Giggy, who you might consider contacting. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 16:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• There are a number of commentators on the relatively recent AFD as well, the most prominent of which are: Arkyan, Krator, Resolute, Corpx, Deckiller, and Guyinblack25. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 16:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• I was also in contact with PresN during most of the writing of the article. He might now be interested. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 16:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Jmcc, some of your notifications are untrue: User:Petepetepetepete, for example, has not "made comments about this article on its talk page". The only comments he has made of any relevance were two (1, 2) postings to the Village Pump. Please ensure that all your comments are entirely accurate. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 17:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• First rectifiable point: "the summary contains too much detail and yet does not summarise the whole article". Sub-point: What would you like covered in the lead that is not covered at present? What details would you like removed? Geuiwogbil (Talk) 15:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Second rectifiable point: the "key issue should be concisely and clearly stated in the first or second sentence". It is stated in the first and second sentences: the ESRB changed the rating; the ESRB did so because the game contained content not in the package Bethesda sent them. Now, the thought that the "publisher of a game was forced to re-rate a game because someone else had modified it without permission" is not true: the third party distributed a modification that unlocked an unused file via third party channels. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 15:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Third rectifiable point: "The article also uses jargon which is not linked to another Wikipedia article nor is it explained in the article itself." If you would identify this jargon, I could explain it. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 15:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Some further issues not explicitly raised here, but previously mentioned on article talk:

• There are "too many" quotations "interspersed with the text", making this article "difficult to read". Using "loads of" quotes also "calls into question" whether this is really a "neutral article" or if it just recites what "people say about themselves".--Nydas^(Talk) 22:12, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
• Sourcing isn't the problem, it's the way they're selected and worded that's the problem. The quotes used in this article (and the rest of the wording as well) make it seem like ESRB are a bunch of bumbling bureaucrats over-reacting. For example, repeatedly quotifying the phrase 'pertinent content' makes it seem more outlandish than it actually is.--Nydas^(Talk) 09:18, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• Nydas has personally done some work on this front. I'm not sure if he's yet satisfied with what's been done. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 15:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not yet satisfied. In this case, excessive quote use injects non-neutral points of view and blubbery bureaucratic language into the article. The quotes in this article make the ESRB seem like reactionary, small-minded twits. They're a government agency, so they can't use the sort of emotive language that their critics use, leading to a fundamental imbalance.--Nydas^(Talk) 19:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you for taking the time to review this article, Jmccc. I believe it would have been possible to resolve these issues on the article talk page before bringing them up to FAR. But its done, and we're here, so lets see what can be done. I do hope we can resolve these issues quickly and efficiently. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 15:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I notified the recent contributors using article stats script but as Geuiwogbil requested I have also informed the project group. Few other people seemed to make significant many contributions. I think much has to be done to this article rather than quick fixes, hence its nomination for a review. I do not want to spend too much time re-writing an article of minor importance. The summary is trying to tell the story rather give in three of four sentences an outline of the events and their importance. Geuiwogbil states that my attempt at summarising what the article is about was incorrect. This seems to reinforce my point. If I have not understood what the article is about from the summary, then the summary has failed to its job. The fact that only the bizarre ruling by the US agency applied to this game is an important point that should be in the summary if only to show that it is a parochial event. If you cannot find terms such as modder in a conventional dictionary, it needs a link or an explanation. I have never said that the quotations are a problem, though they do make the article more difficult to read. JMcC (talk) 16:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• I have rendered "independent modder" as "client". I'm not sure that captures all the reverse-engineering nuance of the original term, but it provides the basics. Another possible term: "consumer"? Geuiwogbil (Talk) 16:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• There was no general problem with your summary: you seem to have captured the basics of the affair. Where you were incorrect, though, was in detail. That is something that would have been resolved by closer reading, not something you could have taken in all at once. I am open to suggestions, however, on how you think the phrase might have been better rendered. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 16:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• I know you have not said that. I am bringing it up as an issue that others have noted in regards to the article, and as one which would perhaps be relevant to a FAR. This is a general review. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 16:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• "The summary is trying to tell the story rather [than?] give in three of [or?] four sentences an outline of the events and their importance." I'd like some clarification as to what this sentence means. You are referring to WP:LEAD, correct? Geuiwogbil (Talk) 16:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• So do you feel that it doesn't convey a good narrative, or that it fails to reproduce the important parts of the affair? Geuiwogbil (Talk) 16:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Is it better, now that Krator has made some clarificatory edits? Geuiwogbil (Talk) 17:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment - I made some edits, and I think the article is now up to FA standards. It is not abnormal for an article that has recently been featured to go for FAR. A lot of people who haven't read the article before read it then, and offer comments and suggestions. User:Krator (t c) 16:48, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah, OK. Thanks for the clarification, Krator. (Krator has made some clarifying edits to the lead, and some dequotifications elsewhere.) Geuiwogbil (Talk) 16:52, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment I have included a couple of links which I feel appropriate:

1. Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Featured_article_process_reformation_.2F_Recall_of_the_Featured_Article_Director while this discussion is about the FA procedure in general, started by NTK, it contains many comments on this particular articles quality.
2. and of course, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/ESRB re-rating of The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion for obvious reasons.

For my own to cents, I feel the tweaks above should be enough to fix any issues, and I worry that part of the problem is that some people just don't deem the topic suitable enough for FA. I myself almost fell into that trap. SGGH ^speak! 17:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment - After reviewing the article, I have not been able to identify problems with the quality of sources. There are some areas where I feel the citation may have crept slightly over time, or where sentence structure has degraded over time. There are a large number of sentences that have been strung together with four or five commas. There are also a large number of quotes (even quotes within quotes) which could be rationalised. All of these issues could be resolved by a copyedit or peer review to bring it back up to scratch. If required, I would be happy to lend some assistance on this. Gazimoff (talk) 18:49, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - The sources are lacking in this article; there aren't any from non-gaming related organisations. Here's one from CNN: [3], offering a different perspective, concentrating on Take-Two Interactive. The political fallout also needs to be covered in more depth.--Nydas^(Talk) 19:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• That's more concerning. The article states that the public at large were not aware of the event, inferring that it did not get picked up by the mainstream press and hence why none are sourced. If it was picket up by the mainstream press, who had a different take on the story, it should be included and the article rebalanced to take account of this. That's more than just a simple copyedit. Gazimoff (talk) 20:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment: I think the biggest flaw of the article is that for people not familiar with the ESRB or with video games, the two lead paragraphs (a) don't call out why this event is of any interest, and (b) are super dull (IMO), comprising a narrative instead of telling the reader why it's important. The reason this event riles up some video gamers is that the makers of the game got penalized because of a mod, which raises questions of fairness. Is it fair to rate a game based on content that is not reachable? (This nicely simple question is, unfortunately, almost mooted by the "hanging corpse" art, which, as far as I can tell from the article, is available in the game as normal content, so in the case of Oblivion it's not solely about unreachable content.) I'll try to take a crack at this in the coming week or two but my time is limited unfortunately. Tempshill (talk) 19:48, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The article was kept 18:38, 10 March 2008.

---

Crushing by elephant

Review commentary

User:ChrisO notified; Wikipedia:WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia notified —Preceding unsigned comment added by GrittyLobo441 (talk • contribs) 05:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

To begin with, the section "Asian powers" relies on quotations more than what is acceptable for a professionally written encyclopedic entry. The first two paragraphs under the section "Cultural aspects" contain specific information that is not cited properly or at all. The section "Geographical scope" also contains very specific information yet is devoid of inline citations.

Furthermore, the content itself is not generally written to a standard I expect from a featured article.

• "Cultural aspects": The first sentence makes the claim, "The use of elephants as executioners was inextricably bound up with the use of the animals as symbols of royal power." This has nothing to do with the sentence that directly follows it, which states, "The intelligence, domestication and versatility of elephants gave them considerable advantages over the wild animals such as lions and bears often used by the Romans as executioners." It would seem that this discussion as to why elephants are preferable over other animals for carrying out executions ties in with the next paragraph which goes on to explain why horses tend not to trample people. These thoughts are tied together and should not be separated by a paragraph break. As for the first sentence, "The use of...," I don't see where this fits in with the discussion comparing elephants to other animals vis-à-vis execution.
• "Asian powers": This section relies entirely too much on quotations and doesn't focus on the meanings behind the quotations in a manner befitting an encyclopedic entry.

Finally, given the amount of information, more images would be ideal.

I do believe this article can easily be a good article with these suggested improvements and other similar revisions. However, I don't think it's of the quality of the majority of featured articles on Wikipedia.
—GrittyLobo441 (talk) 05:12, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll add what I said during the FAC—this article covers more than just crushing. It should either be renamed to Death by elephant, Execution by elephant, etc. or edited to focus on crushing specifically. See my comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Crushing by elephant for details. Pagrashtak 06:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

• I don't agree that the "Asian powers" section has too many quotations; what does Gritty Lobo suggest, that these rather vivid quotes are replaced by a turgid precis? More analysis and context would be good certainly. The lack of citations in places is more of an issue. The title is ok in my view. Johnbod (talk) 12:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  • If you're ok with the title, how do you feel about this quote from the article, which does not cover crushing by elephant? Should we remove this part of the article? "The King makes use of them for Executioners; they will run their Teeth [tusks] through the body, and then taer [sic] it in pieces, and throw it limb from limb. They have sharp Iron with a socket with three edges, which they put on their Teeth at such times..." Pagrashtak 16:51, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I think crushing is sufficiently established as the main method to take the title. The others should be, and are, redirects. Is this your only issue with the article? Johnbod (talk) 17:00, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Crushing might be the main method, but if this article is to cover all manner of executions by elephant, the title needs to reflect that. I think the comment about the amount of quotations also bears some consideration, but I don't have any major problems with the article, no. Pagrashtak 17:21, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

But it's explained in the very first sentence that all these techniques have been known, for centuries, as literally "casting beneath an elephant's feet" or "crushing by elephant". In my opinion, to change the name of the article away from a centuries old title would be a form of hypercorrection, somewhat akin to requesting a rename of the coconut article because it's technically a fruit, not a nut. --JayHenry (talk) 07:17, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• A section whose content consists of 41% (+/- 2%) quotations should not be in an article that is supposed to have "engaging, brilliant" prose, especially when that section comprises 58% (+/- 3%) of the entire article. The question is whether this article meets all featured article criteria or if it has the kind of noticeable flaws that Pagrashtak and I have pointed out. Quotations typically represent a point of view. Whether they are "vivid" is usually irrelevant unless they, though delivered in a dynamic manner, don't detract from the neutrality, propriety, correctness, and professionalism of the article and its subject matter. Considering that real encyclopedia entries typically don't have, much less rely on, quotations, I don't think this particular article, while informative, is representative of the best that Wikipedia has to offer.
  —GrittyLobo441 (talk) 08:08, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Some sweeping generalizations there, imho! I don't think it would be impossible to find similar sections in historical articles in other encyclopedias. Sources may have a POV but in history they are often all there is. Johnbod (talk) 08:50, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are citations (1c), prose quality (1a), and focus (4). Marskell (talk) 10:22, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

• I think this is a keep. The uncited claims are not, in my opinion, controversial. That Hannibal used war elephants is common knowledge as is the extensive use of elephants in cultural ceremonies in Asia. If someone genuinely doubts these claims, I'm confident I can find a source. The article makes use of five long quotations. I simply can't agree that less than half a dozen is still too many for an encyclopedia article, especially since they are mostly quotations of historical documents. The claim that five quotations is too many is surprising to me, and perhaps it's the quote boxes themselves rather than the quotes that are the problem? We could reformat this several ways, such as using the less obtrusive blockquote instead, or using a right floating quote box. Perhaps that would be a satisfactory compromise? In short, while this article is quirky, I don't think a rigid homogeneity is the goal in our featured content, and this satisfies WP:WIAFA by my reading. --JayHenry (talk) 05:01, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
• Remove. I stand by my previous sentiments, as no substantial changes have been made to the article. The lack of citations where proper does contribute to a sense of informality by which most articles on Wikipedia are plagued. Common knowledge is a myth. It's presumptuous and dangerous to assume that there exist facts people should know out of hand, and this is certainly no excuse for the lack of proper citation. Furthermore, considering the length of the article, five long quotations is stepping way over the line. The quick succession of these quotations disregards the style requirement for a featured article. Reformatting them, in my opinion, doesn't take away from the fact that the quotations, though they address the subject matter, contribute only in the sense that they are taken word-for-word from a cited source, as opposed to being integrated into a format befitting an encyclopedic entry as would normally be expected. For these reasons, while the article in question is certainly good, it is not among the very best Wikipedia has to offer.—GrittyLobo441 (talk) 17:13, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. I agree with JayHenry that this is within WP:WIAFA. I don't see an issue with the title, nor do I see the number of quotations as a problem. They are unusually vivid, and give a strong indication on how this practice was viewed different times. Ceoil (talk) 23:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
• Hold on now. Lead is insufficient, and a couple of refs lack info. It would be nice if the book sources could be given their own section (Notes followed by References, as on others). I tend to agree that its mistitled—this is Execution by elephant (and what a horrible way to be executed it is!). It is rather quote heavy, but I don't see that as a remove basis. Marskell (talk) 16:28, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
• Still needs work—lead is a little short, and the reference section needs tweaking per Marskell. A copy-edit would also be nice; there are a few missing commas and the occasional redundant word. I think it's pretty close though. — Deckiller 19:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - It is a nice article and I find the highlighted concerns to be largely nitpicky. --Blacksun (talk) 16:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep There really isn't any justifiable reason not to. DrKiernan (talk) 18:26, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
• Given the general keep sentiment, I'll try to give this a go over myself. This isn't in remove territory, but it's still not quite a keep. Marskell (talk) 18:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I'd be willing to help with this as well, but it'll be a little more than a week before I'll have any time as I'm traveling at the moment. --JayHenry (talk) 03:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Actually, I think I'm just going to keep it. Reading it more closely, I think the quotes give it a rich flavour and it's hard to call that a remove basis. It's been gone over by DrK and Ceoil, and I just expanded the lead. Marskell (talk) 18:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep I thought I already had !voted. Per others. Johnbod (talk) 19:17, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The article was kept 01:09, 2 March 2008.

---

Cynna Kydd

Review commentary

WikiProject Australian sports and WikiProject Biography notified.

I was the primary author and FA nominator of this article, but it's plainly clear that it isn't up to FA standard any longer - among other things, it's gotten quite out of date. I haven't got around to fixing it recently, and I don't know when I will, so it's probably time to get it off the FA page. Rebecca (talk) 22:54, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Rebecca dearest, leave this tidy little article alone until someone else complains—she ain't perfect, but she's alright. Michael ^talk 10:15, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

While what Rebecca is doing is honourable, I'd rather not see it go...anyways, a few suggestions for keeping it up, if I may (and if anyone wants to do it).

• The first paragraph of the lead could be expanded to include her "greatest" highlights in her career or something like that
• A free image would be good

I suppose there isn't much else I can say except sourcing! I'll go through and add some {{fact}}s to it - hope this helps...— Dihydrogen Monoxide _(Review) 23:25, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

• • Blnguyen's updates have actually pretty much addressed the issues I had with the article. The lead still could do with a little bit of work, and maybe a little more detail on the recent updates, but it's no longer out of date. The remaining problems are relatively small, and I'll see if I can have a go at them in the next couple days. It'd be great if we could actually manage to keep thi featured. Rebecca (talk) 07:20, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• Am I right in guessing that this mixed competition in the UK is not professional? That's why I put "former Australian professional"...in the lead. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:23, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• I'll try and throw some stuff into the lead. Dihydrogen Monoxide (party) 09:23, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concern is up-to-dateness (1b). Marskell (talk) 08:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

• Update I updated the article. There isn't much to do. She signed up to play in NZ at the end of 2006 but hasn't played at pro level since then. I think it's looking better. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:43, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
• Lead expanded a bit, still a few {{fact}}s. Dihydrogen Monoxide (party) 09:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I intend to fix the couple of remaining issues with this article in the next few days, but am currently a bit distracted due to some offline issues. Could people refrain from closing this until I've had a chance to get to the article? Rebecca (talk) 18:01, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

What's the status here? Nothing happening on the article since last post. Marskell (talk) 09:32, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• Remove, since nothing is happening, and there are still numerous cite needed tags. (The piped links to years in sports are irritating.) I also see text redundancies, some strange punctuation, ce needs, example: ... they would be sidelined for most or all of the season because of pregnancy, and Kydd was called upon to fill the vacancy caused by their departure. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm inclined to wait a little while longer: [4]. DrKiernan (talk) 10:36, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Ya, I'm waiting for Rebecca. Marskell (talk) 12:39, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Ack, sorry, I missed that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:46, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I've fixed all but one of the cites and updated the lead, so the article is practically there. It just needs something to be done about the infobox, SandyGeorgia's grammar quibbles and a couple of minor things and it'll be completely fine. I'll try and get to those in a couple more days. Rebecca (talk) 13:17, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

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

Removed status

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

The article was removed 09:26, 28 March 2008.

---

Reginald Maudling

Review commentary

Messages left at User talk:Fys, User talk:Jonathan D. Parshall, British Government, England, UK notice board, Politics, Political figures. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 05:44, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Promoted in December 2004, I think it currently falls a long way short of the required standard.

• 1a - I think the prose is inadequate and uninspired in many places - eg "His early years were spent in Bexhill when the family moved to escape German air raids;" - that's left to the reader to work out based on his date of birth that it's referring to World War I.
  • We are entitled to assume our readers know something about the twentieth century. This is not the Simple English WP. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• I think you misunderstand Simple English WP, as that's exactly the sort of sentence I'd expect to see over there - one lacking pertinent detail for the sake of brevity. It's precisely why it's not the level of prose I'd expect from a featured article. COne Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 17:02, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• 1c - while it may be factually accurate it would certainly benefit from inline citations, in particular for pieces of unattributed POV such as "known for his intellectual brilliance, political pragmatism, and easygoing nature but slightly dogged by a reputation for laziness", "By 1963 Maudling was being considered as a possible future Prime Minister after Macmillan" etc etc
  • "Easygoing" is a quote from ODNB, which also mentions his "hopes for becoming leader" after Macmillan; indeed, he was "considered as a future leader" under Eden. Doubtless all of these are also supported by Baston's biography. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
• 2a - the lead is woefully inadequate for a featured article.
  • I'll see what I can do. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Done Made three short paragraphs. This seems to cover the article. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
• 2b - the sections make no sense. "Failed to win seats" is a sub-section of "Political career", yet "Member of Parliament and Cabinet" is a totally different section to "Political career", when that's the major part of his political career.
  • Done. "Member of Parliament and Cabinet" was a second-level header instead of a third-level. Doubtless a typo. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
• 2c - referencing isn't of a standard format, and could really do with footnotes in general really. Even includes a dreaded "geocities" source being used as an embedded link.
  • I don't understand the objection to the format. It seems perfectly standard, and is quite intelligible. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• It's inconsistent. You've got a geocities link randomly tacked onto the end of a sentence, you've got a single, solitary footnote and you've got a list of books at the bottom. That's failing 2c. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 17:02, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
  • We should have both footnotes and references. As for the Chapman anecdote, make it into a footnote if you think the matter serious. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not unfixable, but it definitely needs work. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 05:36, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• This is another article with a few principal sources: Maudling's autobiography, his ODNB article, and Baston's 2004 life. Of these, Baston is where I would look to verify any of these, if I were skeptical as a reader; I will add a note.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• It's not really a case of skepticism. If I want to be able to verify something, I'd expect a featured article to give me more of a clue than listing five books. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 17:02, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
  • So I added a clue: Look in Baston, which is the biography. I would expect a competent reader to do that anyway, but your opinion of our readership is lower than mine. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• It's not so much my opinion of our readership, more the sources being used. For example if I couldn't find something in Baston or ODNB, the other sources are tricky, as they were all published 25+ years ago. Yes they can be tracked down but with difficulty, so it's reasonable enough for the person to know which book they should be tracking down. I'm less than happy about the note you've just added claiming Baston is the primary souce where no other is specified. Really, are you sure? Have you just checked, or have you made an assumption? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 17:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
  • They should be tracking down either Baston or ODNB, except in the case of the culminating scandal, for which either of Gillard's books would be more detailed. So much is obvious, merely from reading the article; if you want to add a footnote saying "Gillard (1974), Gillard (1980), passim" to the paragraph on Poulson, don't let me stop you. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Go ahead and read Baston by all means; but, in the meantime, assume good faith on the part of the original authors. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:20, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• The pertinent part of my sentence was "if I couldn't find something in Baston or ODNB". Why would I be adding a footnote relating to sources I haven't read? Are you suggesting that's an acceptable way of referencing a featured article, just assume the source says it and reference it for the hell of it? Congratulations, you've just rendered your second point redundant. Firstly you tell people to assume that what an editor has added to an article is correct, then you encourage another editor to add a footnote to information, without knowing whether the information is in the source in the first place. WP:AGF does not mean we can assume everything in a featured article is correct. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 17:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Provide a list of points not in Baston or ODNB and we can source them. Otherwise, there is nothing actionable here. We cannot, and never will be able to, assume any Wikipedia article is correct; drive-by vandalism or sheer incompetence is always possible. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• Erm, no. Footnote the article please, or I'll be happy to tag anything that's not footnoted as requiring a source. Otherwise you're listing five sources, and nobody has a clue what's sourced by what. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 17:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
  • That would be disrupting Wikipedia to make a point.
  • You're listing five sources, and nobody has a clue what's sourced by what. Only true of the terminally clueless; see here for the operations of the clueful. You are not normally clueless; have you not had enough coffee, or is there some other reason you are harassing this article? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:48, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• • You appear to be laboring under the all too prevalent notion that we can assume a statement with a footnote is correct. Watching several heavily footnoted articles cured me of this delusion long ago. Footnotes wander; the sentences to which they are attached are modified or reversed without changing the footnotes. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• You appear to be labouring under the misapprehension that a list of five books is adequate referencing for a featured article. Over to you. 17:40, 18 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by One Night In Hackney (talk • contribs)
  • When it offers enough information to guide the literate reader to a source, it is. That is why WP:V does not require a footnote after every semi-colon. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:44, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

What's good enough for a decent article should be significantly exceeded for a featured one. I just read the recently promoted Edward VII and this one fared exceedingly poorly in comparison. I'm not knowledgeable about this kind of stuff but the recent article was compelling, well sourced and looked extremely professional and Maudling, well basically, wasn't. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:05, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree the footnotes could be better, which is why I've added some immediately accessible online ones. Imho - when I read articles I generally want a few backup articles on the net to double check things, in most cases there is no way I would get the reference books, but will check on a few links that interest me. There should be more from the resources that were originally used if that were possible. BTW - is it notable that he requested a private viewing of A Clockwork Orange? Regards. SeanMack (talk) 14:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I would think so; it's certainly interesting; and if he was (as it would seem) NI Secretary at the time, positively fascinating. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are prose (1a), referencing (1c), and formatting (2). Marskell (talk) 18:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Remove in its current state. Needs copyediting, could do with extra references to bolster the claims made, and lead is too short. Article as a whole seems on the short side, which makes me suspicious that some details are missing. I've removed the popular culture section but if it's put back then that's also grounds for demotion. DrKiernan (talk) 18:11, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
• Remove many citation problems and geocities site is in there for good measure...Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 02:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The article was removed 09:26, 28 March 2008.

---

Voynich manuscript

Review commentary

Notified Jorge Stolfi, Susurrus, Syzygy‎, Matt Crypto‎, WikiProject Writing systems, WikiProject Cryptography, WikiProject Books, and WikiProject Constructed languages

• Concerns with 1C, 1B, and 2C "consistently formatted inline citations using footnotes", as there is only 16. Certain statements have been tagged with Citation Needed. Also, the article was granted FA status almost 4 years ago before GA status was given. I think a good new look on the article to reestablish that it is up snuff would be helpful to all involved. Zidel333 (talk) 18:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment From at quick glance — Massive amounts of white space in the illustrations section, could that be changed somehow? And a large external linkfarm, that need to be pruned. --Peter Andersen (talk) 18:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
• Comment The Voynich Manuscript is quite an intriguing subject. It would be a shame if the article was to be demoted from FA status. I will try working on getting citations and addressing all reference issues. Also, I have removed some of the images in the illustration section. Hopefully, it looks a little better now. I will move the removed images to other sections of the article. Nishkid64 (talk) 21:18, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

• What do you guys think of restructuring the external links section? I once had them grouped according to primary sources, general information, specific theories etc., but somebody reverted it. I'm not sure if it is against WP policies to group the external links, but if doing so is okay, I would reconstruct the link categories. --Syzygy (talk) 12:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
  • It is not; but one FA reviewer has strong, if solitary, opinions on the subject. To my mind, classified external links are better than a hodgepodge.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
    • I would also prefer a more organized EL section. I'm going to start referencing soon. I just need to pick up the books from the library. Nishkid64 (talk) 20:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Okay, I gave it a shot. And worked a little on the Hoax-section. --Syzygy (talk) 09:04, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
• I agree that this is a most interesting article and one that I knew zero about. I came here via a posting on the reliable sources noticeboard, which questions the reliability of one of the sources in the article. Having looked a bit closer, I think that this is not the only problem with reliable sources on this article. As noted above, there are very few inline citations, which I gather were not required in the era when this article was promoted. But even so, I am significantly concerned by some of the inline references that there are, which seem to be to websites unlikely to be considered reliable.e.g. [5], [6], http://www.voynich.nu/index.html, [7] [8][9],[10].

The reference list itself looks reasonably reliable based on a quick scan. Slp1 (talk) 00:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are references and their formatting (1c and 2c) and comprehensiveness (1b). Marskell (talk) 18:48, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• Remove 1c. DrKiernan (talk) 17:07, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
• Remove 1c. Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 02:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
• Remove I remain concerned about use of unreliable sources here, and indeed in the last week or so two more have appeared.[11] [12]. So, yes, 1c. --Slp1 (talk) 12:01, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The article was removed 18:06, 23 March 2008.

---

Robert Lawson (architect)

Review commentary

• Fails Criterion 1C. Djacku 13:28, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
• Fails Criterion 1C and 1D. It is brilliantly written, but I am concerned as to whose opinions are being given - I suspect they are those of the article creator. I notice that these concerns have been previously raised on the TalkPage - and that there has been an earlier attempt to get a review of the article. I feel the article might benefit from trimming back some of the unsupported opinions, and from finding cites for those opinions that can found in reliable sources. SilkTork *^SilkyTalk 09:10, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
• Meets all criteria. Primary editor responded to talk page concerns in October 2007, resulting in noteworthy revision to prose and expansion of inline citations. It is unclear where the nominator has found any evidence of factual inaccuracy, or, in response to SilkTork's point, where there is an absence of (1D) neutral point of view. The references for this article are difficult to find printed sources, all of which are reliable. Risker (talk) 09:45, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment. All of the opinions (to the best of my knowledge - it's been a while since I worked on the article) are from a variety of books on New Zealand architecture, among them:

• Knight, H. and Wales, N. (1988) Buildings of Dunedin. Dunedin: John McIndoe.

Hardwicke Knight is widely acknowledged as Dunedin's top historian. Niel Wales is a descendant of the founders of Mason & Wales, one of New Zealand's top architectural firms.

• McGill, D. and Sheehan, G. (1997) Landmarks: Notable historic buildings of New Zealand. Auckland: Godwit Publishing.

This book (a finalist in the Montana New Zealand Book Awards - NZ's top book awards) was written in conjunction with the New Zealand Historic Places Trust. David McGill has published numerous important books on the subject of New Zealand's architectural heritage.

• Herd, J. and Griffith, G. (1980) Discovering Dunedin. Dunedin: John McIndoe.

George Griffiths is former Managing Director of Otago Heritage Books, one of New Zealand's top regional historical publishing companies.

• McLean, G. (2002) 100 historic places in New Zealand. Auckland:Hodder Moa Beckett.

Gavin McLean is senior Historian at New Zealand's Ministry for Culture and Heritage.

It also benefitted from consultation with User:Peter Entwisle, who is one of Dunedin's most prominent history writers, with a particular expertise in art and architectural history (he is, IIRC, a former director of the Dunedin Public Art Gallery and Otago Settlers Museum).

Unfortunately, at this remove, it would be difficult and painstaking to go back and find which expressed opinion came from which of these sources, but these works should be listed (and indeed most are) in the article's reference list. The main concern to my mind would be the lack of inline citations for these sources, not the possibility that the opinions are not those from published sources. Grutness...wha? 10:04, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I am reassured that the opinions have come from reliable sources. However there is a credibility gap on the reliability of the information contained within the article because of the lack of appropriate attribution. One reliable source I did find for statements on the Otago School section didn't agree with the contents in the article. When faced with such conflicting evidence a reader WILL go with the reliable source rather than Wiki, and it - sadly - damages not only the article's reputation, but that of Wikipedia in general, especially when said article has been selected as an example of how we do things! I would encourage people to get involved in making this brilliantly written article more credible. SilkTork *^SilkyTalk 11:39, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• One of the missing facts [13] came from the web site of Ottago Boys School where the history section is currently being re-written which is why that claim is currently unreferenced. I think the over-scrutiny of the obvious here provides a very good reason for not bringing a page to FA status. The re-writing of certain sections has, in my view, reduced the text to the banal and should guarantee restful sleep before the conclusion of the page. By all means take away the star but let's not do it at the expense of the page. Giano (talk) 23:16, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Let's also bear in mind content above style if we are having gentle digs at each other! The first priority of an encyclopedia is being trustworthy - a nicely turned phrase adds an admirable sparkle to the solid truth, but simply puts an ugly gloss to the unreliable assertion. Wiki's reputation lies not in the quality of its prose, but in the quality of its reliability. FAs should be among our most reliable articles and should be able to withstand the hostile scrutiny of a passing journalist. The banal and verifiable truth is what an encyclopedia is about, brilliant writing is what the larks in the 6th form aspire to as they wear pink carnations and fail to get into the university of their choice because writing "This!" in total answer to the essay question "Define courage" may get one pats on the back from the other larks, but a big fat zero from the examining board. SilkTork *^SilkyTalk 23:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

• I've added {{dead link}} to the Otago Boys' High School ref, as the original page is readily retrievable from the Wayback machine.-gadfium 00:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Are we playing silly games here? I provide a reference to a statement by Cyril Roy Knight, M.A., BARCH. (LIVERPOOL), F.R.I.B.A., F.R.S.A., F.N.Z.I.A., Professor Emeritus, University of Auckland writing in the Encyclopedia of New Zealand (1966) and I'm reverted to an unsourced and very dodgy assertion in a primary source. Come on - I can't let that stand! Read the respective sources, and think carefully about what you are doing. I'm trying to make the article more credible. If any of you guys are unhappy at my bland prose, then polish it up. Don't polish the dodgy turd - polish the solid truth! ;-) SilkTork *^SilkyTalk 23:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, a 40-year old tertiary source (it comes from an encyclopedia, after all) is no more reliable than a description from the school, which actually holds all the records of construction of the building. Even I know that isn't early renaissance architecture. Please mind the scatological references, they aren't appropriate here. Risker (talk) 00:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I think we are missing the point here and this is turning into some kind of fight with personal comments. I make a light-hearted remark, and I'm criticised. Hmmm. I am backing away from this. I thought my point was clear about appropriate referencing, and I've tried to make it several times now, but if I am not being understood then there's little point in my continuing. I wish you all well, and I'm genuinely sorry I've rubbed some people up the wrong way - that was never my intention. Regards SilkTork *^SilkyTalk 00:56, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm wondering if we can consider this on hold until Giano's current arb case is done. Perhaps he can explain what was agreed on in October. In the meantime, someone might format the references that are there. Marskell (talk) 22:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Erk, I see Giano has commented above me. Not sure what he means, entirely. Marskell (talk) 22:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

It means, this page has been here since 8th September 2007 with no decision to demote, if it stays here for another 3 months we may all be dead from old age and the criteria may have changed yet again. Why not just nominate each page for FARC as it achieves FA status and then wait for the criteria to change. This should ensure a 100% success rate. Giano (talk) 22:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, this FARC was filed by what appears to be a SPA[14] that targeted eight different featured articles; only one edit of this account was unrelated. Marskell commented on the editor's talk page[15] about correct process; the editor never returned. Risker (talk) 22:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

About par for the course - never mind. Giano (talk) 22:48, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to Silk Tork [16] reversions the article now says of the school "he combines brickwork and stone in the design of the walls of the school, an early Renaissance feature" this is complete rubbish and certainly not a feature of the early Renaissance. If that statement is allowed to remain then the page deserves to be demoted. I am not reverting this rubbish yet again, someone else can decide. The author of the reference is clearly referring to the quoining resembling rustication not the much later combination of brick and stone quoining typical of the English "Jacobethan" "Renaissance" styles which is the style of the school. perhaps Silk Tork knows something other than this - which is what the page said originally. Giano (talk) 00:13, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Early Renaissance

not early Renaissance - spot the difference

You are of course welcomed and encouraged to improve the section in line with the source. And you are also welcomed and encouraged to seek out reliable sources for the earlier version which you prefer. My issue is with SUPPORTING what is said, especially when there are bold, peacock claims made, rather than with WHAT is said. If you feel I have misread "In this example Lawson combines stone and brickwork in the walls; the former as quoins for wall openings and for external angles, the latter for the main body of the walls. This feature is seen again at the Bank of New Zealand, the Otago Boys' High School, and at Larnach Castle. It is an early Renaissance treatment," then please correct me. I have highlighted the sections in the quote which led me to my reading, and will be pleased for you to amend my error. I'll put my hand up and admit I am not an expect in this field and don't know the subject as well as you. I am, however trying to do what I feel is right, and I'm doing it in good faith and in a good humour. I respect your reputation here, and I like what I have seen of you so far. I can pick up your frustration at my actions, and I apologise that I am causing you hurt right now - believe me, that is not my intention! Warm regards SilkTork *^SilkyTalk 00:47, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I suggest the best thing to do with this FARC is close it, and forget it ever happened, since it was initiated by an SPA. I'm not sure that the edits made by SilkTork are, on the whole, beneficial to the article, frankly. FA's are supposed to incorporate brilliant prose where possible, and what I see happening to this article is what I've seen happen to some other FA or FA candidate articles that SilkTork has edited lately... deterioration. That would be a darn shame, and I'm frankly at a loss as to what SilkTork is up to given his editing patterns. ++Lar: t/c 00:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Lar, would it be possible to delete the other FARCs this SPA started up, as well? It would be most unfortunate if another FA was caught in this situation. Risker (talk) 01:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec)That is a call for the FAR regulars to make, (or the participants in an XfD if one were initiated) not me personally. But it certainly sounds like a good idea to me. Why not ask the rest of the FAR crew, or just nominate them for deletion, and see what happens. ++Lar: t/c 01:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Woah! Hold on - I know I said I was backing away, but I just nipped back to check what I had said and I see that a FARC I opened is going to be closed on a technicality. I'd rather see this remain and be taken seriously. My point is that the FA under question needs better sourcing and needs attention. Brushing my concerns aside because I made an edit in which my prose is not appreciated is to avoid the issue completely. I am leaving this matter alone, but please reassure me that my concerns will be properly and appropriately looked into, not hidden because an incomplete FARC was started 3 months ago. SilkTork *^SilkyTalk 01:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Are you Djacku ? That's who opened it, right? I don't think anyone wants to brush aside legitimate concerns, and genuine improvements to the article are goodness. But that's not the same as closing a FAR that never should have been opened. You don't need a FAR to propose changes that improve things. But do try to be a bit more compromising and don't revert war to preserve your changes, discuss them. ++Lar: t/c 01:18, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I opened it [17] and found that Djacku had made what turns out to be an incomplete attempt previously. But the process proper started with my listing. Djacku's attempt was in the void, unseen. As regards reverting rather than discussing, with respect that comment should be directed at the one who did the revert [18] initially. The guidelines do suggest discussion first. I have raised a concern with this article. I have explained why I have raised the concern. I would appreciate that concern being looked into. I will take the personal comments on the chin, and I will back away from this. Though I will be asking you question about the features articles comment on your talkpage as I'm a little perplexed by that. And, out of normal human curiosity, I will check back to see what happens with this FARC! Again, regards to all involved in this discussion. SilkTork *^SilkyTalk 01:32, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I repeat Silk Torks has written of the school "he combines brickwork and stone in the design of the walls of the school, an early Renaissance feature" this statement is naive, over simplified and misleading and should not remain in the article. Giano (talk) 09:23, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Am I alone in wondering where the 'brick' is at all in this facade - from the photograph the only facing work I can see is some nice dressed ashlar (Portland?) Stonework used for the quions, bands and mouldings, infilled with rough dressed stone work of some other type? (my guess is some kind of Sandstone). Perhaps Silk might have a look at the photo and reconsider his statement? Sorry Silk, I feel compelled to revert this obvious guff. --Joopercoopers (talk) 11:55, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I was wondering when anyone was going to spot that. It won't be Portland Stone in NZ but probably Oamaru stone. Giano (talk) 12:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah! I forgot you had stolen the Library of Alexandria. Do you think a link to Lych gate might be appropriate for the paragraph that starts "While the school's entrance arch....."? --Joopercoopers (talk) 12:32, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

No don't 'cos it's not a lych gate it's a Gothic "porte-something or other", the name of which escapes me. Giano (talk) 12:41, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok. (the only porte-something I know is Porte-cochere and its certainly not one of them.) --Joopercoopers (talk) 12:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I know what one of those is too! Check out who took the main photograph and started the page <said with no modesty whatsoever> I suppose it has to be a "gate house" but I'm sure it is inspired by a "Porte-something" vagrants used to be allowed to shelter in them at the entrance to monasteries and things. Giano (talk) 13:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Congratulations on the front page today Giano. --Joopercoopers (talk) 12:08, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm - I'm happy to stop the conversation here if you like, but my idle curiousity is piqued. We've got an entrance feature that Lawson was using to a. define the entrance b. allude to a historic form. Are you saying that form is not a lych-gate because it more closely resembles something else? A quick trawl shows lychgates of all shapes and size, built in stone, wood etc. see [19] [20] and my particular favourite here. It is my understanding that monastic gateways usually also had accomodation for the porter monk - of which this is a particularly elaborate example. As the school gateway is just a simple portal I'd argue it more of the lych-gate form than anything else. --Joopercoopers (talk) 14:22, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I see where you are coming from but it does not have a gate and unless NZ schools are a lot tougher than here it was certainly not built for the repose of pall bearers. I just think it's inspiration was more monastic or domestic than provincial ecclesiastical. Giano (talk) 15:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are referencing (1c) and neutrality (1d). Marskell (talk) 18:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Giano, am I correct that this page is more heavily web-based than usual for yours? The 1966 NZ encyclopedia seems to have a great deal, for instance. If so, I don't mind adding refs for things. Marskell (talk) 18:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I worked on some ref cleanup. In the "Buildings by Lawson" section, those I cited as "Photo at ... " are only pictures and don't cite the fact that Lawson built them. That's all for today. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

• Remove - Several sections without citations (1c). --Peter Andersen (talk) 17:58, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I wanted to save this, but I'm not sure that I can. All of the sources seem to lead back to: Mane-Weoki, Jonathan. (1992). The Architecture of Robert Arthur Lawson. Bulletin of New Zealand art history. Vol 13. I can't get my hands on it and I think it's required to source this. Marskell (talk) 18:57, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Can this information be of use to you?[21] Yeah, I see it's $10NZ -about $8US - but you can get two volumes for $15. Risker (talk) 09:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll pick up a copy at the University of Auckland library later today. What specific questions about the article do you have?-gadfium 19:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

It's there but not available for loan. I can read it any time, or photocopy it. 12 pages, with extensive footnoting to primary sources.-gadfium 01:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, the article contains opinions which are not directly attributed to a named scholar or body of experts, and which are not obviously true to the casual reader. DrKiernan (talk) 08:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Hold up! When I'm more awake, I'll ping gadfium. Marskell (talk) 22:05, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

• Remove per 1c. I'm not sure if the FA criteria were different back in 2005, but after reading this I found myself unable to identify where many facts came from. Footnotes or Harvard references are scarce or absent in many cases. I recognize that significant work has been done, but there is a ways to go. I hope that the authors who have access to the sources are willing to cite them, but that doesn't appear to be the case after all the time this has run. --Laser brain (talk) 16:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Striking my comment. Given the exchanges below, I'm not confident that I understand this process well enough to participate yet. --Laser brain (talk) 14:44, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep referencing requires only statements likely to be challenged. --Joopercoopers (talk) 16:46, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
• Wait, wait...! I have the main article, thanks to Gadfium (God bless him or her), and I think this can be worked on more. I will update. Marskell (talk) 22:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
• Hold for Marskell to work on citations. Pending citation, I would be a keep. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• Leave me a note on my talk page when citations are completed. Joelito (talk) 11:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I can't save this one. I was hoping it would match Mane-Weoki, but it doesn't. The paper calls Otago Boys' School "collegial Gothic;" the article deemphasizes the Gothic. The paper describes the lunatic asylum as Scottish Baronial and lists The Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh as inspiration; the article describes it as "loosely Gothic" and mentions Neuschwanstein Castle.

These descriptions (and others) are not completely irreconcilable, but they are dissimilar enough that I cannot confidently source the article. Giano hasn't indicated what his primary source for the architectural descriptions is. Apparently, it's not the 1992 paper. Thus I must sadly note a remove. Marskell (talk) 20:31, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Cannot the descriptions in the article be modified to accord with the newly available source? Giano was not in possession of Mane-Weoki at the time he wrote the article.-gadfium 07:43, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Keep: Thank you for sending me the paper Gadfium, I had only read exerpts before. While mostly it is very good, it does contain opinions which I find hard to understand. I would rather the page lost its FA status than had thse opinions inserted. Regarding the Asylum: I still maintain with it's corner projecting turrets and machiolations and pitches of its roofs, it is closer to the romanticised Teutonic Gothic (taken to exreme at Neuschwanstein) and the Rheinland Castles than it is to the far more austere Calvinistic Gothic of the the Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh. One only has to look at the greater freedom of expression, not to mention the projecting, whimsical "Juliet" balconies, in the design to see this. The utilitarian and practical ground plans may look similar but the architectural motifs are not. Then there is the matter of age. The Germanic Gothic was in vogue from the 1860s onwards, the Edinburgh hospital was begun a mere 18 months before Seacliffe. (see below) I think Scottish Baronial is a much overused term in NZ. Regarding the Boys' School: To describe the School as collegially Gothic is wrong, as the overriding motifs all belong to the English Renaissance, you can see some of the influences in the real thing here here - note: the windows, the roofs, the towers, and above all the quoining - (the corner stones)and the ballustrading on the roof between the towers - looks familiar, does it? If the only way of retaining FA status is to have debatable references, then let it go. Lawson was a great architect, who drew his inspiration from a wider variety of sources than some NZ commentators credit him. If hinting at that, not stating it as fact, means that he loses his FA status, then that is up to you.Giano (talk) 13:35, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

It appears that the Edinburgh hospital was begin in 1879, five years after Seacliffe in 1874. So I hope you will all have a good hard think before inserting Edinburg was the inspiration for NZ. Giano (talk) 13:41, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep per Joopercoopers. It is well cited enough. This current fetish which demands that every passage of every article be cited, is not academic but a pedantic mockery of real academic practices. It is yet another hobgoblin of small minds. It should be rejected and ignored as should all of the ever-changing and growing horde of wrong-headed policies which will ultimately shackle Wikipedia to a rock of bland mediocrity.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 07:03, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
• Remove Giano has apparently admitted above that the article is original research, and excludes the opinion of Mane-Wheoki, the acknowledged expert on Lawson. DrKiernan (talk) 13:37, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

• Mr Mane-Wheoki no doubt is an expert, however, in this case I think Mr Mane-Wheoki is failing to look beyond Edinburgh for his inspiration. His paper is full of "probablies" and "perhapses" and assumptions though fine for a paper reading to a the New Zealand Historic Places Trust, is not concrete enough for an international encyclopedia. Furthermore Mr Mane-Wheoki does not state categorically that the Asylum was inspired by the Edinburgh Hospital but offers it as a possibility, then goes on to state that the possibility is very tenuous, as Lawson could only possibly have seen on prospective drawing of it published in a magazine some years before the first Scottish brick was even laid. That the NZ Asylum is based on a "continental" Gothic is beyond all reasonable doubt, so in no way is the article "own research" - mine or anyone others, it is an obvious fact, that does not need citing. Even if we concede that it was inspired by the Scottish Baronial, would someone care to explain the source and inspiration of Scottish Baronial, and I think you will find we come full circle. Incidentally, Mr Mane-Wheoki does mention the continental renaissance influences in the work of Lawson and his contemporaries. To claim anything in this page as own research would be putting myself on a pedestal where I don't belong. It is all glaringly obvious. Giano (talk) 16:19, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

But that just begs the question, Giano: if it's all so obvious why doesn't the primary source say as much? It seems to me that you've taken your own expertise and decided on what is and is not accurate. That's original research. Marskell (talk) 18:59, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Well Marskell, you had better decide on which was the primary source because A. H. McLintock and J Mane-Wheoki are not always singing from the same hymn sheet, especially when it come to the dominating architectural motifs of a building. I've actually tired of arguing the obvious here. It is quite obvious you think all FAs should just consist of "A says this, but B says that." Sadly, when defining art (architecture is an art) that is not always possible and often the author has to find the middle road - in this the blindingly obvious - taking the Gothic back to its primary source. I would love to start a page Antipodean Gothic because it would be fascinating, and so interesting, however, no one has even coined this phrase so far, so I can't. Well that really is Wikipedia's loss, but at least someone will pay me for it, so long as I don't cast it on the ground here first. Now Marskel get on and demote the page. I think the people/Jobsworths who delight in the section of Wikipedia so much, have no idea of the harm they do. Giano (talk) 19:39, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Aha!: "The architectural historian, Ian Lochhead, has suggested that New Zealanders could use the term 'Antipodean Gothic' to describe that branch..." Great minds as they say.. Well good luck to you all down here in the basement. Giano (talk) 19:46, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Giano. I'm sorry that when you become angry you can't not be dismissive with people. I'm sorry I never set up a good channel with you, despite our relatively frequent e-mails. I have no intention of closing this. I don't even want to look at it.

I'm a Jobsworth? No, I tried to help with an article that you've worked on. I tried to help just because I think (well, thought) fondly of you. But if Giano's original research is enough to be an FA, then pardon me. I must have missed that ruling.

Given that you understand the English vernacular well enough when you need to, you'll understand the following just fine: if I'm a Jobsworth, then fuck you. Do you need someone to hold your hand while that's translated? No, I don't think so. Rather than piss on people, why not go piss in a corner.

And I'll say it again: the only reason I was involved in this article is because I liked you. Thanks, at least, for putting that in the past tense. Marskell (talk) 23:38, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

• I'm sorry Marskell, I should not have called you a "Jobsworth", that was uncalled for, no "ifs" and "buts," I apologise. I know you have tried hard to save this page - and my temper is getting too fraught at the edges on this. Giano (talk) 08:03, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Eaton Hall - someone else's fantasy of what gothic should be about - care to spot the other styles?

Oh dear. Buildings of that century where revivalism really took a hold, are always particularlty tricky to pin down. The Victorians, bless 'em, rummaged in the dustbin of history and pulled out bits and pieces of all sorts from all manner of sources. To pin a particular building to particular bits of historical correctness was considered by some to be important (Pugin, Violet-le-duc etc.) - but for the vast majority of architects, if it worked it worked. When one academic says a building is x style another can usually easily say it is another. Is there scottish baronial in the asylum? crow-step gables, corner turret check. Does it have that romantic idealism that lead the stage set designer's fantasy at neuschwanstein? sure. The important thing here is that as WP article writers we edit - we are editors - we frequently discard the unnecessary or inaccurate, even in academic sources if we are worth our salt - how many references to the black Taj abound, even in 'academic' writings? Should we say that because lazy academics repeat a fiction, that we should too? We are allowed discretion. Editing is our function, are we suggesting that omission is original research? In matters of style, and particularly victorian style, we can't repeat every academic's 'perhaps redolent of.....' opinion, unless they've got primary sources indicating Lawson said 'mmmmmm. for the Asylum Mssrs we must use the Scottish baronial via oxford via Eaton Hall via antipodean gothic tradition.' --Joopercoopers (talk) 00:20, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

In any event, it's a rather dated view of architectural history (see pevsner etc.) that x built Grandevilla which y saw and so built Grandervilla. As Charles Jencks etc. point out - things tend to get in the air - from all over - that infect the stream of architecture. We'd had the Battle of the Styles, by this point, people were working it out, and getting liberal with it all. --Joopercoopers (talk) 00:36, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you JC, for putting that more eloquently than I can. I'm tired of this FARC, I completely refuse to be associated with a page that labels that fantastical building as Scotish Baronial, to the exclusion of all else. I have described it is a loose amalgamation of various Gothic styles, and I stick by that. I will not sit idly by and watch an error inserted jusy so a box can be ticked to say it has a cited reference. If that is what FAs have now become, then soething is seriously wrong. Giano (talk) 08:12, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Apology accepted—and returned. I shouldn't have lost my own temper and strike my most egregious paragraph. I am going to walk away from this one for a couple of days. Marskell (talk) 14:00, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The article was removed 00:02, 20 March 2008.

---

New England Patriots

Review commentary

Promoted January 2006. Since then, a lot of the content has been split off and covered in more detail in other articles, leaving this as a shell. There are only five paragraphs of text about the team, followed by several lists and then a few lines about cheerleaders, celebrations and radio/tv coverage. In my opinion the article no longer represents Wikipedia's best work. While I'm not suggesting all history should be merged back in here, a better summary is needed plus more coverage of other aspects of the team if it is to stay a FA. FA criteria at issue: 1a,b 4. AlexJ (talk) 20:25, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh My Gosh. Don't even know where to start. Is this a list of lists or an article? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:32, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

• This was my first FA back when I was a newbie, and since then, it has devolved significantly (and it wasn't even an amazing FA to begin with). The 40+ references have been scattered. I'm pretty much retired, so I won't have anywhere near the amount of time (or motivation) to do even a fraction of the immense amount of work needed. — Deckiller 20:37, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

• That'll teach me to say Oh My Gosh without checking who the author was :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:01, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

• Well, most of the current version isn't my work, and my reference formatting WAS very "old school" back then (and annotated, as sad as that is), but you don't see those either :) — Deckiller 21:14, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

• The promoted version had considerably more text; at the first FAC it had even more text and wasn't promoted. Most of that text is now in History of the New England Patriots and Logos and uniforms of the New England Patriots. (I guess the prohibition on fair use galleries only pertains to music articles.) Maybe we could have New England Patriots staffology for the tables? Gimmetrow 23:00, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Usage of Image:NewEnglandPatriots.png needs to be fixed, and Image:NewEnglandPatriotsOld.png needs fair use rationale(s). Gimmetrow 01:07, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
• This is tricky. In my opinion the information contained in these lists is actually likely to be the information that people searching for this article are hoping to find. I note that the various football clubs that are Featured Articles are relatively heavy in lists. Is there a consensus structure for American Football team articles at the WikiProject? If so, it ought to be fairly formulaic to bring the articles up to this standard. --JayHenry (talk) 00:14, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Even if we revert to the original version I wrote 26 months ago, we'll still have a lot of work to do to get it to standards, especially with respect to referencing and broadness. — Deckiller 02:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
• This edit seems to be the issue here. Buc (talk) 18:56, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

• hmmm. I don't understand that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:40, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

If you feel that the text should be returned to the article, go ahead and do that. If following the manual of style and especially summary style is against the FA criteria, then go ahead, violate WP:SUMMARY and put the text back. It should have been established already how terrible an editor I am, and you should all have already learned to rollback any edits I make without question... Go ahead and put it back. Remember, long confusing and redundant is far better than short, consise and easy to follow... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:43, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok now I'm really confused. Buc (talk) 21:38, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I was being facetious. The issue with the article is not that material has been moved to sub articles, its that it is overbloated with tables and lists. Removing material that was redundant with the "History" article was not the problem. Making the prose arbitrarily longer, only to "mask" the overabundance of tables and lists, does not fix the problem, it only masks it. If you want to improve the article, then take out some of the crap. Discretion is the better part of valor, and sometimes addition by subtraction actually works. Lets try reworking the article so that, instead of returning the overbloated history section, we instead remove a bunch of the unneccessary tables. Lets bring it back into balance THAT way... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 13:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

To address some of the comments since my nomination - IMO just re-entering the history section isn't enough to keep the FA status, it would not meet the well written or concise requirements. Perhaps the best option would be to work on the (mostly prose) history page and try and bring that back to FA level, while deciding what direction the main article is to take. AlexJ (talk) 18:45, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are prose (1a) and focus (4). Marskell (talk) 18:47, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• Rest in peace for now, my beloved first FA :) Seriously, if this stays up through Spring Break (next week), I might have a chance to bring it back to standards. Also, don't criticize Jayron; his changes were actually better than what the previous situation was. It just showed that the entire page needs a return to form. — Deckiller 17:07, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
• I see one problem image has been deleted, but Image:NewEnglandPatriots.png is still used in one article without a corresponding fair use rationale. Gimmetrow 08:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
• Are we/is anyone prepared to work on this? I'm not sure what the friction above is about, but from what I've observed of the American football articles that come through FAC, there isn't a cohesive group of editors who work together on these articles (amazingly, at one point, there were three American football articles listed at the same time at FAC, and the editors didn't help each other at all). I'll pitch in to work on this article if others are helping. Where do things stand ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:09, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• Notes: why does the infobox have all that random bolding? Why is New England Patriots strategy split out (there seems to be little summary)? Do we have more info somewhere on finances, marketing, ownership, attendance, stadium, facilities, etc? There's no summary of List of New England Patriots first-round draft picks and should the navigational template go at the bottom? Cheerleaders needs content or merging. There's not a lot to work with here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:27, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
• Remove. Too much work to be done; too far from FA quality. Doesn't need stitches here and there, but rather is in critical condition and needs major reconstructive surgery. - Chardish (talk) 18:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The article was removed 00:02, 20 March 2008.

---

Marginated Tortoise

Review commentary

Notified Wikipedia:WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles

This article was promoted way back in 2004. The most glaring issue is inline citations. They are practically nonexistent in several sections, and although sources are provided in a references section, it can't be identified which source cites which statement. Furthermore, the prose seems more like a pet-caring guide, rather than the "professional standard" in the FAC. The prose is occasionally confusing to read, such as in the "Systematics" section, and short, one-sentence paragraphs chop up the prose. Overall, I believe that the article does not meet the current standards for FA. bibliomaniac15 21:48, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• OK, I'd think it needs:

#. a description

1. . expand on taxonomy, what and how named
2. . habitat notes in the distrib. and hab. section. Where does it live ?
3. . fix lead
4. . big copyedit
5. . judicious pruning of images and promotions of commons.
6. . notes on how common it is in cultivation and about cultivation, not a how-to guide.

Not insignificant Bit worse than I thought, but doable. Luckily is a well-demarkated article. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:16, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are citations, comprehensiveness, and prose. Joelito (talk) 13:56, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• Remove per criterion 1c. LuciferMorgan (talk) 09:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
• Remove per 1c. Also a large amount of short sentences that are simply bulleted together. Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 03:36, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
• Remove (sigh) - the nub is that the information required to bring this up to par will be in books more than online. Oh well, sometime in the future...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:58, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The article was removed 00:02, 20 March 2008.

---

Korean name

Review commentary

Wikipedia:WikiProject Anthroponymy‎, Wikipedia:WikiProject Korea‎, User:TakuyaMurata‎, User:Kjoonlee‎, User:Sewing‎, User:Visviva‎ notified.

The article is poorly written and poorly organised. Referencing is not FA standard. Also, is it comprehensive? --Kaypoh (talk) 04:35, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

It was reviewed a year ago. I don't see problems; please identify the issues you see. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:05, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Unreferenced paragraphs, short paragraphs, long lead section, article looks messy. When I say all the sentences, a few things don't sound right (that's how I check for language problems because my English is not that good). A few others pointed out problems. --Kaypoh (talk) 13:01, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

The article is indeed badly organized and badly worded in spots, but it contains quite a lot of useful information. With a total reorganization and thorough copyeditting, it should be alright. Zocky | picture popups 12:15, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Is it that the Featured Article standards have increased dramatically or that the article has fallen into disrepair? --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 12:57, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Some information on the specific concerns would be helpful. -- Visviva (talk) 15:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. These comments are all rather vague and of little use; without identifying specific problems, I'm not sure what people expect to be done with the article. PC78 (talk) 20:38, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, one thing that is relatively easy to take care of is better formatting for the notes. I'm planning to set aside some time for that this weekend. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:41, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I formatted some of the References, also clustered References and External Links by language. Rosiestephenson (talk) 23:52, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Some of the most glaring problems were fixed by my rewrite of the intro, however, the article still has problems:

• It's unclear whether women in South Korea have generational names at all (I assumed that they do in the intro, but the section is unclear on that).
• There's barely any information about common personal names.
• All sections confusing to read in places.
• Some of the history section is not directly about the names.
• There's no overall feel to the article that it represents a solid overview of the subject.

Hope that helps somewhat. Zocky | picture popups 10:53, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Zocky, can you be specific onto particularly which section is hard to read? I read over the article, and haven't found a particular section which may be confusing to either Korean or non-Korean readers. L46kok (talk) 14:53, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are prose (1a), referencing (1c), and comprehensiveness (1b). Marskell (talk) 16:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• Remove --Kaypoh (talk) 13:36, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
• Remove some sources like the *.com and the "Do" are websites with uncertain reliability, lack of citations, bad prose. Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 03:34, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The article was removed 19:04, 18 March 2008.

---

Saturn V

Review commentary

Notified Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Space exploration and the article's principal editors: Enceladus (talk · contribs) who now appears to be Evil Monkey (talk · contribs), Joema (talk · contribs), Reubenbarton‎ (talk · contribs) and GeneralPatton‎ (talk · contribs).

This featured article was promoted in 2004, and it shows.

• To begin with, there are only four inline references (and they are not in standard citation format). There are very, very many assertions that need inline references, such as the statement "The (cancelled) second production run of Saturn Vs would very likely have used the F-1A engine in its first stage ..." in Saturn V#Proposed post-Apollo developments.
• The prose is less than brillant; witness for instance the choppy, bulleted-list-style paragraphs at Saturn V#C-5 and elsewhere.
• The manual of style is not followed throughout; see for instance the advice to "See Project Apollo: Choosing a mission mode for more information" at the end of Saturn V#Background.
• The article also uses unexplained jargon in places, such as in the sentence "Originally it was planned to use a 'wet workshop' concept, with a rocket stage being launched into orbit ..." in Saturn V#Skylab. What does this mean? Even a wikilink to wet workshop would help.

That's just what I saw at a glance - veteran FA editors will certainly spot more problems. Sandstein (talk) 21:15, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

• Article uses both American and British spellings. There are abbreviated source units and spelled out conversion units; It happens at least once on the same measurement. Uses weasel words like "arguably". That's just a first glance using the peer review script. I've already added the non-breakable spaces for measurements, which were not used at all prior to my check. Jay32183 (talk) 07:50, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
• I concur with the above noted issues. I'm working on Apollo 8's FAR, and have found some sources there that would probably work well for this article - but there's no good way I can manage two ongoing reviews at once. If another editor or editors pick this one up, I'll happily assist in its cleanup. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 17:30, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Note, I'm leaving this up in review as well, so as not to over-burden people working on Apollo as well. Marskell (talk) 18:37, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I will start copyediting this article this week. I'm not going to look at the citation issues at this time. --Laser brain (talk) 16:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll handle citations, but probably not in detail until later this week, looking at my schedule. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 16:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• oops, I recommend you hold up on the copyedit here, Laser, because I suspect that the bulk of the article is not reliably sourced. There's no reason to ce an article that may need to be substantially rewritten. Mark Wade is a space enthusiast, a personal webpage, doubt that it's a reliable source. This article has bigger problems than the other one did. Copyedit should proceed after the text is verified to reliable sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay. --Laser brain (talk) 18:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I cleaned up the References section, and there are good sources there, but the Footnotes are mostly from a non-reliable source, so the article needs to be re-cited to the reliable sources listed in References. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are referencing (1c), prose (1a), MoS issues (2). Marskell (talk) 19:52, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

This has seen some work. Moving to see how people feel. Marskell (talk) 19:52, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

• Status? Is this stalled? No citation work since my last comment on the 19th. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:48, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I think we were daunted, as this article is a much bigger task than Apollo 8 was. Let me see what I can come up with, but it's been on this list for a long time. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 14:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
    • OK, Unless you can get on it, I'm a Remove, as the citations are lacking and those included are not to reliable sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
      • On the merits, I would agree - the best source I have that's directly about the Saturn Program is Stages to Saturn, which is good as far as it goes - but I can't base an entire FA on one work, however extensive it may be. Two sources would be a stretch. I can cite almost everything in the article, but at this point it's only to that work specifically. I'm looking to see if JSC or Marshall have online resources beyond just Stages to Saturn, but - apart from basic technical data, which is substantial - I don't think we're going to have enough to get this done in a timely fashion. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 15:28, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

• Currently also remove because of the referencing issue alone: there are far too few inline citations. Also, most of the existing citations are to Encyclopedia Astronautica, which is not a reliable source, as noted above. Sandstein (talk) 18:05, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
• Remove MOS violations such as non breaking spaces missing, lacks sources and also lacks reliable ones at that. Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 03:38, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The article was removed 19:04, 18 March 2008.

---

Game theory

Review commentary

Notified Wikipedia:WikiProject Poker, Wikipedia:WikiProject Economics, Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics, Wikipedia:WikiProject Business and Economics, Wikipedia:WikiProject Game theory, User:Kzollman, User:Pete.Hurd and User:Trovatore

The article fails several of criteria. The usual suspects such as no too few inline citations (1c), the lead covers stuff that is not covered in the body, and there is a lot of stuff in the body that is not covered in the lead (2a). I also believe it fails the comprehensiveness criteria (1b) since the article does not say anything about the point of Game theory but instead focuses on more technical matters. --Peter Andersen (talk) 21:53, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

• The article does have inline citations, but they are in an abysmal state: not only are they sparse, but they mix footnotes (a few) and Harvard references (in various formats) in an unhelpful way. Can we fix this? My wiki-time is limited, but I'd like to go through and update this 2005 FA with up-to-date citation template technology. I think this will go a long way to putting it back on track. I would encourage any other interested editors to help. Geometry guy 22:40, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

• I volunteer to polish the references section according to the current standards. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 14:13, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

The formatting of the references in the Ref section using {{citation}} templates is done. I also added publishers, ISBNs, ISSNs, and some URLs where available - as an aside, this shows how a central reference database like the one I use helps doing this kind of slightly stupid, but necessary work. {{Harvtxt}} templates could be used for referring to the refs in the main text. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 18:21, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I have removed all footnote citations (there remain a few discursive footnotes) and replaced them with harvard style citations. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 20:52, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

The article contains a lot of interesting material. But I think the intro section is too long; I'd rather if that section just provided an overview of the subject. Mentioning game theorists in movies and TV shows seems a bit too tangential here; such prominent mention of popular culture references will date the article and unnecessarily alienate some readers. I think it would help to split up the opening paragraph too; the sentences make too many topical leaps to fit coherently into one paragraph. Keep up the good work. —Kymacpherson (talk) 02:28, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• I agree the lead and citation issue needs to be addressed, and as I have time I will do so in the next few days. One note about comprehensiveness, I think that the section Application and challenges addresses your concerns. Is there something specific you think has been left out? --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 16:58, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• I've improved the lead, please let me know what you think. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 20:02, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Big improvement! —Kymacpherson (talk) 23:41, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• There's still a mixture of citation styles (inline and cite.php) and unformatted citations (example: SSRN-It Takes Two: An Explanation of the Democratic Peace by Gilat Levy, Ronny Razin ). Sample edits of MOS adjustments left in edit summaries. Please ping me to read through the entire article when it's further along. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:28, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

To expand on my issue with comprehensiveness. In the lead it says "Game theory attempts to mathematically capture behavior in strategic situations, where an individual's success in making choices depends on the choices of others." What I would like is a section that expands on this because this vital point is not explained outside the lead. Instead you start out with a section about Representation of games, which is frankly not the most important subject in game theory.--Peter Andersen (talk) 19:07, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Peter, I'm sorry I must be dense this afternoon, but I still don't understand. Game theory studies games which are mathematical representations of strategic situations. The section on representation is precisely what that is, the mathematical representation of strategic situations. Game theory studies things that can be represented in that way. In that sense, the representation section is the core of topic. Could you be more specific on what you think is not being covered? --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 19:30, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I'm not being clear! Two things. If the applications section is the core, why is it hidden at the end? What I am looking for is the application section in a more generalized form. The way I see it, the article should first explain what is Game theory in a generalized form, then we go into how it is applied in different fields. Does that make sense? --Peter Andersen (talk) 21:00, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, now I see what your getting at. Let me give some thought to how that might be done. One option might be to move the application section to the top. The reason I avoided doing that when I wrote the article for the first time was that this section has pictures which can only be understood once you've read the representation section. A difficulty with a more general "application" section is that there are so many different applications of game theory that it is hard to say something both generaltof games section, but after the representation section. I can also try to expand the intro paragraph in the applications section to be a little more detailed. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 21:21, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

• I think the article still fails a bit to say what Game theory actually is. The three main sections talk about different types of categorization and applications, which is valuable. To be excellent, the article, IMO, lacks an introduction section which is kind of a roof over these three main sections. To accomplish this, it might be better to put the history part before the other ones. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 10:56, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I think maybe the terminology is getting in the way. Game theory is a method for mathematically representing a certain type of interaction (as explained in the representation section). That's it. That's what game theory is. Given that one has a particular representation, one can do many different things with it. Those are it's applications. So in that sense game theory just is its applications. Either way, there isn't really anything more that can be said about game theory without talking about specific applications. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 16:15, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are referencing (1c), LEAD (2a), and comprehensiveness (1b). Marskell (talk) 19:56, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

• Remove - per nom. No major improvements - article is still largely uncited. --Peter Andersen (talk) 09:10, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm a bit concerned over the citation issues in articles like this. Most of the article contains basic material which can be found in any of the textbook references listed at the bottom (in fact, this is why they were added). Citing anything explicitly would significantly reduce the quality of the article: (1) it would make the text hard to scan since it adds junk to the article and (2) either we cite only one source making that source appear more important or we cite them all rendering the article a long list of citations. If there are specific parts of the article that people think are in need of citation for whatever reason, I would be more than happy to discuss them and add citations where necessary. However, I don't think the blanket "not enough citation" criticism is appropriate here. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 18:37, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
    • I'm concerned about the prose and the flow, and terms that are used before they are defined. I wish a new, previously uninvolved editor would run through. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:49, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
• Remove Some inconsistencies in formatting like "Game theory and "Game Theory", "1930s" and "1930's". There are quite a few single line paragraphs that need to be expanded or merged. Also the lead doesn't summarise the main body, which is a problem. Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 03:45, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The article was removed 19:21, 15 March 2008.

---

Civil Air Patrol

Review commentary

Notified User:Linuxbeak, User:Scetoaux, User:Huntster, User:OuroborosCobra, User:VigilancePrime, User:JColgan, User:Bishonen, Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history, Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation

Article severely fails 2(c), with great swathes of the text uncited. There are a number of tags and at least one weblink embedded in the text. Article also fails 1(a), there is a style tag towards the end of the article, untidy formatting of sections and examples of poor prose throughout the text. Other problems include a "media" section which has the hallmarks of an "In popular culture" list and the length of the thing; at 71kb with several huge blocks of text, it could probably stand to be branched off into sub-articles.--Jackyd101 (talk) 16:55, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. This article does indeed need much more citing. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:06, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. The article needs additional structure and citation, as noted above. I'll try to help with the refs next week. --BizMgr (talk) 04:29, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are referencing (1c) and prose (1a). Marskell (talk) 16:32, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• Remove per criterion 1c. LuciferMorgan (talk) 00:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
• Remove as it fails to meet citation criteria. Cromdog (talk) 14:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Nothing happening on the article but vandal reverts. Not a terrible page, but clear citation and structure issues, as noted above. Removing. Marskell (talk) 19:17, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The article was removed 18:25, 13 March 2008.

---

Athanasius Kircher

Review commentary

Notified WikiProject Biography, WikiProject Germany, WikiProject Geology, WikiProject Medicine and the article's main editors: Henry Flower (talk · contribs) (known as Markalexander100 when he first nominated the article for FA in 2004) and Susurrus (talk · contribs).

Kircher was promoted to FA in 2004. The article does not meet 1b, 1c, 2a of the FA criteria.

Explanation:

• 1b - Article seems like it could be significantly expanded; "Medicine" section is quite underdeveloped, considering Kircher's work on his germ theory of disease (which has been covered by a number of scholarly sources).
• 1c - No inline citations, whatsoever. All references are from websites, some of which may not be reliable.
• 2a - Short lead, needs to be expanded/rewritten to serve as a standalone outline of the entire article.

These issues can easily be fixed, but it may take a while. It would be best that the article be put through FAC again once the issues are resolved. Nishkid64 (talk) 05:21, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the invite. The reference issue seems to me relatively trivial: inline citations could be added by anyone with an afternoon to spare much faster than it will take us to talk about it; as for all the references being from websites, would the Catholic Encyclopedia be more reliable if we cited the paper version?

However, I do agree that the article seems rather brief by today's standards, and could probably do with expansion. Henry^Flower 08:52, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

The New Catholic Encyclopedia (which is dead-tree only) would be much preferable. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:01, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are comprehensiveness (1b), citations (1c), and LEAD (2a). Marskell (talk) 19:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• The article is nice, but there are some open issues: MoS inconsistencies (some wikilinking of single years), referencing inconsistencies (such as external jumps: "his celebrity, his technomania and his bizarre eclecticism" [2]"), tags for lack of citations etc. The lead is not bad IMO. The content is, again IMO, comprehensive. I think the article could be saved, in case somebody works a bit on it! I am a weak remover, hoping there will be some interest in the article.--Yannismarou (talk) 15:07, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Remove, nothing happening, needs a tuneup, strange arrangement of appendices, citation needed tags throughout, and at least three different citation styles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The article was removed 18:25, 13 March 2008.

---

Guqin

Review commentary

Notified User:CharlieHuang and User:Badagnani —Preceding unsigned comment added by SeizureDog (talk • contribs) 20:40, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

The article was promoted over a year ago and has since changed drastically.

Issues at hand:

1. I feel that the article may fail criteria 1(a). After going through and correcting many minor errors, I feel uncomfortable that I, a single editor, am finding so much to fix. I believe a thorough copyedit is in order.
2. The popular culture section. This was completely absent when promoted. I feel that it should be removed as trivia, but such sections are still a sticky subject with many.
3. The "Players" section goes against Wikipedia:Embedded list.
4. There are more references given than in-line citations provided. A tad worrisome for a FA article. The number of external links is also rather large.

These are just some of the few issues that I'm seeing. I'm not the best at this, which is why I'm bringing it to the attention of FAR.--SeizureDog (talk) 20:33, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

• I have done a bit of snipping of the article. Point 2; I have removed the list of pop culture references. I do feel a section is needed as the qin in pop culture is an important development in the qin's reaching out to wider audiences and recognition. Point 3; I have cut the list down to a few which I think is more acceptable, unless you want it to convert totally to prose. Point 4; I have moved much of the references and external links to the discussion page and I have kept very the important ones (either cited in the article or important for further reading which I feel are required to stay as a gateway for more about the qin). I'll leave Point 1 for my colleagues to decide upon and carry out.

--Charlie Huang 【遯卋山人】 11:38, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are prose (1a), citations (1c), and organization (2). Marskell (talk) 18:44, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

• I have bolded the transliterations in the first line, and added WG at one other point. This should probably be done consistently at first references to Chinese words; readers who come here from Van Gulik or other 1940's sources should not be lost.
• Much of this article plainly comes from Van Gulik and the two translations cited; anything which doesn't (and is controversial) should have a source, preferably in English. We are not the Chinese WP and cannot assume that our readers know Chinese. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to see this interesting article retained as an FA, but there are problems throughout in the prose.

• • Anderson will love me for saying so, but ... MOS breach: ... " ...," (location of final punctuation after the closing quotes). Em dashes are preferred unspaced (see MOS).
  • I just HATE the Chinese script that speckles the main text—who on EARTH can read it among English-speakers? Very very few, and do they really need it even if they can? It's obstructive, intrusive, and doesn't add to the visual look of the page. There's a Chinese-language article link in the left margin, so why not keep the Chinese characters there, where readers might understand them. More important might be what Chinese language the phonological information is given in: Mandarin?
  • "The guqin is not to be confused with the guzheng, another Chinese long zither also without frets, but with moveable bridges under each string." The opening sets up a bossy tone. "Another" and "also" are not both needed. "But" is not logical.
  • "Other incorrect classifications, mainly from music compact discs, include "harp" or "table-harp"." No, "and", not "or", which is very exclusive in English.
  • Awkward integration of ideas into sentences: "The guqin is a very quiet instrument, with a range of about four octaves, and its open strings are tuned in the bass register. Its lowest pitch is about two octaves below middle C, or the lowest note on the cello."
  • "Also" again, not needed.
  • "It should be noted"—MOS breach and, oh, "also". Comments about blues better further down where they can be referenced. Tony (talk) 11:30, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not comfortable with this one either, but not sure how to fix it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:04, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• Remove very few sources. Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 08:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Obvious issues have been identified but no serious work since Charlie, nearly two months ago. Removing. Marskell (talk) 18:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The article was removed 17:07, 11 March 2008.

---

Parliament of the United Kingdom

Review commentary

Notified WP:WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, WP:WikiProject British Government, User:DrKiernan.

• This article has a grand total of one in-line citation, having been promoted four years ago and held up reasonably well, and seems like it should not be hard to bring this one up to code. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns is referencing (1c). Marskell (talk) 09:44, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Grandfather. One of Emsworth's best; drawn from four standard sources. Please adjoin a list of points challenged or likely to be challenged, which cannot readily be found in those sources. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:31, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Three of those sources are 97, 112 and 243 years old, respectively. DrKiernan (talk) 09:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I encourage Dr Kiernan to update where necessary; but I don't see anything Emsworth got wrong. This is partly because he was working at extreme generality; but that's the level where the picture is most stable. The actual procedures of Parliament are from a source five years old. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Grandfathering was rejected. And we're certainly not applying it to Emsworth at this point in the game. Marskell (talk) 13:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep A excellent article, with a much higher standard than many which have recently made it to the front page. There are plenty of references in related articles which could be carried across. --Rumping (talk) 14:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Needs more inline citations: now has 21 but could do with lots more, but (for me) they are slow to find. ww2censor (talk) 18:35, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

• Remove per 1c. --Peter Andersen (talk) 09:20, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comments I'm not too keen on this article. The article is on the Parliament of the United Kingdom, but the History section is mostly about the forerunner Parliaments; the sub-section actually covering the history of the UK Parliament is the shortest. I certainly would not claim that Blackstone is an unreliable source, but can something written in 1765 really be pertinent for something which has only (arguably, I suppose) existed since 1801? I wouldn't say this article is wrong, and I'm not saying remove, but it's insufficiently focused and insufficiently cited for me to say keep. DrKiernan (talk) 12:11, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Can you suggest a better title? The Parliament of the UK was de facto formed by expansion of the English Parliament rather than a federal merger, so I don't really see this as a problem. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:17, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• Remove per criteria 1c. NSR77 ^T_C 00:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Remove, 1c, direct quotes without citation, too much uncited text, and with the problems we've found in some of the other article Emsworth articles, we need better citation for verifiability. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

• Remove, 1c, the most part of the article appears to be completely unsourced. Gothbag (talk) 16:32, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The article was removed 14:33, 9 March 2008.

---

Battle of Jutland

Review commentary

Notified: WP:GERMANY, WP:MILHIST, WP:MARITIME, WP:GERMIL, WWI task force, British Milhist task force, User:Gdr, User:Tirronan.

There are a number of concerns relating this article that have been brought up on WP:MARITIME and on the talk page of the article, with regards to how comprehensive and accurate this article is.( Criteria 1 (b) and (c) ). There are no inline citations at the moment. I also think that there is a problem with 2(b) in terms of section headings, eg the "Quotations" section. I think this needs a thorough review, something that could not be tackled on the talk page. Woody (talk) 18:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

---

It would seem that my name is rattling around on this one but I would make the point that this article is mostly sound but in need to rewriting to meet FA status and the lack of inline citation is appalling.

• Someone lifted tables from another work and proceeded to insert them without citing the source which would appear to me a copywrite violation.
• Various issues are mentioned in brief without expansion and citation which did affect the battle, lack of Turret roof armor (armor suites being over taken by fire control ranges), over centralization of command in the Grand Fleet, Squadron commander's lack of iniative, basic torpedo tactics (no naval commander would head into a torpedo attack), the desperation of the High Seas Fleet to get away, ect.
• No FA class article should be classed as such without through ciation and this is almost non existent. Tirronan (talk) 22:27, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes the outcome section either needs to be rewriten or removed as you have noted and there is enough missing or just wrong to rewrite the entire thing. I'd suggest that we compare notes on what books should be ordered to source from. I was in the middle of starting to order from Amazon when I noticed you were doing the same. I have Castles of Steel but that isn't enough for this article. Tirronan (talk) 17:38, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

---

Apologies Tirronan, I brought your name up in light of your contributions on the Jutland talk page. I'm afraid I'd have to disagree with you on the mostly sound verdict-to wit;

• The premise of the German sortie is wrong. The original plan did include a raid on Sunderland, but also involved a sortie to the North. The weather and lack of Zeppelin cover to the Northwest meant that the raid was scrapped on 30 May in favour of the Northern Operation, i.e. the advance to the Dogger Bank. To say the article doesn't reflect this is an understatement. The map with Sunderland on is therefore pointless.
• There are large rambling sections on the Order of Battle and "Naval Tactics" which aren't very helpful at all. Most of the Order of Battle section could be put into a Technical section at the end and most of the Naval Tactics could be explained in the narrative.
• A section on the leadership of the Fleets and Squadrons would be better, rather than the shortcut to the Admiral's pages which aren't much help really in explaining things.
• "The Outcome" section is hopeless really. Quite apart from the fact it's disorganised, I feel there's a lot of technical issues there which have been either exagerrated or understated. The whole section is far too Anglo-centric and doesn't give an adequate description of the outcome or the consequences.
• Citations. I can see where some of the quotes have come from, but still it's going to be a pain in the backside to cite everything in there. For example the Scheer quote near the beginning, which is both mis-quoted and uncited. Not helpful at all.

I'm gathering references now to make changes. It probably wont reach me before the 2 week review period is up, but I have a copy of the Jutland documentary on the way to me so as to see if some detail can be gleaned from it and then properly included into the text. I should mention that I have the Battle of Jutland: Official Despatches, Jellicoe's The Grand Fleet 1914-1916, Scheer's Germany's High Sea Fleet, Massie's books, Lambert's article (however useless I think it is) and access to Gordon, Corbett and Bacon, among many others. --Harlsbottom (talk) 11:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

--

Tirronan, thanks for the heads up. I actually disagree with FA and GA status anyway, since it seems to me that an article may be OK when assessed, but then it gets worse, or standards change. Until Wiki somehow controls article-entropy (Wiki Heat Death?) then FA and GA are at best snapshots. As to the article itself I actually thought this was a pretty good summary of the battle, possibly the most coherent and understandable narrative I have read, considering its length, and the maps etc are excellent. So, enough with the philososphy, yes, I'll try and help fix it up. Greg Locock (talk) 04:52, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are comprehensiveness (1b), citations (1c), focus (4), and organization (2). Marskell (talk) 09:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

• Remove, as things stand. There is a lot of excellent material here and the subject certainly deserves an FA. However, it is well below current FA standards. Extensive citations will be needed. I think some parts of the article are quite unfocused and need editing down. I am glad to see people working on it but I think it will take several months' work to sort it out. The Land (talk) 17:35, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
• Remove - per 1c--Peter Andersen (talk) 07:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Remove, echoing The Land's comments. --Harlsbottom (talk) 10:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The article was removed 18:39, 7 March 2008.

---

Metal Gear Solid (1998 video game)

Review commentary

Notified Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games, User:Teggles, User:A Man In Black, User:Jonny2x4 and User:RockMFR. --Peter Andersen (talk) 12:27, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello there people.

I've placed this article for FAR as I don't personally believe it meets FAC standards, especially for comprehensiveness. Much detail of the game has been left out. Voice casting is not present and although linking to another article on characters is present, a summary of key characters isn't there, budget has not been included. Criticism of the game has not been levied in any great detail and its impact on the history of the Playstation has not been commented on.

I don't believe that this article offers a comprehensive view of the topic and request that others have a look and forward their opinions. Thanks Mouse Nightshirt | talk 16:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - Or whatever the proper bold word is. The only problem I see is that the Reception section lists only the ratings, and does not discuss the specific criticism. This is easily solved and does not warrant delisting. I disagree with User:Mouse Nightshirt on the characters and voice acting, because of size issues. The character list is a proper way to present that information. Budget is almost impossible to find sources for, and describing the impact on the history of the PlayStation is also quite difficult to do. What evidence of such impact do you have? User:Krator (t c) 12:43, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
  • There is no proper bold word. In this section, we discuss possible improvements without declaring keep or remove, per the instructions at the top of the page. Pagrashtak 17:42, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

• I also disagree about the characters. The plot is already long for this article and we don't need to add too much character detail when there is a separate article for that. The reception section does need work, as Krator describes. I would also like to know specifically what impact the nominator wants added—without an example, this last point isn't actionable. Pagrashtak 17:40, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

• I cannot find any information on the budget beyond what is already given. --- RockMFR 18:22, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

• After all, these problems need to be fixed up before it becomes a FARC. This article is indeed lacking in some places and some of it might just be overly long with unneeded details per Pagrashtak's comments and also in my opinion. Any other suggestions in improving it? Greg Jones II 17:00, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• I have been disappointed with this article for a long time. I don't believe it meets featured article standards, even though I wrote and nominated it. I will attempt to fix these problems, but that's not a guarantee. As others have mentioned, you haven't exactly been specific. Reception is a massive problem, and is what I will focus on, but what impact do you want me to mention? I considered creating a section like this a while ago, but there was nothing to fill it with. --Teggles (talk) 03:13, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

• What's the Famitsu score for MGS? Rudie M. (talk) 14:28, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

• Also, what other criticism, besides Gamespot, has there been? Rudie M. (talk) 14:31, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concern is comprehensiveness (1b). Marskell (talk) 15:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

• What are the names in backets in the Cast section for? Buc (talk) 21:06, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

They are the pseudonyms the actors used. --Mika1h (talk) 20:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

• Weak Keep—it still looks in decent shape. If Teggles can tweak up the reception section a bit and expand on the reception section, then I don't see why it can't be kept. — Deckiller 05:01, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
• Remove, per 1b. Unfortunately, I agree with the assessment that there seems to be significant material missing, especially for a game of this importance. The reception section is little more than an overview of ratings. Some research needs to be done into serious articles written criticizing the game. Additionally, there is little information on the game's impact on its console and on other games. --Laser brain (talk) 15:46, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
• Remove - a FA should discuss not only the topic itself but also the impact and importance of the topic on its field. Game review scores are worthwhile for a new game, but a game 10 years old needs to have its influence analyzed more. - Chardish (talk) 22:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Closing: The reception section, identified as the main problem here, has not seen any work in the two months since Teggles last commented, admitting it needed work. Also (although I'm not sure what video game editors have decided is appropriate for plot summaries) the Story section seems far too long and over-detailed. Given no recent work, removing per above. Marskell (talk) 18:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The article was removed 21:55, 2 March 2008.

---

History of erotic depictions

Review commentary

Notified Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Visual arts, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pornography and the article's principal editors: Pschemp‎ (talk · contribs) and ‎Samsara (talk · contribs), the latter of whom nominated it for FA status.

I submit this article for review because it fails to meet two FA criteria -- 1. (b) and (c). Specifically, it relies exclusively on a poor quality, unscholarly source for its treatment of the 17th and 18th centuries. This source does not "represent the relevant body of published knowledge". [1. (c)] Consequently, this article neglects "major facts and details" -- that is, the history of erotic depictions in the 17th and 18th centuries. [1. (b)].

Our source in question -- the article's sole source for this vital period in the history of printed pornography -- is a sort of highbrow e-zine called Libido magazine. Despite Libido's subtitle (The Journal of Sex and Sensibility), this publication is not an academic journal and is unaffiliated with any institution of higher learning. Seemingly defunct, published on a website with many dead links, this publication does not seek to present itself as scholarly (see here). Specifically, A History of erotic depictions relies on a short article entitled "The Roots of Western Pornography". This article contains no citations whatsoever, even though it is obviously a low-quality vulgarisation of pre-existing scholarship (one thinks of Lynn Hunt and Robert Darnton). Unsurprisingly, the article in Libido has several serious failings. First of all, it takes some of these erotic publications at their word and asserts that they were published in Amsterdam. Darnton, as well as Roger Chartier have produced studies showing this to be false -- in France, books destined to arouse the censor's ire were often printed in that country but claimed to have been printed in Amsterdam -- in order to confuse the censor. This is common knowledge among historians of 18th century publishing.

And you already changed that in article (without adding a source I might add)...why then is it still an issue? pschemp | talk 16:22, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

The Libido article also leads to some other conceptually warped statements. We read that "the market for the mass-produced, inexpensive pamphlets soon became the bourgeoisie, making the upper class worry." This statement is almost meaningless. Does the author mean "nobility" by "upper class"? While "petit bourgeois" can indeed refer to a lower middling order, "bourgeoisie" never does -- whether used in its Marxian sense or not. The author uses the word as though it were simply the plural of bourgeois. Furthermore, in 18th century France, nobles and grands bourgeois intermarried (see Chaussinand-Nogaret) and these bourgeois also bought royal offices that confered nobility. And of course, worries about "philosophical" books were not confined to "upper classes". (A look at many cahiers de doléances of the provincial clergy confirms this)

I could go on, but we essentially have an unrelilable, completely unscholarly source (Libido) being taken (1) at face value and (2) used as the sole source for the history of the beginnings of printed erotic matter. This section needs to be re-written. There are plenty of sources -- there's a growing body litterature on the history of pornography, the history of the book and publishing, the history of sex and gender. But these essential sources are generally books or (scholarly!) journal articles -- and necessitate going to a good library, rather than just googling.

I added a cleanup tag to the article and left a message on its talk page a month ago evoking these problems, and no changes have come of it. I realize that some may see my criticism as overly technical: to them, I would say the following: an article that aims to adequately describe the history of erotic depictions cannot rely entirely on one bad source for the absolutely vital period stretching from 1600-1900. --Zantastik talk 09:35, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, the problems correctly described by Zantastik are pervasive; the most heavily cited source (over twenty references) gives as it's authors those well-known scholars Seymore Butts, Marilyn Chambers, and John Leslie. Something urgently needs to be done about that - in fact they just feature for seconds, or read the voice-over in what is not a bad set of tv documentaries, featuring several real academics. But this is about the general level of the references, whch especially in an area like this is not really enough. The period Zantastik (1600-1900) complains about is actually one of the better covered ones (though rather crudely written) - the medieval section is highly misleading, and the coverage of India derisory. Needs a good deal of work to justify keeping its status. Johnbod (talk) 12:02, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

These claims are quite ridiculous. Poorly written? Please justify this. Even the two complaintants above do not agree on the section in question. There are exactly 6 sentences referenced by the publication Zantastik so despises, not entire sections. The fixes to be made are minor (if at all), and rather than demoting the article, and complaining about 6 facts, the complainers should fix it themselves since they claim to be so knowledgeable. What I see in the rest of his statement above is a semantic rant that is quite minor. I see absolutely no reason for the entire article to be demoted because someone doesn't like one source. As nearly every sentence in this article is referenced, claims that large parts of/or the entire article rely on that source are simply false.

An example of a fact cited by the reference so hated above: "Despite their occasional repression, depictions of erotic themes have been common for millennia." -Does any scholar dispute this? No. You don't like that particular reference for it? Find another. Not a single of your complaints has been backed up with a reference.

Also, relying on a documentary of experts in their subject areas is not wrong, nor is it unscholarly. Johnbod makes a ludicrous statement here where he seems to think that because the publication information lists the names of the producers, that that is who is quoted. This is hardly the case. If you've seen the documentary, you'd know that anything cited comes from the information given from the experts interviewed, who make up all of the feature. When you cite a reference, you list the publication information - everyone with common sense knows that. If a book has an editor, that person's name appears in the info of the citation. That doesn't mean you are quoting the editor. The academics in the documentary are all well known, but I have to cite their contributions from the documentary as coming from the documentary. I feel there is some bias here against using media other than the printed page, which is unfair to the documentary film genre, especially one such as this which names and lists all the academics it uses clearly during the film. The form of media makes it no less academic. pschemp | talk 16:20, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

This is nonsense frankly; the trio named above were, I'm fairly sure, not the producers at all, but appeared briefly, and in Leslie's case read the voice-over. They are just listed by the website as the best-known of all those involved. You don't credit a book to the publisher, nor a documentary to the producer anyway. The programmes will have a writer (or several), who should be credited with comments from the commentary, and interview comments with others should be credited to them, just like the authors of articles in a book collection. Another trip to Blockbusters I'm afraid. Johnbod (talk) 20:04, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

That's how the film is cited, even on Amazon and other places. "Conventions for citing film and video productions are less fixed than those for print and even many online sources. This ambiguity is caused in part by the group nature of such productions: even if you identify a writer, producer, or director, a performance almost never has the single authorship of a written text or single image. Your citation should always include the same basic elements (as described below), but their order can vary—especially concerning the first item listed." [22] You are doing nothing but complaining about the citation format. The cite contains all the information available. pschemp | talk 03:49, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Available to you, off the internet. That is the problem with the article in general. Instead of personal attacks, and sweeping dismissal of problems, you should actually addresss these issues, which aree not trivial. Johnbod (talk) 13:47, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

In assessing Zantastik's argument, I have to note several things:

• The author, in spite of his claimed expertise on the subject, has contributed little to the article. Furthermore, he has provided no actionable suggestion other than the one he has executed already.
• His first concern is that one of the sources used in the article is not an academic, peer-reviewed journal article (which is at odds with the definition we use at WP:RS). He claims that one of the points made in the article is incorrect, citing "common knowledge among historians of 18th century publishing". He links to another Wikipedia article (not a reliable source, and only two footnotes) which does not support his claim. He does not, I emphasise, not, present ANY source supporting his argument. He has therefore presented NO evidence that the cited Libido article is factually inaccurate. References supporting "common knowledge" should be easy to provide for an expert in the field.
• Even peer-reviewed journals frequently contain mistakes. Supposing Zantastik's claim to be true, his evidence relies on n=1, which is not considered significant in any evidence-based field of study. Wikipedia cannot be held to account for mistakes committed in peer-reviewed journals either.
• Furthermore, his characterisation of Libido as an e-zine is incorrect. The journal was published in print until 2000, with a "best of" book volume published in 1997 - check the Library of Congress for confirmation: [23] [24]. You will also find these items listed at amazon.com.[25] Several sources confirm that the editor, Marianna Beck, holds a PhD, among them a book published by Stanford University Press.[26]
• His second criticism (the non-actionable one) is at best semantic and at worst a matter of personal preference. It's unclear from his argument whether Zantastik is claiming that socio-economic gradients did not exist in France (a proposition he thankfuly contradicts in the same paragraph), or whether he is simply unhappy with the words used, in which case, he has suggested no alternative phrasing, nor edited the article to this effect.
• All in all I have to consider the possibility that this is not a good-faith nomination. However, I would prefer to think that the concerns have been addressed, or perhaps, on second thought, seem less substantial to the nominator than when first proposed. The key is that we have to put forward an article that is reasonably factually accurate while also being not only intelligible, but perfectly clear to the general public.

Keep. Samsara (talk • contribs) 19:19, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Note Users who feel that the article still meets the FA criteria should present arguments to argue against the nominator's concerns about the article. Comments without substance and/or "votes" are basically ignored. Joelito (talk) 23:45, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Let's keep things civil, please. Calling people "complainers" is a bit personal, I fear. And remember that we all must assume good faith. We might have different points of view on sources, but that's no reason we shouldn't be calm and civil.

Let me clarify a few matters. First of all, I do not "claim expertise" -- what I've pointed out is fairly obvious. But even a non-expert can see that this article has sourcing issues. (I'll be more than happy to dig up a reference on the Amsterdam matter over the next week.) Second, suggesting that I "claim[ed that] socio-economic gradients did not exist in France" is a misreading of my remarks. In fact, what I I did was to point out a nonsense sentence in the heavily relied-upon source. Let's take a look at it again. Beck states that "the market for the mass-produced, inexpensive pamphlets soon became the bourgeoisie, making the upper class worry." What I'm suggesting is that (1) worries about livres philosophiques were not confined to the "upper classes" and (2) that using "bourgeoisie" as a stand in for "lower middle class" as Beck seems to be doing, is more than a bit silly. Some bourgeois were upper-class, some were poor. Some nobles were rich, some were poor. (See The French Nobility in the Eighteenth Century: From Feudalism to Enlightenment by Chaussinand-Nogaret) In terms of the non-class-based nature of opposition to erotic/pornographic material in the 18th century, see: Edition et sédition by Robert Darnton, The Cultural Origins of the French Revolution by Roger Chartier, and Subversive Words: Public Opinion in 18th Century France by Arlette Farge, for instance.

It is clearly correct that whether a publication is printed or published electronically does not affect its academic seriousness. But Libido simply does not attempt to present itself as scholarly. This is not to say that its authors are ill-educated -- it's just more of a general interest magazine. (Judge for yourself).

My objection stands. For the entire seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, we have: (1) an anecdote about Pepys and (2) an article from Libido which cites absolutely no sources! That's it. Neglecting to cite a single book published by an academic press for this vital 200-year span of history is simply unacceptable. It is now up to uninvolved parties to judge the matter.--Zantastik talk 13:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Meanwhile, you are *still* refusing to give a proper reference that includes page numbers. I think expecting people to read three entire books is quite unreasonable. So, please, proper reference: page numbers! Samsara (talk • contribs) 21:20, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

In the coming week, I'll gladly head to the library and give you specific page numbers. That said, the point you desperately want proving, with page numbers -- that opposition to erotic material in 18th century France wasn't confined to the upper orders-- is hardly counter-intuitive. But let's not get sidetracked -- the matter at hand is that one source, totally bereft of references, for the entire period of 1600-1900 simply isn't up to par for an article that seeks to maintain FA status.--Zantastik talk 07:16, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

One section where one person personally doesn't like the source simply does not require removal of FA status. In the interest of more information, I personally wrote to the author of the source to verify her credentials. Her response is quoted:

" My partner, Jack Hafferkamp and I founded the magazine in 1988 in Chicago; it ran 12 years and there were 47 issues. We both obtained Ph.Ds in 1998 from IASHS (the Institute for Advanced Study of Human Sexuality), located in San Francisco. I am currently part-time faculty at the School of the Art Institute of Chicago where I teach The Material Culture of Sex." Verified here [27].

While the author may not be THE foremost expert on the subject, she certainly has qualifying academic credentials and is employed teaching in the field of erotic art. FA does not required that only the absolute one and only agreed on source be used (and in this case there isn't one) so again I reiterate that this whole review is absurd as the dispute is minor. pschemp | talk 03:56, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I would like to thank pschemp for having brought the author's biography to my attention. Upon inspection, it becomes evident that Beck's academic credentials are more dubious than "qualifying." Let's look more closely:

Beck obtained her Ph.D from the Institute for Advanced Study of Human Sexuality (IASHS). see bio The IASHS does not claim accreditation. While the now-defunct Bureau of Private Postsecondary and Vocational Education of the State of California, did "approve" the school, the Bureau's literature makes it clear that "approval is not the same as accreditation." See here Like many unaccredited institutions, the IASHS has rather lax standards for its doctoral program. For instance, a B.A. is the only degree one must possess in order to be admitted into the doctoral program, which lasts 6 trimesters see here or two years. Yet during those two years, a doctoral candidate is only required to be present at the IASHS for 3 months. FAQ (6 trimesters x 2 weeks = 12 weeks = 3 months) This is probably because students need not "leave their present employment" in order to enter the program. And of course, (admittedly limited) credit is available for past work. here. One trimester is allotted "for preparation of the dissertation." see here

So Beck's Ph.D. comes from an unaccredited institution which, unsurprisingly, has with much less demanding requirements than most graduate schools. Now let's look at what kind of scholarship she's produced since. In what sorts of periodicals has she been published? Excluding her own erotica magazine, she's basically stuck to newspapers. Though she does list the National Enquirer as well! the bio. Needless to say, not one of these periodicals is an academic journal. Books? She lists none. Earlier, pschemp mentioned this book -- Beck neither authored nor contributed to it. Her own defunct Journal of Sex and Sensibility, unaffiliated with any institution of higher learning, did not even seek to present itself as scholarly (see here).

Of course, she has made quite a few sex-ed documentaries, and did win an "Erotic Oscar". But however worthy that is -- and I don't say that sarcasticly -- it's simply not scholarship.

In sum, if someone's terminal degree comes from an unaccredited institution and (s)he produces erotic and general interest material, that person's academic credentials are a bit shaky -- part time (and probably non tenure-track) art instructor or not.

Yes, Beck is certainly not "THE foremost expert" on erotic depictions from 1600-1900. Yet this article relies on her entirely for this period of time. If we want to meet criterion 1.c, then we must "represent the relevant body of published knowledge". I'll let other Wikipedians decide whether or not History of erotic depictions does that, particularly for the 17th and 18th centuries. --Zantastik talk 00:54, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Zantastik, it's becoming clear to me that you simply dislike this article for its very existence, not its current state. You are unwilling to rationally examine the evidence raised, and have not lifted one finger since your first complaint in helping to fix the article. That is, fix it if you could tell us what's wrong with it. Samsara (talk • contribs) 18:47, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I see you've completely ignored the fact that the Art Institute of Chicago, where she currently works is quite a respected institution. You seem to be questioning their hiring decision and thus using that for your reason to remove this article from featured status. Once again you've given no concrete suggestions, suggested no alternatives for sources, contributed nothing and that's not terribly constructive. pschemp | talk 18:51, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

One may wonder quite where Zantastik's attempts at FUD stop - perhaps the next step is going to be to try to discredit anyone who holds the Art Institute in high esteem. Samsara (talk • contribs) 22:28, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Once again, let's all take a deep breath and keep things civil. When one argues that scholarly, rather than unscholarly, sources should be used in an article, it doesn't mean he opposes that article's very existence. Rather, it means he wants the article to "represent the relevant body of published knowledge". Relying exclusively on an author who (1) has not published any scholarship on the period at hand (17th-19th cens.) and (2) whose academic credentials are shaky is not the best way to meet this criterion. Wondering out loud whether I am "opposed" to this article is both silly and and awfully personal. No, The degree and scholarship issues notwitstanding, I would not question the Art Institute's decision to hire Ms. Beck as a part-time instructor to teach a course entitled "The Material Culture of Sex". Beck has, after all, worked in the arts. What's more, part-time instructors aren't always expected to have a doctorate, from an accredited institution or not, nor to have produced that much scholarship. On the other hand, The Institute certainly hasn't hired her to teach a course on the history of erotic art from 1700-1900. And for good reason -- Beck lacks the expertise and training required for such a post.

No concrete suggestions? I've suggested no alternatives for sources? One need only peruse my (loquacious) comments to see that such accusations are groundless. I've suggested concretely that this article be based on the (substantial) literature concerning erotic material in the 17th and 18th centuries. Here are a few books: Forbidden best-sellers of pre-revolutionary France, Edition et sédition : l'univers de la littérature clandestine au XVIIIe siècle, and The Literary underground of the Old Regime by Robert Darnton come to mind. But it's true that an even more comprehensive source had slipped my mind. The Invention of pornography : obscenity and the origins of modernity, 1500-1800 by Lynn Hunt.

Serious scholarship on the matter at hand exists. Beck's credentials are dubious, and lacks expertise in the specific field of the history of erotic depictions from 1600-1900. She is our only source for this vitally important period. Other, scholarly sources exist. I submit that at present time that this article does not meet criterion 1(c). Furthermore, I would like to remind everyone that this isn't about me, or Pschemp or Samsara -- making things personal is a violation of Wikipedia policy. Disagree resolutely, argue intelligently, but do so civilly. Finally, I think that Pschemp, Samsara and I have pretty much (perhaps not entirely) made our points. Community consensus, following wikipedia policy, will decide the matter. --Zantastik talk 13:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Seconded. Johnbod (talk) 13:13, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

And what have you done to offer an actionable suggestion or help fix the issues you have Johnbod? I see that you haven't even suggested an alternative citation format to the one you object to above. pschemp | talk 04:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

As I suggested above, you should go down to Blockbusters, get the thing out, find out who was actually responsible for the points cited, which was certainly not Seymour Butts, and credit them. Johnbod (talk) 00:19, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

You just don't get it. It HAS to be cited that way because that is the source of the information. I've cited the facts. Annyone can go get the documentary and verify this. pschemp | talk 16:33, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

You've seriously misinterpreted "represent the relevant body of published knowledge." The text here represents the relevant body of published knowledge - it doesn't contradict it, it isn't wrong, and in fact it agrees with the relevant body of published knowledge. Nowhere in the FAC requirements is it said that an article can't be a FA if if doesn't use exactly the sources one person prefers. In fact that statement comes under the heading of Factually accurate: "Factually accurate" means that claims are verifiable against reliable sources and accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge. The important thing is that 1. the correct facts are there 2.the facts are cited 3. they represent the relevant knowledge...and that one paragraph does this. Articles are written with the material that is available. Chastising an article that has the facts correct and is acceptably sourced because the author didn't use your preferred source is wrong. You've finally, for the first time mentioned a book, yet still not offered to help with the article or provide access to the suggested source or send me the $20 dollars to purchase it. This article does not exist to provide in depth coverage of any one time period, which is why one paragraph is sufficient. Certainly the current source isn't sufficient for an in depth analysis of that particular time period but for an overview, which this article is, it is fine. If you'd like to write a sub article on that particular time period in history, and go into meticulous detail, please do. However, we don't punish articles here on wikipedia for not having access to another's preferred source, which seems to be your intent.

The bottom line here is that Zantastik's complaint is a minor issue in what is an overview article that covers much more than the paragraph he has issues with, and even if it does have merit, it isn't significant enough to warrant a delisting. Johnbod's compliant about the form of the citation is literally trivial. pschemp | talk 04:36, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

No wonder no one is bothering to debate here when all points raised are dismissed in this ridiculous and ad hominem fashion. If you think "arguments" like this will impress the decision-makers here, I think you are in for a surprise. Johnbod (talk) 10:54, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Please remember that Wikipedia operates by consensus. Thank you, Samsara (talk • contribs) 16:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Fixes needed: some things to work on:

• Can the first sentence in the lead be fixed to better conform with WP:LEAD? Is there a difference between an article, Erotic depictions and History of erotic depictions, since the lead is now the former?
• There are Further details and See also templates in the middle of sections: they belong at the top. See WP:GTL.
• Can the first section heading ("Historic attitudes regarding erotic depictions") be reworked to better conform to WP:MSH?
• WP:OVERLINKing should be addressed (for example, I noticed laws). Common words known to most English speakers need not be linked. I also saw England and Germany; most English speakers know what those are.
• There are some raw URLs in the citations, example: Bibliographic information retrieved November 30, 2006 from [1].
• All citations should be complete (title, publisher, last accessdate on websources, author and publication date when available). For example, missing publication date: Krysia Diver. Archaeologist finds 'oldest porn statue'. Guardian Unlimited. Retrieved on August 21, 2006.
• Journal names should be italicized, and I saw some emdashes rather than endashes on page ranges in citations.
• English language icon isn't needed in English language Wiki, example: Richtel, Matt. "In Raw World of Sex Movies, High Definition Could Be a View Too Real", The New York Times, January 22, 2007. Retrieved on October 15, 2007. (English)

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:09, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

• • Thank you for the concrete suggestions. Will fix as soon as I can. pschemp | talk 17:16, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
    • I've gone through and completed all your suggestions, though i can't for the life of me find an mdash anywhere. The one citation that has two years connected uses an ndash, and just to make sure, I retyped it.pschemp | talk 06:28, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
      • They're there; I may have gotten them all.[28] There is still inconsistent date linking in the citations, some dates linked, others not. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
        • Thanks, I'll work on it. Though all my keyboard seems to be able to type is hyphens and underscores...is there a trick I'm missing?pschemp | talk 16:20, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
          • Ok found the silly punctuation in the editing frame so nevermind. All dates wikilinked now. pschemp | talk 18:09, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

• Having now done some adding and editing, I have become more aware of another problem with the article - what is it actually about? Until my edits, almost all the article, except the part on early photography, was about images with explicit vulvas and erect penises, regardless of whether at the time they were seen as perfectly normal to paint on a wall in a family house (Romans) or obscene, illegal and to be kept in secret (modern Europe at times). Actual "erotic depictions", by which is usually meant in the West pretty women with naked breasts etc, was hardly touched on, and still is only very sketchily treated. Really I think the article needs renaming, perhaps to "History of explicit sexual images" or similar. Johnbod (talk) 12:00, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I've reverted your edits. First, this is a FA which means ANY fact you put in better have a reference, and you put uncited facts into the article. Until you can site your changes, please refrain from editing, because you obviously don't understand that EVERY claim needs to be cited. You need to back up any claim you make here with a reference. Please put your proposed edits on the talk page so they can be discussed. I'm asking you politely not to turn this into an edit war. Discussion on the talk page is even mroe preferable when you don't have references. Everything current;y in there has a cite and if you randomly insert stuff, you can make cites refer to something that is not in them. Erotic is not the same thing as sexually explicit, and different cultures considered different things both erotic and explict. The Romans for instance thought those normal paintings to be erotic, not explicit. Using the word explicit makes even more of a value judgement. Unless you can back up your claim here with references, you are doing nothing but speculation. pschemp | talk 16:06, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• You have some nerve complaining about referencing, given the article as it was, and your comments above. My additions are as heavily referenced as the rest of the article (which as I have said above is not up to FA standards) and the sources cited are specialized scholarly works by major authorities (Bull was head of an Oxford college, Oberhuber the leading German print scholar of his generation), not a short series of tv programmes credited by you to two porn stars and the defendent in a famous rape case. I can add more cites later. You seem to be agreeing with me on the erotic/explicit point above: the Romans thought their paintings erotic, but what was thought erotic (but not too explicit) in the post-Renaissance West is still hardly touched on. Instead the article covers almost entirelty the explicit, in modern Western terms. So much for the complaints above about the lack of suggestions for improvements etc. Johnbod (talk) 16:21, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• When you do them wrong, you are not helping. I'll give you a specific example. The fact about Gutenberg - You moved it up a paragraph, leaving it uncited and dangling when the citation for it is at the end of the paragraph where it originally was. Thus your attempt at helping REMOVED a citation. And the reason the article has the most information on Western things is that in the Literature, most of it refers to western things. Much less is written on other cultures. We can only include what we have cites for. Asian erotica for example is fiendishly difficult to get academic works about. What could be found is included, and you are mistaking length of paragraphs for coverage of available topics. Also this is an overview article, not an indepth study of any one time. IF you go read the original FAC you'll see that was covered there, so I'm not going to rehash it here. pschemp | talk 16:28, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• The actual "cast list" for the "Pornography" documentaries is here. It will be seen from this that, as I have said all along, Seymore Butts and Maryln Chambers only appear in later sections dealing with modern pornography. I can't be bothered with this any more. I may wait until the next time the series shows up on late night tv & record them to see how many of the cited statements actually reflect what is said. The Gutenberg "History Today" link is dead, so it is impossible for me to tell how many of the non-sequiturs cited to it actually appear there. This article is many things, but it is not an FA. Johnbod (talk) 16:58, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • • • • • • And it took me two seconds to find where th history today link moved to. You didn't even try to look. It works now. pschemp | talk 04:18, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
      • A book with an editor cites the editor, not the individual authors. A movie with producers and directors cites the producers and directors, not the individual actors. That's all there is to it. And the link was working at the time of the FAC or the article wouldn't have passed. pschemp | talk 17:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

And references to a documentary with a script and interviews with academics should credit the script authors and/or the person interviewed, not a porn star interviewed briefly two episodes later. Not in an FA anyway. Johnbod (talk) 17:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

SHow me where on WIkipedia is says a script is required to cite a film. pschemp | talk 17:44, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• • And why do you suppose that the editors of the article would be making it up? What motive could they have? This is getting increasingly mysterious irrational. Samsara (talk • contribs) 17:04, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Not making it up, but garbled precis. For example, it is certainly not true that explicit eroticism is "common" in illuminated books of hours - it occurs, but very rarely. As I have said all alone, the documentary contributors were of fairly high quality, and I find it difficult to believe this was actually said in the documentary. Titillatingly erotic scenes, very mild by modern standards, are naturally more common in secular manuscripts of Ovid etc, but even there anything explicit is pretty rare. The passage on I Modi is flat wrong in at least two important respects (dates, survival), and contradicts our article, despite being referenced to a scholarly work just on these prints (also used for the article). Was this book actually consulted? Johnbod (talk) 17:20, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

No copies of the I Modi from the first printing exist. So, put your money where your mouth is and back up your statements with facts. You admit you haven't watched the documentary, yet you still criticize it. Until you back up your assertions with references, they are irrelevent. pschemp | talk 17:44, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Boy, you don't read either other people's comments, or your own article. I've made it plain I have watched "it", and the article wrongly says nothing survives of the second version. And what happened in 1524? Enough of this. Johnbod (talk) 17:53, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

You are flat out wrong my friend. It says "the censorship was so complete that no original copies have ever been found" Original means FIRST PRINTING. And indeed, no compete copies of either of those printings exist. "I Modi has reached the twentieth century only in incomplete form." [29] And here: "The I Modi were immediately censored by Pope Clement VII: The plates and virtually all known impressions were destroyed (though a few isolated mostly sillouetted fragments survived) - and "I Modi 1524-25 [30]

And that's just what I found in one minute of looking. pschemp | talk 17:58, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I seeee - "Original means first printing" - is that the first printing of the second version, that the article has been talking about for some time. No, it's the first printing of the first version - you remember, mentioned 8 lines earlier. Come off it! The 1524-5 link you give relates to Giulio Romano's paintings, not Raimondi's prints - look again. These are the garbled results you get from writing articles on subjects you don't know much about off the internet, I'm afraid. Johnbod (talk) 18:12, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

"Subjects you don't know much about?" Sorry but I seem to know more than you and besides, Wikipedia does not require one to have a PhD in an area to write an article. The common sense interpretation of the word original is "first one", and no one else has a problem understanding it. As for the I Modi, you should read again. Romano started the images in 1524, but Raimondi also did the engravings and published them in 1524. You are absolutely full of crap claiming that the I Modi wasn't printed first in 1524. "1524 saw the execution, printing and circulation in Rome of the 1st edition of a set of copperplate engravings showing heterosexual copulation. The plates were numbered, but unsigned, undated and untitled, and are commonly known as ‘I Modi’, ‘The Postures.’ The combined producers of this erotica were all former members of Raphael’s prestigious workshop. Giulio Romano most probably supplied the working drawings and designs, which were engraved by Marcantonio Raimondi." [31] That says it right there, that Raimondi made the prints in 1524, and that's what the other references I cited say too. For example "engravings made in Rome in 1524 by Marcantonio Raimondi" [32] And another, (Sorry I don't have the book at the moment, It was on interlibrary loan) "Giulio Romano was probably lucky to be in Mantua when the Modi, a series of sixteen explicit sexual postions done after his drawings were published in Rome in 1524. Marcantonio Raimondi, the hapless engraver of Giulio's designs was imprisoned for his part in the affair." [33] And another: "These original drawings, however, no longer exist, and we know them only through their transmission as engraving made in Rome by Marcantonio Raimondi in 1524" [34] I'm citing internet links so you can read them for yourself, as you obviously wouldn't beleive a citation from a book you can't see. You have to back up your assertions with references, period. pschemp | talk 00:15, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

The article says (my bold):"In the 16th century an attempt to print erotic material caused a scandal when Italians Pietro Aretino and Marcantonio Raimondi produced the I Modi in 1524, an illustrated book of 16 "postures" or sexual positions. Raimondi had actually published the I Modi once before, and was subsequently imprisoned by the Pope Clement VII and all copies of the illustrations were destroyed." Nuff said, except that "I" means "the" in Italian, so you don't say "The I Modi". Johnbod (talk) 03:18, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

No it doesn't. Check again. The "published before" sentence was out of place and I fixed it. (An accidental rollback made an older version show when you checked, but it had already been modified.) Produce is there because that is the year he produced the engravings called I Modi so I don't know what your issue is with that. By the way, what happened to your argument about it not being published in 1524? Guess you aren't infallible or the expert either. And some sources do say "The I Modi" so I can't say that bothers me much but just for you, I'll change it. pschemp | talk 03:54, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

See what the dates were in my version you reverted - if you bothered to look at it before reverting. Johnbod (talk) 05:15, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I did, which is why I can't believe you then went on to insinuate that the first time something called I Modi was printed wasn't 1524. And I do take issue with your edit, because it certainly caused uproar in 1524, the outrage wasn't delayed until 1527 as your wording suggested. I've added your info where I think it fills some gaps, but I've commented out the parts that aren't referenced. Please do keep in mind that articles are not written for academics here - so try to be clear rather than wordy. Also, opinions, value judgments and such are not appropriate - (It is hard to imagine - can't say that). Last, please, this is the History of erotic depictions, not the Description of erotic depictions article and its an overview. Not every single thing needs to be mentioned or described, if you have more detailed info for a specific time period, please consider writing a separate article. I Modi is a good example. And since this was written, the real names of the directors of the documentary have been produced, so I've added that, and some of the actors names. There are simply too many to list all of them though. pschemp | talk 05:54, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Actors? They are academics being interviewed, however the movie database classes them. Have you seen the series, I'm beginning to wonder. There is not much point in giving me advice on editing it as you have reverted all my changes en masse. Obviously it would be pointless of me (or as the history of your talk page demonstrates at many points, anyone else) to continue to try to improve the article in the face of the most ferocious WP:OWN attitude I've ever encountered. Since you clearly think the article perfect as it is, there seems little chance of it ever reaching today's FA quality. What a pity. Johnbod (talk) 12:13, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh Give me a break. I tried to be nice to you, I inserted the changes you made that had references, re-cited the film, changed the I Modi stuff and I still get nothing but semantic whining from you because I used the word actors. It was 2 am for me, I'm up late working on it and after all this all you can do is nit-pick about a word. I'm changing it to cast, now that I'm awake, but you obviously can't be constructive. As for OWN that's all very convenient for you to say when you don't like people correcting you, but when you make changes that remove citations and put in OR and unreferenced facts, I will remove them because that makes the article worse in terms of conforming to FA standards than better! That isn't OWN on my part- its good article editing. pschemp | talk 16:06, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I must have missed the bit where you tried to be nice to me! I think your idea of "being nice" is allowing anyone to add anything to "your" article. I see you have changed a few things I have pointed out, whilst simultaneously fiercely denying here there was anything wrong with them. But the fundamental problems with the article remain untouched, and are likely to continue so. Johnbod (talk) 17:11, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

IF you add unreferenced facts, OR and opinions they will be removed. As they should be. Ask anyone on wikipedia about that. As for your "fundmental" problems, they still boil down to "I don't like your source" and "I don't like the video citation format."pschemp | talk 18:09, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

• Relevant link Johnbod (talk) 18:12, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • While I'm sure you think that proof of something...it isn't relevant.pschemp | talk 00:15, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Let me just say that this is an *overview article* and as such does indeed not have in-depth analysis of the 17th and 18th centuries or anything else for that matter. It touches on the basic points through time and if people wish for more information, or have more information they can add, that should go into sub-articles. I Modi is a good example. The claim that it isn't comprehensive enough is poppycock, to cover everything in great detail would make the article vastly oversized and less useful. What information is there is correct, is cited and represents the general academic view. It is purposefully not written in über-academic language to be accessible to all readers, (though I'm sure some take this as proof of my lack of intelligence, it isn't so). It does cover western sensibilities more than Asian, and this is due to the fact that much more has been published about western sensibilities, and that other countries have different views and while some has been written about the ancient Asian art, modern takes on pornography in these countries have not been published. I'm not going to re-hash that more since it is in the original FAC if people want to read it. Accusations of OWN are fun for bashing my character but the fact remains that inserting unreferenced facts, OR and opinions is not acceptable for a FA and degrades the quality. Anyone who has ever written a FA knows about the babysitting then involved. Accusations of OWN always ensue, but the fact is someone has to keep an eye on the quality or things often and rapidly degrade. Additionally, while some people denigrate internet references, they have an advantage that they can be check and verified easily and no accusations of not reading the reference can be made. This article simply meets all the FA criteria. pschemp | talk 18:41, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

But the article does not give an overview; much of it is a series of detailed sections on various moments in the history with usually nothing at all to link them - in which it follows the documentaries. Pompeii, the French and English photo business in the C19th, early pornographic films, all get very detailed coverage (and now early prints), and there is a whole paragraph on the predecessor of Fanny Hill, which was a novel with no illustrations at all (until much later editions). Johnbod (talk) 19:05, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: anyone can write for about.com, it isn't usually a reliable source. What are the credential of the author of the about.com source used and what makes it reliable in this case? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:17, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • removed pschemp | talk 17:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

• All sources need a publisher, as well as author and date if available (Example: ^ About H&E Naturist. Retrieved on October 10, 2006. The publisher in this case is H&E Naturist. ) Pls check throughout for missing publishers. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:21, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • The publisher was there, but a capitalised P in the template was keeping it from showing. At anyrate, I went through everything else and made sure they had one.pschemp | talk 17:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are comprehensiveness (1b) and citations (1c).

This is so massive and disputatious, I'm not sure what to do with it. This may not be something FAR can handle. Marskell (talk) 18:41, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

That's the thing. It isn't massive. It is two editors who disagree with a few trivial things. An overview article can only ever hit the highlights, which is why there are a bunch of subarticles linked in this. It was wrongly brought to FAR in the first place by Zantasktik as a personal vandetta, which is why it isn't helping much. Two editors have a dispute with the fundamental structure, however they are far from the majority here on Wikipedia, and indeed all the editors who passed it in the first place didn't have issues and no one else has come to join their complaint. It really hasn't changed that much since it became an FA. When it was on the front page, the only complaints were that it wasn't censored enough. Here we have two people complaining the opposite, that it isn't detail enough. Notice there aren't any other editors who have issues with the content? That's because the consensus is that it is fine. I'm working on the technical things Sandy has suggested, and once those are fixed (I have a life, it takes time) I see no reason this should be demoted because two editors want a fundamentally different thing. I've suggested to them many times to write subarticles with details, asked for referenced citations and have got very little from them to actually work on. pschemp | talk 19:02, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

The usual nonsense. When have you ever suggested anything about sub-articles. The fact is you & your pal revert all changes, referenced or not, then argue endlessly here, then occasionally sneak a change in without mentioning here you have actually changed your position. It's like working with Andrei Gromyko, who at least was apparently fairly civil. Now that I look at it, you did the same in the original FAC, & your talk page shows you seeing off a number of interlopers over the period since. As to numbers, only one other editor has expressed a one-line view here, as far as I can remember, without searching through the depressing stuff above. Johnbod (talk) 20:06, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

John, this is the second time that I'm having to remind you to remain civil. Tell us what the problems are with the subject content of the article, and please give us some references. We're not here to shoot down articles, we're here to fix them. Samsara (talk • contribs) 12:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

John your comment is a blatant lie, and anyone who looks in the edit history can see that the things you contributed that have refs are in the article and only the unreferenced things are commented out. Proof [35] Also, search this page for the word subarticle and you'll see I've mentioned it more than once "If you'd like to write a sub article on that particular time period in history, and go into meticulous detail, please do."(Feb 6) and "It touches on the basic points through time and if people wish for more information, or have more information they can add, that should go into sub-articles." (Feb 8) If you are going to make wildly untrue statements, I can't see how anyone is supposed to take you seriously. pschemp | talk 14:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Yea, yea [36] and [37] Johnbod (talk) 15:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Your referenced additions are in the article, so I'm sorry, your diffs mean nothing. Your original edit had to be reverted at first because of the OR, opinion, and unreferenced facts you inserted at the same time, that way the worthwhile things could be sorted out later. I see you aren't going to admit you were wrong about the subarticle suggestions. That's fine, I've long stopped expecting you to be rational. pschemp | talk 15:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep listed In my opinion (and I've been around since it was first made a featured article ;-)) it is definitely of FA quality. Cbrown1023 talk 17:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
• Remove. The authors are resistant to and not interested in the FA cruiteria. The above conversation is a mess, unusally dismissive and aggressive, and I'm surprised Johnbod had the patience to point out the obvious over and over, again, to such an arrogant and boring front. Shame. Ceoil (talk) 20:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Discussion should focus on what is wrong with the article, not on what is wrong with this discussion. There are other places for that. Thank you. Samsara (talk • contribs) 12:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
• Remove The article has improved since the nomination, but significant problems remain. The article remains over-reliant on two sources, both with issues discussed at length above. It is actually two different articles: one a history of explicit sexual images up to the early C18th, from a mainly art-historical perspective, and the other a history of the pornography business in England and France, and later the US, from a largely business perspective. The title is a mistake; "erotic" is a word with all sorts of problems when applied over such a wide range. Much of the writing is slack; apart from the problems with the French C18 mentioned by Zantastik waaay above, there are lots of passages like this:

It was not until the invention of the printing press by Johannes Gutenberg that sexually explicit images entered into any type of mass circulation in the western world. Before that time, erotic images, being hand made and expensive, were limited to upper class males who deliberately kept them away from the labouring class, fearing the effect such things would have on the animal lust of the uneducated. Even the British Museum had a Secretum filled with a collection of ancient erotica donated by the upper class doctor, George Witt in 1865. The remains of the collection, including his scrapbooks, still reside in Cupboard 55, though the majority of it has recently been integrated with the museum's other collections.

- which just raise problems at every turn, if you know anything about the subject, or even if you don't: - Is mentioning Gutenburg useful here, since he is famous for the invention of movable type for text, and European prints of images in engraving and woodcut pre-date his invention by several decades? When were they 'kept away'? Was it expense or "fearing the effect"? Why "Even" the British Museum? If Witt's erotica was ancient, what was in the scrapbooks? Was Witt more upper class than other doctors? Might "animal lust of the uneducated" be a touch POV? Is there nothing between the "upper class" and the "labouring class"? ....and so on. Johnbod (talk) 18:09, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I forgot to say - I think most complaints about short leads are overdone, but this surely does not meet WP:LEAD? Johnbod (talk) 04:36, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

First, "animal lust of the uneducated" is directly from the source at the end of the paragraph, and you know that is exactly the Victorian view. For the Victorian upper class, there were only two categories, themselves and the uneducated and yes they were quite POV, but we write about what they thought. Please come up with cited proof that this isn't true - I know you can't. Those are the source's words, not mine. And yes, Witt was more upper class than other doctor's, he had more money. And the scrapbooks were filled with drawings of erotic statues from Pompei, and things in other private collections from archeologists and such that he had collected. Not prints. And indeed engravings and woodcuts existed, but they were expensive and not accessible to the masses, just as the paragraph says. The printing press and mass circulation of books absolutely made such images common. Not available for the first time, but common. Even the British museum means that even the most respectable of Victorian institutions sometimes had locked cabinets of erotica. History is history, it covers everything. This isn't two different articles, its an overview of the available information. As for poor writing, just because an article isn't written in a snotty stuffed shirt academic wordy overkill manner does not mean its poorly written. Accessible writing is the goal for WP. pschemp | talk 03:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• Remove. Lead contains short bits not elaborated or sourced in the main text about religion. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
  • It is sourced. At the end of the paragraph. "Rawson, Phillip S. (1968). Erotic art of the east; the sexual theme in oriental painting and sculpture. New York: Putnam, 380. LCC N7260.R35. " - Its an indisputable fact that countries where Christian morals were never a factor have different outlooks on such images. If that is removed, it leaves the lead focusing solely on Western culture. India China and Japan are elaborated on later, unfortunately there is little written in academia about the other traditions. What isn't written about, can't be included. Are you offended religiously here? I can't think why else this would be an issue. pschemp | talk 03:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep- Suppose i have to do this to make it official. There is no FA criteria this article doesn't meet. Complaints about sources have not been backed up with sourced facts to the contrary. pschemp | talk 04:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
• Remove. I guess I'll make it official as well. Sourcing issues. Fails to meet 1. (b) and (c). --Zantastik talk 11:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per Cbrown1023. Samsara (FA • FP) 21:17, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Closing: This is a difficult, split review. While there are a number of arguments, the clearest is in favour of remove: This does not meet policy. It's not even debatable. Adult film directors do not have a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." If it were two cites, maybe we could overlook it—but there are twenty-two cites to this DVD. It's a foundational source for the article and it is clearly not reliable.

Normally, I would leave this open longer to allow citation debates to run through (and this has been open quite a while) but there has been resistance and reverting, which doesn't seem to be productive in terms of meeting citation policy. There has been no effort to get rid of this obviously unsuitable source, for instance. Basic things, such as a LEAD that properly describes the article, are not met. I'm removing. Some form of WP:DR may be the best place to take this article. Marskell (talk) 21:53, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The article was removed 21:04, 2 March 2008.

---

Blackface

Review commentary

Update - Notified WP African diaspora and User:Deeceevoice.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 17:58, 18 December 2007 (UTC) Quadell aware; notified Amcaja. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:54, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

This is my first (second, I'm remembering I initiated another one some time ago) featured article review I've started, but I'll say this about it:

It fails 2(c). It doesn't have enough citations. Some paragraphs are barely sourced at all. "History and the shaping of racist archetypes" has just a single citation and it's a long paragraph. "Blackface and "darky" iconography" has just two citations. The neutrality of the section about the Dutch character is disputed, too, and in places the writing seems to be not of a professional standard.

It may also contain original research, i.e. "Sometimes it is done with a good deal of calculation by, for example, the many white lead performers, such as Amy Winehouse, who use black backup singers or musicians."

I would say it's a decent article, and would be applicable for GA with a few improvements, but does not meet the FA criteria at this point in time.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 13:25, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi HisSpace. Do you mind alerting the original FAC nominator, heavy contributors, and relevant Wikiprojects listed on talk about this review? You can use {{subst:FARMessage|Blackface}}. Cheers, Marskell (talk) 11:21, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

OK I'll try to do that.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 12:44, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Considering how sensitive this topic is and how much controversy has surrounded it, I think it would be advisable to formulate somewhat more detailed pointers, particularly about the the amount of footnotes.

Peter ^Isotalo 13:14, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not thinking about whether the topic is a controversial one or not - WP:NPOV must always take care of that. I'm thinking that the way that the article is written does not meet the criteria required of a featured article.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 15:55, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

It's still a good idea to avoid overly vague criticism in a FAR. The more specific you are the less time will be spent on bickering over vagueness. I recommend providing more examples.

Peter ^Isotalo 07:44, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

This article fails point 4, going off on a tangent that is only peripherally related to the topic (i.e. the influence of African-American music on "world popular culture"). The NPOV status of the section is also disputed, and the fight over its non/deletion also detracts from the article's stability. - JasonAQuest (talk) 15:41, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Note Please give examples of where you believe the referencing is inadequate and your reasons for this belief. Joelito (talk) 22:26, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm only now just seeing that the article is up for review. I won't be able to spend any time on this article until after the holidays. Wherever you feel text needs citation, just affix a fact tag, and I'll get around to it. General criticisms are meaningless/not helpful. Be specific about precisely what passages are problematic and what needs citation. I notice there's still(?) a POV tag on the Zwarte Piet section -- but there's been nothing advanced on the talk page (at least not last I checked) that would seem to merit the tag. If there's a problem there, then someone needs to state what and why. deeceevoice (talk) 15:52, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

• There are only vague allegations of problems with the article. I've looked over it pretty carefully, and it still appears to me to be featured quality. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 19:33, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

• No notifications listed at the top of this FAR; if the nominator completed them, please post the list as with other FARs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:22, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• What is with the opening sentence? "Blackface is a style of theatrical makeup that originated in the United States, used to affect the countenance of an iconic, racist American archetype—that of the darky or coon." The latter half of the sentence sounds pretentious and feels POV. More importantly, I have no idea what it means. Punctured Bicycle (talk) 21:44, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  • To affect is no take on the appearance, demeanor, and mannerisms of. Your countenance is your overall frontal presentation. It doesn't say "used to imitate the face of" or "used to display the appearance of", because those aren't really accurate. "Blackface" is an overall presentation, implying make-up, accent, mannerisms, etc. I can't really think of a better way to put it than "affect the countenance", but if you have a wording suggestion we're all open. I'm assuming that's the part you're having trouble with. You know what "iconic", "archetype", and "coon" mean, right? – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 21:59, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, good Lord. Please use your dictionary, PB. Or, consult the talk page archives. This matter has been discussed ad nauseam -- and I mean that -- by multiple editors. Thanks. deeceevoice (talk) 22:07, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

If it's been brought up numerous times in the past and is now being brought up again, what does that tell you? It tells me that it will keep getting brought up until the sentence is changed. I don't literally mean I don't understand the sentence; I mean it's probably hard for the general readership to understand the sentence because of the way it's worded (and yes, that includes reasonably educated English speakers). Our general readership does not have time to read talk page archives to help decode the meaning of a sentence; the meaning should jump out at them, especially when it's the first sentence of the article.

You advise 'me' to use my dictionary, yet the dictionary is the source of the confusion. For example, it gives two very different definitions for affect, and 'I' have no idea which is right. As far as 'I' know, blackface is an attempt to influence the appearance of African American stereotypes. Quadell suggests that other wordings were inaccurate, but using an ambiguous wording is hardly better. I cannot offer a better wording at this time, but I guarantee there is one out there.

To answer your question, Quadell--no, 'I' apparently don't know what coon and darky mean. 'I' thought they were disparaging terms for African Americans. In this article, they instead seem to refer to some archetype, but the lead does not do a good job of making this connection. Punctured Bicycle (talk) 01:01, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

You might want to review the voluminous discussion in the talk page history about the terms, PB. Alternative wording also was discussed ad nauseam, and no one was able to come up with anything that conveyed the meaning as accurately as what remains. Perhaps you'll come up with something that hasn't been discussed and that is an improvement. Actually, I think the average reader does understand what the sentence says -- perhaps not on the first pass, but the meaning is easily gleaned from context. And if they learn another application of a perfectly serviceable English word, then so much the better. For every person who reads the article and has a complaint similar to yours, there likely are at least hundreds more who do not. Furthermore, it is clear the terms "darky" and "coon" are disparaging terms; the lead makes it perfectly clear that the archetype(s) are "racist." I don't know how much clearer one can get on that point. And, if a reader has any questions about those terms, they are wiki linked for easy reference. deeceevoice (talk) 02:51, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm missing something: why should PB, or anyone, have to look at a voluminous discussion, on the talk page, in order to make sense of an encyclopedia article's opening sentence? It's interesting that there's been much discussion of what that sentence should say; it's also irrelevant if the result is nearly unintelligible, which in my opinion it is. I gather the wording was the subject of much negotiation; in this case, consensus seems to have failed. atakdoug (talk) 19:45, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, somewhere along the way, the link to List of ethnic slurs for "darky" was removed. I've reinserted it. Any reasonably attentive reader will understand that the terms are pejorative. deeceevoice (talk) 02:59, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment This article is seriously flawed and really boils down to OR. The editors take the concept blackface makeup and generalized it to everything under the sun involving black music (blackface was not music), white music and it's history of black influence, racial relations (some having to do with blackface, some not), claims that such singers as Elvis, Jimmy Rogers and legions of others -- are a result of blackface makeup. The sources used in the article are obscure or idiosyncratic. There is not one of the many black music historians and critics used as a reference. In fact, not even mainstream white music critics are used. None of the biographies of the musicians referenced supports these claims. This is OR and POV because the article seems to be trying to make a point. I could go on but I am too offended by the article. Mattisse 03:54, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Strong remove I would vote where the others did but I can't seem to get there on this page. Please move my comment and vot to the correct place. Thanks! Mattisse 03:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are referencing (1c) and POV (1d). Marskell (talk) 04:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• Strong remove. With its lack of references and abundance of original research, this article hardly represents Wikipedia's very best work. Most sections have very few citations, which is very troubling for a topic like this. The section with the most citations, "Blackface minstrelsy and world popular culture," is actually rife with original research: it supports its central claim mostly with sources that don't even mention blackface (and a biography of Bing Crosby—?). There are numerous other examples of original research throughout the article (and since WP:OR and WP:V are related, it's worth repeating that most of the article is unreferenced). The article is unfocused and, in my opinion, is a pointless fork of minstrel show (and yes, I read the brief merge discussion). Punctured Bicycle (talk) 12:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

The objective of this "pointless fork of minstrel show" is to examine the vehicle of blackface as a cultural phenomenon separate and apart from the minstrel show. As the article points out, the impacts are far-reaching and long-lasting. Such information is not included in minstrel show and would not have been addressed absent the article on blackface. In fact, blackface addressed the issues of race and racism in blackface minstrelsy before the related article, which didn't even mention the term "racism" until I injected it. Clearly, the articles, though related, have different areas of emphasis. As such, the article on blackface is valuable and informative and not only should remain a separate article, it should retain its featured article status. If you have problems with text that needs to be substantiated/sourced, then there are clearly established remedies to accomplish that end. deeceevoice (talk) 08:35, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm having a hard time understanding how blackface can be treated as a cultural phenomenon separate from the American minstrel show. The first sentence of minstrel show indicates that blackface is a defining aspect of the minstrel show, and everything else I have read mentions blackface only in the context of the minstrel show. As I view it, the article blackface amounts to this:

• "History and the shaping of racist archetypes" - A reiteration of information from minstrel show, only with less detail and less sources.
• "'Darky' iconography" - An unsourced section that, once sourced and cleaned up, could easily be incorporated into the "Legacy" section of the minstrel show article.
• "Modern-day manifestations" - The first part of this could likewise be incorporated into the "Legacy" section. The parts on Zwarte Piet and Coon Carnival could either be a.) summarized concisely in a section called "International variants", b.) incorporated into the "Legacy" section, or c.) relegated to "See also" links. The part about the U.S. could, once again, be incorporated into the "Legacy" section of minstrel show.
• "In world popular culture" - Again, "Legacy".
• "Face paint and ethnic impersonation" - This seems like it should be in its own article (perhaps titled ethnic impersonation ?).
• "Other contexts" - Tangential information; connecting it to this topic is arguably original research.

Of course, we can't cram everything into the "legacy" section of minstrel show. In accordance with summary style, we could spin it off into a new article if it gets too long. In fact, renaming blackface to something like impact of the minstrel show in culture and cutting out all the duplicate information from minstrel show would seem to be the most reasonable course of action, in my opinion.

When there are problems with sourcing in a featured article, the clearly established remedy is for you—or someone else who cares about its featured status—to add the sources. Otherwise, it gets removed. Punctured Bicycle (talk) 16:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep, the article is still Featured Quality (and is still Controversial, often generating a dislike that has nothing to do with its quality). – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 17:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. The article says nothing about what percentage or portion of the South African populace participates in the festival. Whatever you're reading to that effect is something you're reading into it. It says simply what it says. Furthermore, the entire article deals with the racist origins of blackface and darky iconography. There is nothing in the Cape Coon Carnival section that contradicts that. It does, however, examine the acceptance of the term "coon" by those who participate in the carnival and the wearing of blackface by them. I wrote that section -- indeed, much of the article -- and I'm the last person to "portray a positive view of blackface and [skate] over sensitivities." I do, however, see the need to recognize that there are those who have appropriated the term -- Black and non-Black -- and who use it in a non-racist sense. Do I think it's twisted? Does it make my head hurt? Yes. And yes! But what I think about it is neither here nor there. The tradition in South Africa is what it is, like it, or approve of it, or not. Finally, your reservations about this section are hardly grounds for rescinding the featured article status of the piece. deeceevoice (talk) 20:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Prose.Articles should not be dumbed down or soft peddled in an attempt not to offend; they should be written to inform. Blackface is in itself a potentially "shocking" and offensive subject. The definition of blackface is what it is. I'm an African-American, and I have no problem with the article as written. (I wrote most of it.) The terms are there because they succinctly and accurately describe what blackface is. deeceevoice (talk) 11:44, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

"The article favors the theory that minstrelsy is the natural forerunner of modern African-American culture...." I have no idea where you got that from! The article most certainly does not! deeceevoice (talk) 11:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

The article is already long enough, and the subject of the article is made explicit in the opening paragraphs -- the American phenomenon of blackface makeup and performance tradtion. And that is why the other, non-American examples are mentioned only in passing, at the end of the article. They are meant to lead the reader interested in other similar, but unrelated phenomena, elsewhere. The non-American examples treated in some depth in the article are addressed because they are related in some way to American blackface. If you'd like to insert something about local opposition to the Coon Carnival (and that is certainly appropriate), then feel free to do so. I would research it and do it, but I'm crunching deadlines at the moment. deeceevoice (talk) 11:49, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, keep in mind that this article developed long before the article on Minstrel show, and whatever duplication of information that exists is more than likely a case of that article borrowing from this one. In fact, "Minstrel show" didn't even mention, let alone address, the issue of racism at all until I made a remark on that article's talk page about the blandness of the article. Even with the overlap in subject matter, however, this article is well-structured and comprehensive in addressing the cultural impacts of blackface -- with the article on the minstrel show more devoted to other matters outside the purview of "Blackface." It's strong enough to stand on its own. deeceevoice (talk) 05:47, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see anything herein that warrants removing FA status. There are a few worthwhile suggestions, like fixing the citation format and possibly shortening the "See Also" section, that easily can be addressed. The questions about Mickey Mouse and the Grand Ole Opry come from people (a person?) who hasn't/haven't done their research. I believe that information is accurate and should be cited in the text. If not, then slap a fact tag on it, and someone will get to it. I see absolutely no problem with the Bert Williams photo or caption. Most of this stuff should just be changed by those who've raised issues, or taken to the article talk space. IMO, much of it exceedingly minor. I'm out. deeceevoice (talk) 11:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I just noticed the business about self-published websites. I don't see a problem with that in some instances -- so long as personal blogs are not used for substantive references and they're not commercial or controversial, per se. The "Downwind of Amsterdam" website, for example, is useful because it provides photographs that could not be found elsewhere. Photographic evidence speaks for itself. deeceevoice (talk) 13:38, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

This page is not meant as a substitute for use of the article talk page space

User: DrKiernan, as I requested earlier, please utilize the article talk page space to discuss your recent changes to the article. Some of the changes you've made to the article are welcome and appropriate. Contrary to your assertions in your edit notes, however, some changes you made do not fall within the purview of your remarks here -- notably the, IMO, off-the-mark WP:BLP contention regarding Amy Winehouse (and the text you've deleted without any discussion whatsoever), photo size and the deletion of another huge chunks of text because a sentence at the end of the section was fact tagged (by me).

Please note that this page is for the purpose of discussing the featured article status of Blackface and not for routine edits to the article. Such discussion appropriately belongs in the article talk space. Furthermore, cryptic edit notes referring to nonexistent comments here do not suffice as appropriate explanation for some of the substantial changes you've made.deeceevoice (talk) 14:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

As I've stated more than once, many of your edits were helpful -- most specifically, with regard to the footnotes and the paring down of the "See also" section." Others were less so, and we've discussed them -- thank you -- in the article talk space. I'm perfectly happy with your continuing to edit the article, but you must justify your changes -- particularly when they're substantial. And you simply haven't done so, preferring instead to tell me to "do what you want." I'd much rather have a meaningful explanation of your concerns, particularly with regard to WP:BLP, but it's your choice. deeceevoice (talk) 15:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

• Remove Inline references are too few for a featured article. I have also noted heavy and opinionated prose of the article, especially in the lead: expressions like "used to affect the countenance", or this gem: "Blackface minstrelsy's groundbreaking appropriation, exploitation, and assimilation of African-American culture—as well as the inter-ethnic artistic collaborations that stemmed from it—were but a prologue to the lucrative packaging, marketing, and dissemination of African-American cultural expression and its myriad derivative forms in today's world popular culture.", which is more appropriate for a J'accuse pamphlet than for an encyclopedia. Beit Or 17:58, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

• Curiously, in looking at the first few fact tags, I've noticed that some of them affixed to passages that previously were amply cited -- but those references have been removed from the article. Annoying as hell. I'll (or someone else) will get around to replacing them within the next few weeks. Other flagged passages can/will be attended to as well. But there's nothing at all accusatory about the article. Facts are facts, and the fact is that A-A culture has been appropriated and exploited. Check the copious citations in that regard. While I'm not equating them, that's like saying an article accurately recounting the trans-Atlantic slave trade/Maafa, or Holocaust "is more appropriate for a J'accuse pamphlet than for an encyclopedia." Ridiculous. deeceevoice (talk) 05:33, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• Tentative keep, assuming certain issues can be addressed. I've been adding quite a few citations to the article and have begun discussion on the talk page about how we might cite for some others (e.g. a music video that was censored, and where the web is full of presumably unauthorized copies of the earlier, uncensored version, but these unauthorized copies are not citable according to Wikipedia's rules; it obviously exists, but how do we cite for it?).

It seems very odd to me that people are voting to remove the article from the FA list while active work is clearly still under way to address issues that were raised. In FARC processes I've been involved in before, the discussion was always about substantive issues to be remedied in the article. and any decision to remove came only after there had been a chance to address these substantive issues. Here it seems to be about people being uncomfortable with the topic, or aspects of the topic, which is not a valid reason to remove it.

To address one remark above: the article is by no means a fork of minstrel show, any more than, say Romanian people is a fork of Romania. Yes, they are intimately related topics, but blackface has a longer and broader history than that particular form. Judy Garland, Bob Hope, and Pigmeat Markham all did blackface; to the best of my knowledge, none of them were ever in minstrel shows. There may be material that should be refactored among the two articles, and if so that should happen, but it is hardly a reason to oppose keeping this as a featured article.

As for drawing the line from blackface to other later examples of appropriation of African American culture, I believe that very much belongs in the article. The legacy of a past (or largely past) institution belongs in an article about that institution. Blackface minstrelsy played a major role in the history of commercial entertainment in America (its rise is part and parcel of the rise of the music industry) and it set a pattern of white appropriation of black culture that has, on the one hand, exposed white people to a lot of more-or-less genuine black culture (more so in the post-minstrelsy era, with the blues, jazz, hip-hop, and, for that matter, early rock'n'roll), but has also often resulted in white people profiting from that culture, sometimes at the expense of, and more often than not without benefit to, the African American creators of that culture.

I'm pretty comfortable in saying that it is the prevailing view among scholars of popular culture. but I expect it will take me some time to find solid citations, because not many articles say so in so many words. (It's the proverbial "fish don't notice water" problem: it's so much the pervasive paradigm that few scholars bother to state the generality.) Conversely, I'd be genuinely interested if someone can find any respectable source that says this is not the arc of this history. - Jmabel | Talk 07:04, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

• Further note: in terms of my remark that blackface has a longer and broader history than minstrelsy, here's a solid citation: John Strausbaugh, Black Like You: Blackface, Whiteface, Insult and Imitation in American Popular Culture (Jeremy P. Tarcher / Penguin, 2006, ISBN 1585424986), p. 24. "[Blackface] existed before the heyday of the minstrel show, and has persisted long after the minstrels faded away. Its influence or at least its echoes can be seen in American music, theater, literature, film and TV, right through to today." - Jmabel | Talk 05:57, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. I see minor stylistic problems with the article throughout, but it is responsibly cited throughout, and the prose is clear and readable. The existing problems should be dealt with on the article's talk page, not through FARC, IMHO. Nandesuka (talk) 07:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

To be clear, if there is recent work in the history, it won't be removed. People are entitled to note remove at this point, but if a remove has become stale after work done, it will be ignored. DrK is an attentive reviewer and I'm sure will come back to reconsider his comments if people feel it's ready. On specific points raised:

• This is in no way a content fork. It clearly merits its own page.
• "Darky" and "coon" are not too shocking and are preferable to a circumlocution. (Speaking of which, "used to affect the countenance of" should be reworded for brevity.)

The people working can keep us updated. Marskell (talk) 18:12, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

• Remove I feel that the biggest problem of the article is a lack of focus that is exacerbated by occasional POV. The definition of blackface seems clear enough to me: a performance that centers on a racial stereotype of blacks. It's only natural that related issues be mentioned to some degree, but this article does a lot more than that. It goes off on long-winding sidetrack discussions about racial stereotyping and cultural appropriation, and in some cases goes completely off topic. Darky iconography, for example, is a separate, if related, topic that should be handled in a separate article. Large, dedicated sections for phenomenons like Zwarte Piet and Coon Carnivals are certainly not merited. The tedious discussion about everyone from Elvis to Eminem (ab)using black cultural traits to boost their careers would probably be more at home in an article about assimilation of black culture. In this article, however, it comes off more as campaigning than encyclopedic information. Peter ^Isotalo 09:33, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• • I think the relevance of Zwarte Piet is arguable either way, but that the Coon Carnival is quite on the mark. It is probably the single most prominent continuing "unreconstructed" blackface tradition continuing in the present day, and it has a clear lineage from 19th century blackface minstrelsy. - Jmabel | Talk 23:36, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I think Peter's comments on diversions are fair. Zwarte Piet, particularly, should be reduced significantly. It skews the relative emphasis to have so much on a single modern instance. In terms of POV, the Legacy section is most difficult. That list of names needs to be scrutinized. The Travolta and Clooney link goes here, which tells me nothing. The larger concern is the segue between blackface and modern appropriation of black culture. I'll save that, as I think Jmabel is hard at work and hasn't gotten down to that section. An enormous amount of work has been done, and we can let it continue. Marskell (talk) 17:50, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree on decreasing the Zwarte Piet material. As for the "legacy", I've partly sourced that section. Note especially the Strausbaugh citations I added there, which make the connection more explicitly than any of the others (with direct analogies of Elvis Presley to Thomas D. Rice and Mick Jagger and Eminem to Al Jolson). I think this section is essentially accurate, but notably hard to cite for: it's relatively easy to find books about the history of blackface; it's harder (but possible) to find reliable sources that write about the analogies between entertainers in different eras (for example, at the Pop Conference I've heard Eric Lott, Robert Christgau say things along these lines, and even discuss the relative strength of the analogies, but I'm not sure either has ever written anything about it).

I've noted about a dozen weak citations in the article; for about half, I've found solid replacements. The others are explicitly called out on the talk page. It would be very helpful if someone would go systematically through the citations in the article and make a list on the talk page of the ones they consider inadequate. So far, most remarks on this have been rather useless, to my mind: e.g. saying that entire sections of the article are undercited, but usually without indicating any specifics that lack adequate citation. (I have already made a list there of the other issues that I believe are in contention.) - Jmabel | Talk 18:37, 16 February 2008 (UTC

I can at least go through the paragraph in Legacy I'm concerned about (but not tonight). The first two sections are fine, I think, and give a good overview. It's only after this that the article seems somewhat unbalanced. I think we're OK, in general; I'll try to give more specific comments on sources over the next couple of days. Marskell (talk) 19:42, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Mentioning Zwarte Piet and the Coon Carnivals in a few sentences is fine, but they do not deserve dedicated sections. We have sub-articles for that.

Peter ^Isotalo 13:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• • It would be nice if you could restate them here. Some I think I can answer:
  • I see no claim that Mickey Mouse is always blackface, merely that one particular MM short was; and that this displayed the mouse's blackness by contrast, just as blackface performers did.
  • The derivation of wog from gollywog should be weaselworded more, but is perfectly possible; the OED 's first citation of wog is from 1929. (And while they refuse to endorse any etymology, I read the tone of their dismissal "Origin uncertain: often said to be an acronym, but none of the many suggested etymologies is satisfactorily supported by the evidence." as primarily targeted at the acronyms, which are silly.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• • • • What the article actually says is Blackface was one of the influences in the development of characters like Mickey Mouse. This does not assert what Dr. Kiernan says it does; although the fact that he can misunderstand it, and that it actually asserts very little, suggests that it could stand rephrasing. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
        • • done for now. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
      • The possible relation between wog and golliwog is discussed elsewhere; there's a JSTOR article on both of them (and Peebles) to which I do not have access at the moment. I agree we should weasel more.

        Really, is this all? I would not make an oppose out of this much. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The JSTOR article to which you refer says there was a debate on the origin of the word "wog" amongst letter writers in the local Peebleshire News in 1992, and that the outcome of the debate was that the term was innocent and has no relation to colour. There's no mention of lexicographers. I don't consider this information to be useful, except to illustrate the provincial ignorance (call it rustic innocence if you prefer) of people from Peebles. DrKiernan (talk) 10:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

For those who have JSTOR, it is Susan J. Smith, "Bounding the Borders: Claiming Space and Making Place in Rural Scotland"; Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, New Series, Vol. 18, No. 3. (1993), pp. 291-308. One of the letterwriters gave the OED etymology; and the connexion was insisted upon by the Aberdeen schoolteacher who protested the golliwogs, not by the locals, who deny it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• I have two comments about the opening sentence.
  • To rephrase it to use inoffensive language could be done; this would, I think, be contrary to WP:NOT, and it could only be done by polysyllabic circumlocution, of which the sentence contains enough already.
  • Iconic and archetype are redundant, and if iconic stays it probably does not need a comma after it; it has adverbial force. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Done for now. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep for now. Jmabel is continuing to work on the article, and I'm going to chip in where I can. It's too premature to remove at this point. — Dulcem (talk) 00:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• Strong remove Fails four of the criteria:

1(a) Prose

The first sentence needs rephrasing. It should set the scene for the article but instead it gives the impression that it and the rest of the article is bad.

1(b) Comprehensiveness and (d) Neutrality

Arguments countering the main POV of the article are not presented at any point anywhere. The article favors the theory that minstrelsy is the natural forerunner of modern African-American culture, however, the counter-argument that minstrelsy has been retroactively appropriated by some black performers, whose work is actually derived through different traditions, is far more likely. Why doesn't this counter argument receive attention? Why isn't it covered in the article?

Where are the counter-arguments for minstrelsy contributing to the development of Mickey Mouse? Limitations in cartoon technology; need for sharp contrast; black and white photography; primitive production methods. Where is Disney's own statement on the issue? Why aren't cartoon historians, who are the experts in this area, cited? All the early cartoon characters were black and white and drawn in a certain style; the backgrounds were white and the foreground figures were black. Are they all minstrels? If so, why single out Mickey Mouse when the point made is a much wider one? Why, if he's a minstrel, does he have a white face? What have "bushy, white sidewhiskers" got to do with blackface influence on Disney? A short film from 1933 can not be responsible for the development of a character which was already fully developed (with the exception of gloves) in 1928. Gloves were added the following year not 1933 as the article implies.

The section on the "Coon Carnival" presents a positive view, with the exception of a brief mention of tourist sensibilities. The statement in the article, "carnival participants have appropriated the term coon and don't regard it as a pejorative" misleads the reader into thinking that carnival participants represent the bulk of the South African population. In the source given, which is a self-published tourist web-site, the organiser "admits the historical title...is derogatory, but shrugs it off" but it also says "Vincent Kolbe...disagrees. He says there is little doubt as to the racist origin of the word coon...Its continued acceptance in South Africa is because "people can't get out of the apartheid mode"." The views of local opposers need to be inserted into the section.

Blackface traditions in other contexts, such as British morris dancing and Zwarte Piet, may have different origins to American minstrelsy. The article needs to be restructured so that the different origins of blackface theatricals, and their later convergence through the globalisation of images, is made more explicit. Currently, it overconcentrates and overemphasizes the contribution of American minstrelsy, which already has its own article: Minstrel show.

No mention of European blackface possibly being founded on a tradition associated with pretending to be devils. Hellish sprites were frequently depicted as black, until the advent of the now more familiar red variety, as it was assumed they would be covered in soot from the hellfires or charred by the heat.

1(c) Factually accurate

The claim that "Grand Ole Opry" is derived from blackface is unsupported by a reference.

The last two paragraphs of the "world popular culture" section are not academically convincing, and probably contain original research by synthesis. Modern music is derived from jazz and folk traditions certainly but saying Eminem and George Clooney are followers of a tradition founded on blackface is simply ludicrous. The sentence on Amy Winehouse is not fully backed by the reference: the reference does not support the contention that Ms. Winehouse is deliberately exploiting black performers in order to acquire some sort of status through using popular black traditions dating back to minstrelsy.^{I am aware that the Winehouse sentence is presently removed, but I am not striking my comment because the sentence has been removed before—it just gets re-inserted a few days later.}

The claim that lexicographers believe "wog" originates from "golliwog" is not supportable. The OED's etymology says: "Origin uncertain: often said to be an acronym, but none of the many suggested etymologies is satisfactorily supported by the evidence". The source actually given in the article says "There is some speculation that wog is an acronym for one of the following: Western Oriental Gentleman, Worthy Oriental Gentleman, Wily Oriental Gentleman, Wonderful Oriental Gentleman, or Working On Government Serive(sic)." The professional lexicographers of the OED do not endorse the thesis that "wog" derives from "golliwog", nor even mention it as a possibility. Featured articles should represent the body of learned, published opinion not what the editors of wikipedia consider possible.

"NAACP had begun calling attention to such portrayals of African Americans and mounted a campaign" is not referenced.

The five references at the end of the student campus paragraph should be separated to illustrate each of the claims made in that paragraph in turn.

The references and the external links contain self-published web-sites. These should be removed.

IMDb is not a reliable source; its use is contentious (see Wikipedia:Citing IMDb).

My comment at Talk:Blackface#Cool and "Coolhunting" is not addressed: "I've tried to visit the "Julie Sutherland" reference twice. The first time it took me to an online dating site, the second time it's taken me to a site advertising cheap flights."

The only Coon Carnival reference is a self-published tourist site.^{I am aware this issue is under discussion on the talk page and better references have been identified but not consulted because of access issues.}

The article contains numerous uncleared [citation needed] markers. DrKiernan (talk) 08:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Mickey Mouse, I disagree that this article is the place to debate whether or not he is derived from blackface traditions. The contention is a common one (see this Google Books search), but it's enough of an aside here that it should be enough to simply say that scholars X, Y, and Z have made the claim (being sure to frame it this way and not in the "authorial Wikipedia says" voice) and to leave any opposing claims to the Mickey Mouse article. — Dulcem (talk) 11:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

No. Presenting a one-sided argument and ignoring the opposing claims is POV. DrKiernan (talk) 13:51, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Heartily disagree. We can't have a claim and counter claim for each instance where a cultural studies scholar has claimed something is related to blackface. There isn't room, and it's beyond the scope of the article on blackface. Leave the arguments over individual examples to those examples' own articles. For example, we don't need to include all the arguments back and forth that Elvis copied black performers. It's enough to say that the argument has been made that he did without saying authoritatively that that is the case. It would be annoying and distracting to then go into detail about how scholars A, B, and C disagree and say Elvis was a great guy who never did a dirty thing in his life. Ditto for Mickey, where going into the cartoon inkblot hypothesis of early character creation is well beyond our scope. — Dulcem (talk) 14:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I am relieved to be told at last that my comments will never be addressed, and I can leave this discussion with my remove "!vote" intact without the need to revisit it. DrKiernan (talk) 14:29, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Who said your comments would never be addressed? Discussing matters and trying to come to consensus hardly means your comments won't be addressed. — Dulcem (talk) 02:11, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• Remove Seems to suffer from insidious POV from the first sentence, which manages to identify blackface as racist before mentioning minstrels. Reviewing the talk pages and archives seems to suggest this may be caused by a case of WP:OWN. The article later deviates away to general issues of appropriation of African-American culture, which surely cannot belong here (about an archetypal form of theatrical makeup) except as part of a polemic. --Rumping (talk) 14:49, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Blackface preceded minstrelsy, so why shouldn't the article mention racism first? And where is the scholarship that contends that blackface is not racist? Issues of cultural appropriation are rightfully mentioned in the "Legacy" section, as they should be. — Dulcem (talk) 23:24, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
• Remove It's clear that a lot of good and honest effort has been put in the page, but I can't help also feeling a povish flavour and, more problematic, a tendency to lose the scope. As for claims such as "facts are facts", sorry, but quite on the contrary I was taught since my universitary years that facts are fictions.--Aldux (talk) 16:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

As Jmabel is still working I'm inclined to continue to hold on this one. I can't agree that this irredeemably POV. Marskell (talk) 17:15, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

• Remove; in spite of two and a half months at FAR, we still have an article that doesn't meet even the minimum requirements. There are numerous unformatted citations, examples: ^ Conguitos. ^ The African-American Image Abroad: Golly, It's Good!. No publishers makes it hard to evaluate reliability of sources, but we find sources like musicals101.com. HTML is the default format and need not be cluttering the citations. Dates in citations are inconsistent both in format and wikilinking. See also need pruning, and the appendices don't conform with WP:GTL. There are raw URLs listed in citations and no consistent bibliographic style. More examples: ^ web.archive.org/web/20051027061922/http://www.africapetours.com/Coon+Carnival.htm. ^ Blackface Drag Again Draws Fire Gay City News. VOLUME 3, ISSUE 308 | February 19 - 25, 2004 With 122 citations, incompletely formatted and with no bibliographic style, how is reliability of sources to be evaluated without mousing over or clicking on each citation. Clean citations is a minimum requirement for an article that is prepared for FA status. Endashes need cleaup, there are numerous citation tags still, and there are WP:MSH issues. Sample prose, my eyes fell on this sentence:

Lewis Hallam, Jr., a white actor of American Company fame, brought blackface in this more specific sense to prominence as a theatrical device in the United States when playing the role of "Mungo", an inebriated black man in The Padlock, a British play that premiered in New York City at the John Street Theatre on May 29, 1769.

What more specific sense? Snake for chopping. Another snake for chopping with wild punctuation:

The 1830s American stage, where blackface first rose to prominence featured similarly comic stereotypes of the clever Yankee and the larger-than-life Frontiersman;[17] the late 19th and early 20th century American and British stage where it last prospered[18] featured many other, mostly ethnically-based, comic stereotypes: conniving, venal Jews;[19][20] drunken brawling Irishmen with blarney at the ready;[21][22][20] oily Italians;[20] stodgy Germans;[20] and gullible rural rubes.[20]

In the lead:

Blackface was an important performance tradition in the American theater for roughly 100 years and was rapidly popular overseas, particularly so in Britain, where the tradition lasted even longer.[1]

Patience and two months have not been enough to bring this article to status: I don't think it likely to make it with another two months, and I haven't even examined it yet for the issues of comprehensiveness and POV that have been mentioned. Even if the citations and MoS issues could be cleaned up and everyone agreed POV had been addressed, the article would still need a copyedit. Two and a half months is enough; time to delist. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:42, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

(moved from wrong place at top of page - sorry for screw up)

Comment This article is seriously flawed and really boils down to OR. The editors take the concept blackface makeup and generalized it to everything under the sun involving black music (blackface was not music), white music and it's history of black influence, racial relations (some having to do with blackface, some not), claims that such singers as Elvis, Jimmy Rogers and legions of others -- are a result of blackface makeup. The sources used in the article are obscure or idiosyncratic. There is not one of the many black music historians and critics used as a reference. In fact, not even mainstream white music critics are used. None of the biographies of the musicians referenced supports these claims. This is OR and POV because the article seems to be trying to make a point. I could go on but I am too offended by the article. Mattisse 03:54, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Strong remove I would vote where the others did but I can't seem to get there on this page. Please move my comment and vot to the correct place. Thanks! Mattisse 03:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

This isn't (and shouldn't be) an article about makeup. It is about a performance tradition characterized by a particular type of makeup. As I remarked a week or so ago on the talk page "the central fact of blackface is not the 'corking up' but the simulation (whether by Whites or Blacks) of 'supposed innate qualities of Blackness'" (the phrase is Strausbaugh's, and it certainly characterizes the understanding in the literature on the topic). On exactly that basis it seemed that Verklempt and I, who have been totally butting heads, reached some degree of consensus on how to move ahead with the article. Then Matisse entered the picture. To my mind edits like this one by Matisse are utterly wrongheaded.

As to the claim of OR: I've added numerous citations from the literature on the topic. I have no idea why Matisse thinks that music critics rather than the academics I am citing would make better sources.

A day or so ago, Matisse said "I just cannot relate to the article at all. But that is o.k. ... Write your article as you want and I will stay out of it." After saying that, she proceeded to hack at the article all over the place with edits like this. There is no way I can work effectively on the article in this environment.

I invite the people involved in this to look at what I have done over the last couple of weeks. I stand strongly by the work I've done, mostly on the first half of the article (not counting the intro, which I haven't really taken on in comparable degree). But, you know something? I'm sick of fighting about it. I came into this trying to address problems with an article in terms of an FAR. Instead, I'm being pulled into the kind of contention that has nearly made me quit Wikipedia in the past. So I'm probably out of this after tonight, and back to the work on the history of Seattle I was doing when my help on this was requested. I still reserve the right to work on the article, but I no longer have the intention of trying to bring it up to FA level. It is clear that I cannot do that in the midst of edits that, whatever their intentions, are damaging the article.

Since no one but me seems to have been hitting actual books on the topic and trying to bring it up to current FA level, either someone else needs to come forward or it probably will not survive the review. - Jmabel | Talk 08:32, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Although I'd rather not, I'm going to remove this, given the sense that Jmabel has hit the wall on editing. At the three month mark, it's very hard to justify leaving this open with this many outstanding removes.

The work done has been good work. Balance of coverage, sourcing, and prose have all improved. The people who have worked on it shouldn't regret it at all—as has been pointed out at FARC before, an article can improve even when it's removed. The concern over WP:NOR#SYNTH is non-trivial, however, particularly in Legacy. Prose and formatting do need further work. But I think this forum has exhausted itself for amicably addressing the issues.

If editors can come to a working understanding on article talk, this could go back to FAC easily enough. Marskell (talk) 20:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

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