Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article review/archive/March 2009

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Kept status

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

The article was kept by YellowAssessmentMonkey 01:06, 30 March 2009 [1].

Dietrich v The Queen

[edit]
Notified: WP:AUS; WP:LAW; Stephen Bain (talk · contribs) and YellowMonkey (talk · contribs)

Some paragraphs and sections in the article seem unreferenced. I'd also prefer one or two sources which are not directly from the "law world"; maybe from newspaper articles or news websites. D.M.N. (talk) 16:29, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I should be able to make a decent shot at this. There's one good "non law" source that I think I can track down, and I have a number of good academic and legal sources which should be able to reference most of the article, with one that may well be able to update the "consequences" section. I'll see what I can do over the next few days. - Bilby (talk) 06:02, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • DNM, if you or someone else could go through and mark all the statements which you/they feel need referencing with {{fact}}, I'll find relevant citations in my source material. I feel it's easier doing this way as it highlights issues for me to look at, rather than myself going and looking for said issues. Regards, Daniel (talk) 05:25, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done. I'm really not sure about the last two paragraphs of the "The right to a fair trial"... I think that may need a rework, wikilinks adding if possible. The article has improved a lot since I added this FAR. D.M.N. (talk) 16:24, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've finished adding references - I checked each claim against either an existing ref (a few were incorrectly sourced) or found a new one that supported it. I also expanded the consequences section a bit, which is where I could pull in more non-law sources. And, as suggested, I had a look at the last paragraphs in the "Right to a fair trial" section, and while I'm not sure it fixes it, I felt a quote from the court would help clarify one of those paragraphs (it seemed to me that it needed to be brought back to the case), and I had a shot at some gentle rewording of the last paragraph of the section. :) - Bilby (talk) 11:49, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept by Gimmetrow 00:45, 22 March 2009 [2].

Homo floresiensis

[edit]
Notified: Rebecca, UtherSRG, Edhubbard, Paul Barlow, Pharos, Joelr31, Jengod, WP Primates, WP Palaeontology, WP Mammals, WP Anthropology, WP Biology.

Fails criterion 1(b) comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context;

  • The sections Laron syndrome and Bone structure are not detailed enough and the proportion devoted to these studies does not correspond to the parts devoted to studies on microcephaly.
  • The article needs updating. There is e.g. no information about the studies on the possibility that H. floresiensis was an individual suffering iodyne deficiency. Information about missing parts of the skeleton in 2005 also needs updating (are they still missing or were they returned?, if they are missing, what happened with them?) Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 19:59, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Two quick replies to this.
First, the iodine deficiency argument is mentioned right in the lead of the article, where it states:
The most recent hypothesis to be published is that the individuals were born without a functioning thyroid, resulting from a type of endemic cretinism (myxoedematous, ME).[1] This idea has been dismissed by members of the original discovery team as based on a misinterpretation of the data.
If you would like to expand on this idea, please be bold!.
Second, in general, the article can only reflect information which is in the public sphere. So, for example, the complaint about the missing leg bones is only really accurate if this has been recently discussed and updated in verifiable reliable sources. Otherwise, it would fall under original research. To the best of my knowledge no such reliable, verifiable evidence is out there. I've just done a google search to make sure that nothing has escaped my notice, and I don't see anything new out there (please be bold and add it, if recent verifiable, reliable, reports have appeared on this subject). The mere fact that something is not mentioned in the article is not evidence that the article itself is incomplete. It is also possible that the public record, upon which we are required to draw for wikipedia, is incomplete, and we would therefore be unable to do anything else. Edhubbard (talk) 01:33, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note Jan, I believe your concerns might have been solved in the article's talk page if you had allowed considerable time for others to answer your inquiries. If you have no other concerns can this FAR be closed and the discussion be moved into the talk page? Joelito (talk) 02:33, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ Obendorf, P.J. (June 7, 2008). "Are the small human-like fossils found on Flores human endemic cretins?". Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, B Biological Sciences. 275 (1640). Online: Royal Society: 1287–1296. doi:10.1098/rspb.2007.1488. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

Thanks to Edgubbard and Joelito to join the discussion.

I am not sure, whether I am the right person to expand the endemic cretinism idea, since I did not even know that it is somehow connected with iodyne deficiency. But I will of course try to improve the article as well.

However, the endemic cretinism idea is mentioned only in the lead. Because the lead should sum up the most important information from the main body of the article and prepare the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections, it also means that the article partially fails the criterion 2(a).

I would really prefer if this review could continue. Maybe that the questions I raised can be discussed at the article talk page too. But this review will surely attract more people to cooperate than just a talk page discussion.

Expanding all the parts I have requested to expand would also mean that quite a substantial portion of text would be added. And this new text in a featured article will also need review, whether it fulfils all the criteria for FA.

Edhubbard wrote that no more info about the missing leg bones can be found. One of the reasons may be that both of us are able to search only English written online info, but neither of us has access e.g. to Indonesian printed media or at least understands Indonesian online media. I will try to raise the question at the WP Indonesia. There are also many paper anthropological journals. It is quite difficult to believe that the bones simply disappeared and nobody was interested, and although we finally may not be able to find the answer, it is legitimate to ask the question and hope somebody knows it. But this was just one of several things I requested to expand.

Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 22:13, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's at all difficult to believe that the bones disappeared and nobody in the media was sufficiently interested to report on the later developments. It happens all the time. I made considerable efforts a while back to update the article on alleged murderer/cannibal/cult leader Steven Tari which ends in October 2007 stating that his trial had been delayed until December 2007. But I could find no more information. The world's press simply lost interest when the lurid stories faded. We can't be expected to obtain information directly from individuals and institutions involved. It's quite possible that the objects were located and returned without the fact ever being reported. Anthropological journals typically don't document such matters. By far the most published material is on microcephaly. The other proposals are largely suggestions, and have not been subject to such detailed discussion. Paul B (talk) 00:19, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikiproject Indonesia seems uninterested, bud I have also asked at the Indonesian Wikipedia for help and received the answer that after some search no online record was found in Indonesian media. There are a lot of offline anthropological journals and I believe some info may be hidden in them, but I have no idea who should I aks for help. So I think we may leave this question unsolved and focus on the other topics of this review. Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 21:27, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Although the other proposals are just suggestions, they make readers curious why they were made and deserve better explanation. Especially the professional terms mentioned in the lead, have to be described in the main body of the article as well. Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 21:40, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a section on endemic cretinism to the article. Could somebody review it, please? Thanks. Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 22:21, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now I would like to sum up, which points have not been solved yet, and add some new points.
  •  Done the Laron Syndrome section needs expanding, there is more information available
  •  Donethe Bone Structure section needs expanding, too
  • the whole article has undergone substantial changes since the last review. So new review can only help this article.
  •  Done Section Discovery: I think the quotation in the second paragraph should have some ref
  •  DoneSection Small bodies: there are a lot of numbers on the sizes of various populations of small people. I think a ref would be appropriate here as well.
I would really appreciate any help with solving these points. Thank you.Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 00:19, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote the Larone Syndrome section. Could anybody review it please? Could more people help? Sometimes seems to me I am mostly talking to myself. Thank you.Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 22:14, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jan, I've copy-edited the section on Laron syndrome, so I think that section is good. I'm trying to track down the reference for the "wet blotter paper" quote, and I've managed to find a blog that refers to a Nature commentary, but the link to the article doesn't work... I'm working on it though [3]. The references for the various sizes are probably all pulled from the primary scientific sources, and references contained therein, but I will move onto that in a bit. That just leaves bone-structure. If you have time to give that a shot, that would be great. Edhubbard (talk) 05:46, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, got the ref for "wet blotter paper". Edhubbard (talk) 06:02, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have written something on the bone structure, but it seems that there is still more work to be done. Does anybody have full access to Jungers' article Descriptions of the lower limb skeleton of Homo floresiensis? Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 10:07, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have this article! I've left a message on your talk page, I think email may be the best way for me to get it to you, I've got institutional access to the site through Athens so I've saved the file on my computer. If anyone else wishes me to provide them with this article, just let me know and I'll try and work something out.
Hi Jan, I've gone through and copyedited the section you added. I'm traveling for the next week, so I won't have much time to work on things, but your additions look really good. I've changed a little bit of the wording, and cut all the references to Homo floresiensis to H. floresiensis since the full name has been cited earlier in the article, so we should use only hte abbrviation in subsequent mentions. In fact, this might be something to go through the whole article to check on after we finish the other edits. Edhubbard (talk) 00:17, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's OK, I am also going to have less time now, so other additions may take a while. Thanks for the copyedits. Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 11:27, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Image problem

 Done File:Flores map.png has an uncertain license tag because it is not known whether the image was created by the uploader, or taken from a public domain source. Either way, there is no source given, and the uploader is inactive. I recommend using File:ID - Flores.PNG instead. DrKiernan (talk) 15:09, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(undent) Hi all, it looks like this has sort of settled down recently. Jan has already expanded the bone structure section, so I've marked that as done. I'm going to track down some references for the heights, as Jan suggests. Then, the article really only needs a fresh top-to-bottom copy-edit and the image problem noted by DrKiernan resolved. I know that it's getting to be time to move this to FARC, and I'm wondering if we can agree to avoid that step. Are the other editors happy with the changes and improvements? Edhubbard (talk) 17:38, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've gotten the references Jan wanted, so that's all good. All that's left is a copy-edit and perhaps just changing to the other image DrKiernan suggested. Thoughts? Edhubbard (talk) 18:44, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Thanks for the help. I got the above mentioned Jungers' article on the lower limbs. However, I have been quite short of time recently and it will take me a couple of more days to add the info into the article. Then I would like to read the whole article in detail again and think about it once more. Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 22:24, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note Do we feel this one needs to go to FARC? Joelito (talk) 02:39, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a go at copyediting it, but it could probably do with another run through by someone with fresh eyes. I don't see any other problems, so moving it to FARC is probably unnecessary. DrKiernan (talk) 10:36, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I don't think that moving to FARC is necessary. I know that Jan still has one reference that he wants to add, but I think that his primary concern, that the article was not comprehensive, has been met. I'll give it a top-to-bottom read in the next couple of days, but these sorts of things shouldn't require a move to FARC. Edhubbard (talk) 14:17, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup needed, the article has WP:ACCESSibility and WP:LAYOUT issues that need attention. Images go within sections not above them (see WP:ACCESS). Portals go in See also, and sister projects go in External links. Please complete a MoS review. Why is Hobbit italicized in the lead (See WP:ITALICS)? And there are serious citation cleanup needs; there are missing publishers on many sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:50, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LAYOUT and ACCESS issues done. DrKiernan (talk) 14:21, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Sandy, I'm confused. For many of the citations, the sources are journals like Nature and Science. Has there been a shift that journals like this should include "The Nature Publishing Group" and "The American Association for the Advancement of Science" as their publishers throughout? Is this a new policy about references that I am not aware of (as you've noticed, I haven't been on-wiki as much lately)? Now that you mention the citations, I see that there are some things to clean up and standardize, but didn't see publishers as being among them. Cheers, Edhubbard (talk) 14:49, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm referring to something else. By missing publishers, I mean entries like this:
  • Hawks, John (July 3, 2007). "Another diagnosis for a hobbit" (online). Retrieved on 2009-02-10.
There is no publisher identified, and it is actually John Hawks blog, which means there may be more serious issues here with reliability of sources, obscured by the failure to identify publishers on all sources. (To use someone's blog, we need to meet WP:SPS). We cannot tell if this article is reliably sourced when publishers are missing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:10, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to go now ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:17, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept by Joelr31 01:09, 14 March 2009 [4].

Jack the Ripper: The Final Solution

[edit]

Review commentary

[edit]
Main editor aware
Notified WikiProject Crime and WikiProject Books.

Requested by numerous editors:[5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12].

Note Please state the specific FA criteria that are a concern or this FAR will be archived. Joelito (talk) 14:33, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article is thoroughly unstable. Even its name and focus has changed considerably. It is essentially a different article from the one that was promoted to Featured status.--Cúchullain t/c 00:53, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
During the review, if there is one, we can work on that issue by agreeing a stable version. DrKiernan (talk) 08:30, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To do that we'd have to move the article back to its original location. One of the criteria of a Featured Article is that it is stable, which means it should not be moved to a new title without any discussion whatsoever. But that's only one of the issues; other editors listed above named other very serious problems with the article, notably that it is not well written or comprehensive. That's three very major strikes against the article.
It looks like you are clearly not done with the article. The best move will be to delist the article and allow you to keep working, then renominate it once it is stable and the other criteria are met.--Cúchullain t/c 22:55, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm satisfied with the current version. DrKiernan (talk) 09:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Even still, it is essentially a different article than the one which was promoted. And it still leaves the matters of writing and comprehensiveness.--Cúchullain t/c 12:35, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Where is the prose poor, and what is missing? DrKiernan (talk) 12:48, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've expanded the notifications in the hope of involving more editors. DrKiernan (talk) 09:10, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

[edit]
Suggested FA criteria concern is stability. Joelito (talk) 15:50, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand the history correctly, the previous version of this article, the one that appeared as the featured article on the front page, was criticised for various things, including the fact that it did not adequately cover the scope proposed by its original title: "Jack the Ripper conspiracy theories". The article seems to have been significantly re-structured using the existing material to meet a reduced scope of focussing on a single book. In this new form it is stable, not having been edited since 26 Jan.
As far as its quality goes, it seems fully ref'd, although I'm not in a position to judge the quality of the sources used. Writing and structure seem generally fine throughout. Given the early emphasis placed on the supposed anatomical knowledge of the Ripper, I think more needs to be made of this later on in the article: I assume this is why Gull is implicated? There's also a comment in the lead about the number of editions of the book that I can't see later on in the main text: it should be included in the main text and can probably be removed from the lead. I'm not too good on the MoS, but I can't see any problems there, so I'd say Keep. Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 18:38, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the logic of some of the article. Even though it states that the evidence showed that the bodies were not moved (line15), this is not supported elsewhere in the major Wikipedia article on Jack the Ripper. It is noted that the bodies were probably strangled because of the lack of blood at the scene. This could lead to the conclusion that the bodies were moved after being strangled and subsequently cut up. The blood at the "new" crime scene would be from the evisceration and throat cutting there. Also, the narrow alley that would constrain a carriage would be of no consequence, either, because after the strangulation in the carriage, the body could be carried anywhere. Also, Gorman's recanting of his story could easily be explained by Knight's implication of Gorman's father. I am sure that a better analysis, at least more even-handed, can be done. And further insight could be revealed with current DNA tests of any evidence, whether of the kidney, other letters, or of Gorman himself. I'm sure you can see the major ramifications this could have. But, Scotland Yard's bungling of the chalk graffiti , the Directors vacation overseas, the police's arrival minutes late to the crime scene, the loss of the "From Hell" letter, the lack of current DNA analysis, the illogical conclusions, etc. are not stressed enough in the a fore mentioned article as adding to the conspiracy theory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.191.152.205 (talk) 02:08, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adding ridiculous bunkum to the article will not improve it. DrKiernan (talk) 07:54, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Close as keep. There are no substantive demote votes. DrKiernan (talk) (Primary author) 13:26, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:39, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oopos, this is one of my promotions, so perhaps my declaration shouldn't count. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:40, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept by Gimmetrow 03:36, 10 March 2009 [13].

Barack Obama

[edit]
The content components of are that it is:


  • (a) well-written: its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard;
  • (b) comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context;
  • (c) factually accurate: claims are verifiable against reliable sources, accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge, and are supported with specific evidence and external citations; this requires a "References" section in which sources are listed, complemented by inline citations where appropriate;
  • (d) neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias; and
  • (e) stable: it is not subject to ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process.
    — Wikipedia:Featured article criteria

Regarding each of these criteria:

  • (a)The prose remains well-written, even brilliant, and it should have no problem with this requirement.
  • (b)Here begins some of the issues. Related to the neutrality issue below, concerns have been raised that there are possibly significant influences in Obama's life that have not been adequately described in this article, for whatever reason. Those concerns need to be addressed, either through showing how they are incorrect, or by enhancing the article.
  • (c)I do not believe there are any inaccuracies in the article; the issues seem to be ones of omission, not comission.
  • (d)While there are those who believe much of the brouhaha is due to right-wing political mongering, it appears that enough significant concern about the presence or absence of various pieces of information exist that there is serious concern about the article's neutrality.
  • (e)This article currently is anything but stable, resulting in its needing a full-protection lockdown.

As such, albeit the last FAR was in December, enough new issues and instability has arisen that requires us to reconsider this article's featured status until such point as the appropriate issues have all been addressed. -- Avi (talk) 20:46, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)I'm thinking it is a bit premature for a FAR/FARC. The current brouhaha that has resulted in the lockdown is certainly a result of "right-wing political mongering". Prior to the WorldNetDaily article and it's appearance on Free Republic, Drudge, and Newsbusters the article was extremely stable in regards to the content. Especially since the last FAR/FARC back in December. If it weren't for the WorldNetDaily article and the resulting invasion of SPAs, the article wouldn't be in full lockdown. --Bobblehead (rants) 20:53, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. At the moment, the article clearly meets all the listed criteria listed above with the possible exception of stability, which is always difficult to achieve in an article as highly-trafficked as this one. Trying to review this article's FA status while under siege from the WND/Drudge crowd is unwise at best, and I recommend this FAR be postponed until "normal service" is resumed. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:03, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I respectfully disagree. The fact that there are significant issues with the article is neither mitigated nor enhanced by the political leanings of those people bringing or defending said attacks. Wikipedia needs to keep itself above politics and focus on its core policies and guidelines. Regardless of who in the peanut gallery is clamoring loudly, there are issues with the article that level-headed people can admit to, and these should be addressed in order for the article to maintain its FA status, or the next step needs be taken. -- Avi (talk) 21:09, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The "significant issues" you describe are your opinion, and the opinion of some far-right folk who have failed to read any of the consensus-building discussions in the article's extensive talk page archive. If you have concerns, this is a completely inappropriate way to highlight them and an abuse of process. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:23, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The "significant issues" are also matters that antedated the December review. They were all discussed at great length of the talk page, and the results are archived and indexed. The consensus is certainly not immutable, but whacking away at it tabula rasa isn't helping. Nothing has really changed since December. PhGustaf (talk) 00:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • FAIL Definitely not a balanced article. There is no weight given to controversies or criticisms. It reads like a press release. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:47, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fails FA criteria - Exactly what ChildofMidnight said. There is nothing balanced about this article, to say nothing at all of stability. I find it worthy of note that articles about prominent right wing politicians are a dumping ground for any bit of criticism that can be dug up, while the same people doing that will remove criticism from left wing politicians pages under the guise of WP:UNDUE. This should never have been FA'd to begin with. Trusilver 20:54, 9 March 2009 (UTC) While there is a very definite double standard in the way that Wikipedia portrays people of a certain US political party compared to how we portray those of another certain US political party, the problem is systemic and not confined to this article. Trusilver 00:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please review the WP:FAR process. The FAR step is to review the article for areas of possible improvements, it is not where a "Pass/Fail" or "Keep/Remove" decision is made. The FARC step is when Keep/Remove decisions are made and that is generally done at least two weeks after a FAR is requested and only if the Featured Article Director, or his delegates, have determined that the requested improvements have not been addressed. --Bobblehead (rants) 20:59, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agreed. I'd much rather see the problems addressed and the article stay as an FA than go through an FARC, but there are issues. -- Avi (talk) 21:09, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • And now is not the time to bring them up, Avi. You're just prolonging the wikidrama created by the WND article. At least wait a few weeks until the invasion has ended and the discussion can be done productively. I will also point out that the handling of Wright and Ayers in the current article is exactly the same as it was in the last FAR.[14] --Bobblehead (rants) 21:12, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree that the article as it stands now fails (d), (e), and arguably (b). The fact that any news organization, no matter what their bias, can point out common knowledge things that are seriously missing or underrepresented from a Wikipedia FA is a black eye. Yes, there are links to the controversies articles that contain a more detailed view, but that doesn't make up for the fact that the article, as it stands now, intentionally marginalizes serious controversies regarding Obama using WP:UNDUE as if it were more important than WP:NPOV and WP:V. This is clearly not our best work. Jclemens (talk) 21:16, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Worldnetdaily can hardly be called a "news source" and is not a reliable source for the purposes of any biography article. Anyway, it's important to remember that this is an encyclopedic biography we are discussing, not a current news article. --Loonymonkey (talk) 21:45, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Agreed with Bobblehead; bad timing on this FAR. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 21:18, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Bobblehead and others on this - in light of the screed published today, I think this FAR is ill-timed, as the need for temporary full protection is likely traceable to that. Overall, I think article probation has handled disruption well and there has not been full protection since well before the election, other than pre-emptively on election day and Inauguration Day. Let things settle down after the flurry of drive-bys ends and see how we're doing then, when any discussion here with neutral observers who truly do want to improve the article can be more productive. Tvoz/talk 21:19, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Bobblehead and Tvoz. I wonder if there is also an underlying reason behind this FAR/FARC that is not stated. I also agree that this FAR is ill timed. Before the WND article was written, the article was very stable with few people have had any problem. As soon as the WND article came out, people have come out of the woodwork to attack the article, yet not bringing anything new to the age old election controversies. When they could not get their edits into the article they resorted to edit warring and rants. Brothejr (talk) 21:25, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree. Nothing in the FAR guidelines covers "inconvenient times to start an FAR". Stability alone precludes this article from featured status and to be bluntly honest, it probably will not achieve stability during Barack Obama's presidency, plain and simple. I mean, please, any article about someone who is in the news not on a daily basis but on an hourly one is NEVER going to be stable. Trusilver 21:28, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree. This article enjoyed stability for months until Klein manufactured this controversy. Don't forget that this is the Obama BLP, not an article about his presidency (which will necessarily be more volatile). -- Scjessey (talk) 21:39, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Scjessey hits the nail on the head - this is a biography of Obama's whole life, and while new information could always come to light that would have to be accommodated, the basic structure and content of his life are well-established and not at all in the news on an hourly, or daily, basis. The article was promoted in 2004 to FA and has maintained its FA status and quality through 5 FARs, the brutal primaries and election, and has done so right up until now, when this WND piece was published. There will be time to re-visit this, if really deemed necessary, once things quiet down again, which they always have. Tvoz/talk 22:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have looked over the history of this article, and I find it be be far from stable. However, what do you propose would be a better method of adressing the article than an FAR? Do you feel that some time should pass before an FAR, or do you propose no FAR at all? Trusilver 22:10, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with Bobblehead that this is a misplaced FAR. This FAR seems to have been initiated more to make a point in recent editing conflicts than out of any genuine long-term concern for the way the biography is written. --Loonymonkey (talk) 21:47, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fail - Quoting Andrew Levine from W's featured article review, ". . . spectacularly fails the all-important stability criteria. Even if this page was never targeted by vandals and POV-pushers -- which it is, probably with more consistency than any single article -- the subject will for several years yet occupy a highly visible position of power, during which time his well-publicized deeds will surely invite massive rewrites and reorganizations on a weekly or even daily basis. " Oldag07 (talk) 21:53, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What constitutes an "unstable" article in regards to a FAR has changed drastically since GWB's FAR three years ago. McCain's article was promoted to FA in the height of the campaign because it was realized that the "instability" of the article is limited to a single section of the article and even then, the changes will only be minor. The presidency article is the one that is going to be changing constantly, not the main article. --Bobblehead (rants) 22:05, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that we can agree, the presidency section should have this {{Current section}} attached to it. That being said, I am still not convinced that this page will not be going though massive rewrites, and edits. Oldag07 (talk) 22:22, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bad FAR, based on a fake controversy generated by a lone website as to the perceived neutrality of this article. It's neutral to the all mainstream editors, or else concerns would have been raised by someone else other than a lone far-Right website. The website itself, as seen at WorldNetDaily#Claims about Barack Obama would not be considered a dispassionate, neutral source for use in this. As such, I fail to see how any reporting from them being excluded here could be a consideration in any WP:NPOV concerns about this article. It would be akin to giving Jack Thompson disproportionate weight in any neutrality dispute about Video game, in contrast. This is the same website that alleges our President is a Soviet mole.[http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=88439][15] rootology (C)(T) 22:07, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am a mainstream editor, with close to 7,500 edits, who voted for Obama. 22:15, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Fail Very unstable article and plagued with problems about NPOV. Ejnogarb (talk) 22:12, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fail Pass Farce. I'm not sure how clear it's has to be made that this is not a vote on the featured status of the article. Personally, I don't think the article has any issues except possibly regarding breaking information that compromise the featured criteria. As for whether it's appropriate for an article of the currentness and profile of a US President to ever be a FA, I think that merits a judgement from the FA Director. As it is, the article does a great job of what's required of it. Bigbluefish (talk) 22:22, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Wikipedia is supposed to be factual, right? The following information is the verifiable truth:

He served alongside former Weathermen leader William Ayers from 1994 to 2002 on the board of directors of the Woods Fund of Chicago, which in 1985 had been the first foundation to fund the Developing Communities Project, and also from 1994 to 2002 on the board of directors of the Joyce Foundation. Obama served on the board of directors of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge from 1995 to 2002, as founding president and chairman of the board of directors from 1995 to 1991. Ayers was the founder and director of the Challenge.

Why did you scrub it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.181.189.54 (talk) 22:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What makes you think it was scrubbed? Did you see any scrubbing or are you parroting something you heard somewhere? Wikidemon (talk) 23:07, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(ecx2) The term "scrub" was used in this Fox News article, which is based almost entirely on the "some people say" premise. It even starts out with the phrase "Critics noted..." szyslak (t) 23:35, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Silly. Apparently a half-dozen new accounts were created by readers on the WND smear sheet after that publication did its latest attack on Obama. When these accounts were unable to stick in irrelevant and libelous material in the article itself, they decided that they would try to remove the (very stable) article from FA as a sort of schoolyard "I'll take my toys" tactic. For such a high profile article, this is amazingly stable and well-written, and this FAR is 100% misguided. LotLE×talk 23:32, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, it is debatable of an article about the president of the united states, especially one in his first term can be "amazingly" stable. Oldag07 (talk) 23:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ridiculous - Do we unfeature ever article that is fully protected? Obviously this article will be subject to the recurring drive-by edit warring. Doest that make it unstable? ... don't be ridiculous. Grsz11 23:42, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was kept by Joelr31 02:57, 9 March 2009 [16].

Seattle

[edit]

Review commentary

[edit]
Notified: Wikipedia:WikiProject Washington, Wikipedia:WikiProject Seattle, User:Bobblehead, User:Lukobe, User:Jmabel
previous FAR

I have nominated Seattle for review because I think in the year since the previous review, the article could use some work. Some issues that need to be addressed are:

  • The lack of citations in some areas (e.g. Economic history, Topography, Media, Outdoor activities, Infrastructure)
  • Dead reference links [17]
  • Use of list in history section instead of prose
  • Lack of proper WP:SUMMARY style - the article is huge (117k) but the main, most important, pieces of information seem to be lost in a sea of seemingly trivial facts

I hope that by bringing the article forward at FAR, that these items can be quickly addressed. Best, epicAdam(talk) 05:25, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it standard operating procedure to bring up concerns about a Featured Article on the article's talk page prior to sending the article through FAR? But to cover the points:
  • I'm not sure what the nominator is expecting as far as references. The sections seem to be rather well covered and in line with applicable guidelines. There are a few claims here and there that are not referenced, but aside from a claim in the Media section about "a large number of publications about the environment and sustainability" that could be removed without harming the article, I don't see anything that requires citations that is already covered in a citation.
  • Unless I'm missing something, having dead reference links is not a Bad ThingTM. They can be marked as dead, but it is generally acceptable for dead links to exist as they indicate that the reference was there at one time...
  • The listification of the History section is a bad thing, I'm going to see if I can figure out when that happened and why.
  • The article has 44kb of readable prose, so WP:SIZE concerns are not a concern here. The remaining 74k is references and wikimarkup that are generally not considered part of the size restrictions. The sea of trivial details may be valid, but welcome to Wikipedia. I doubt you'll find any article, particularly those of cities, that don't have a large amount of trivial details. --Bobblehead (rants) 16:31, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Bobblehead. I decided to go forward at FAR just so the greater Wikipedia community can have input into the process, as opposed to just those who happen to have the article watch-listed. There are only a few items, like those I have listed. I plan on providing a more detailed review, but wanted to get the ball rolling and see if any other editors wished to provide additional comments. So yes, I didn't mean opening the FAR because I thought the article should be demoted or anything of the sort. Best, epicAdam(talk) 19:01, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've nominated File:Alaska Yukon Pacific Exposition - Rainier Vista.jpg for deletion. Editors may wish to comment there. No other image problems that I could see. DrKiernan (talk) 14:44, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That image's licensing concerns appear sorted out on commons now. rootology (C)(T) 19:01, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried rewriting the history section to get it back to prose rather than lists. Take a look. There may be more work to be done, but I think this gives a much better basis to move forward on that section. - Jmabel | Talk 05:31, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where are we on this FAR? The only real problem identified by the nominator (The listification of the History section) seems to be resolved (good job, Jmabel). Jmabel has also found a postcard with the image that was nominated for deltion that seems to indicate the image was published prior to 1923, so the image seems to be in the public domain despite what UW says about the copyright status. --Bobblehead (rants) 06:53, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The image issue is resolved. DrKiernan (talk) 13:17, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
External links

I just ran the tool Sandy added and I see only one completely dead link looking quickly. rootology (C)(T) 18:58, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The dead link isn't one that can be replaced, unfortunately. It's dead and it's going to stay dead. there is a link to a copy of it on WikiSource, but I doubt we can use that as a replacement for the dead link. Do we need to replace the link, or is it okay if it stays as a dead link with the understanding being that it was alive at one point? --Bobblehead (rants) 23:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Work needed. Has the original nominator been pinged to see if he is satisfied now?
  • There is an inconsistency throughout the article in usage of percent vs. %, sample:
  • The racial composition of the city was 67.1 percent White, 16.6 percent Asian, 9.7 percent African American, 2.38 percent from other races, 1.00 percent Native American, 0.50 percent Pacific Islander, and 4.46 percent from two or more races. Hispanic or Latino of any race were 6.3 percent of the population.[161] 11.3% were of German, 9.1% Irish, 8.1% English and 5.0% Norwegian ancestry according to Census 2000. 80.1% spoke English, 4.2% Spanish, 2.3% Chinese or Mandarin, 2.0% Tagalog and 1.9% Vietnamese as their first language.
Replaced all % with percent. --Bobblehead (rants) 00:53, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are several dab links needing repair, identified in the toolbox.
Fixed all the dabs. --Bobblehead (rants) 00:53, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dead links can also be checked via the toolbox.
See question above to Rootology. --Bobblehead (rants) 00:53, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seattle-Tacoma International Airport, locally known as Sea–Tac ... Sea–Tac has en endash, but Seattle-Tacomo has a hyphen, which is it? Perhaps check with Tony1 (talk · contribs) on which is correct.
I believe it is just a hyphen. I've never seen an en dash used in association with Sea-Tac before, so I went ahead and replaced all instances with a hyphen. Good eyes, BTW. I never would have seen it. --Bobblehead (rants) 23:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Date formatting in the citations is all over the map (I think I saw four different formats).
Part of the problem with the different date formats in the citations is the evil auto-formatting they are using in {{cite news}} and {{cite journal}} which, for some unexplainable reason, is converting dates in ISO format to DMY. Until they fix the templates to match the rest of the cite templates, there's nothing we can do about the format of the accessdate. Most of the rest were due to hold over from the linking of dates so I'm guessing they picked up on how you have your autoformatting set? the remainder I believe I fixed most except those that were published in date ranges (May 1-May 8, 2007), only list a month (November 2006) or a season (Spring 2006). Everything else should be in ISO now. --Bobblehead (rants) 23:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:ELLIPSES (no spaces) and WP:PUNC (logical punctuation) need attention.
  • There are poorly sourced and hard to believe statements, sample:
  • Seattle is probably second only to New York for number of equity theaters[1] (28 Seattle theater companies have some sort of Actors' Equity contract).[2]
  • is sourced to Lonely Planet, not a particularly strong source for such a surprising claim.
  • On Seattle being second only to New York for number of equity theaters: not sure where else one would go to source the comparison to other U.S. cities, and I'd be very interested in suggestions, but as a New York native who has been 30 years in Seattle, I'm pretty confident that Seattle is at least a strong contender for second place. Seattle is a strong union town and a strong theater town. 28 equity theaters is a lot (and that number is cited from a more solid source). What other city are you thinking might have more? - Jmabel | Talk 05:51, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • could be:
I'm not sure what can be done with a date on this specific example, the references I've been able to find, [18] and [19] are undated info pages that refer to SYSO as currently being the largest youth symphony in the US, so based on those sources applying an "As of <date>" would seem to be innacurate. --Bobblehead (rants) 01:50, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pretty confident that statement would have been true at all times in the last decade. Again: it's hard to find solid sources for comparisons among cities in the size and scope of arts organizations, do you have any suggestions of what you would consider appropriate sourcing? - Jmabel | Talk 05:54, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are surprising claims that are unsourced, sample:
This one specifically is now sourced. --Bobblehead (rants) 00:53, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is unattributed opinion, sample:
  • Spoken word and poetry are staples of Seattle arts, paralleling the explosion of the independent music scene during the late 1980s and early 1990s. Seattle's performance poetry blossomed with the importation of the poetry slam from Chicago (its origin) by Paul Granert. This and the proliferation of weekly readings, open mics, and poetry-friendly club venues like the Weathered Wall, the OK Hotel, and the Ditto Tavern (all now defunct), allowed spoken-word/performance poetry to take off.
  • Those are just quick issues from looking only at the Culture section; I didn't examine the prose or sourcing elsewhere, but this number of issues from one section does suggest a bit more tune-up work is in order here before closing this FAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:13, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

[edit]
Suggested FA criteria concerns are citations and length (summary style use). Joelito (talk) 14:48, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't mind keeping this version. Though, I would agree that there is a tendency toward inclusion of material which would be better placed in the daughter articles. DrKiernan (talk) 10:32, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are still citation needed tags. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:29, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That was just added here not two days ago, but this text is thrice-sourced. I pulled it for now to review on the article talk. rootology (C)(T) 02:18, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure the citation needed tags are valid. The Duwamish tribe seems to agree with the spelling used in the article.[20] Problem being, I'm not sure I would count the source as a WP:RS as it is a WP:SPS. --Bobblehead (rants) 02:22, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For purposes of something like this, wouldn't the Duwamish be the ultimate authority on their own language? That's sorta like saying the US Government's United States Constituation isn't the ultimate authority on the specific wording of what the US constitution says...? For something like this, it would be circular logic to exclude the Duwamish themselves as a source, especially since something as unfortunately niche as tribal language won't be widely reported. rootology (C)(T) 02:27, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Media section is a bit sketchy. I don't know whether indiscriminately listing blogs is helpful (also unsourced).
  • "Seattle has artist-run galleries,[143] including 10-year veteran Soil Art Gallery,[144] and the newer Crawl Space Gallery.[145]" This is a one-line paragraph from "Tourism" that should be moved up a bit. The list of museums is unsourced.
  • "Even though Seattle is old enough that railways and streetcars once dominated its transportation system, automobiles are now the main mode of transportation. Seattle is also serviced by an extensive network of bus routes and two commuter rail routes connecting it to many of its suburbs." These topic sentences at the start of the "Transportation" section are redundant and unnecessary; these type of sentences belong in the lead.
  • Paragraphs about Sea-Tac and utilities need sources. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:24, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm going to pushback on most of the requests for additional sources, per verifiability: "Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed." It is highly unlikely that anyone is going to challenge the list of museums as being located in Seattle, particularly since all of the museums are linked to articles and these articles provide ample sourcing to support a Seattle location. The same goes for the utilities and Sea-Tac airport. This is my #1 complaint about FARs and FACs. It seems that most reviewers are more concerned about there not being a set of square brackets with a number in between them than actually following the freaking policy. If you can identify why we should be sourcing things that are clearly uncontroversial and without question, then I'd be more than willing to provide a link for each and every museum's homepage showing their address. --Bobblehead (rants) 03:49, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • What Bobble said. All that info is totally non-controversial, and not a reason to demote anything. The sentence would just be made terribly unwieldy, with individual sourcing. There may be "a" source that has them all listed, or most, but is it likely to be challenged for something like the Seattle Metropolitan Police Museum? rootology (C)(T) 05:31, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept by Joelr31 17:22, 7 March 2009 [21].

Rogers Locomotive and Machine Works

[edit]
Notified: Slambo, Jimp, WP Trains

Seems to be lacking citations; probably shouldn't be considered a FA.--King Bedford I Seek his grace 23:31, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd prefer to see a cite for ...the first locomotive to cross the Allegheny Mountains (albeit by canal boat and not by rail), and the first locomotive to operate in Ohio.

Could you please specify the sources for: According to well-established sources, Colburn was, around 1854, 'superintendent and/or consultant' at the works where he introduced a number of improvements in locomotive design.? DrKiernan (talk) 16:10, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. I'll see what I can do on this today. Slambo (Speak) 16:13, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Done - added refs for both statements. Slambo (Speak) 18:50, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Great! This article should be retained as an FA. DrKiernan (talk) 09:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note Can this be closed without FARC? Joelito (talk) 02:39, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The three of us above think so. DrKiernan (talk) 08:28, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

Removed status

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

The article was removed by YellowAssessmentMonkey 01:34, 30 March 2009 [22].

Washington gubernatorial election, 2004

[edit]

Review commentary

[edit]
Notified WikiProject Washington.

This article is at the top of Wikipedia:Featured articles/Cleanup listing, and concerns raised on the talk page remain unaddressed. DrKiernan (talk) 08:32, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

[edit]
Suggested FA criteria concerns are citations and weasel words. Joelito (talk) 01:14, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed by YellowAssessmentMonkey 01:04, 25 March 2009 [23].

Llywelyn the Great

[edit]

Review commentary

[edit]
Notified: WP Middle Ages and WP Wales. Creator User:Rhion inactive.

This is primarily an issue of 1c - specifically WP:RS. The article relies heavily on A History of Wales from the Earliest Times to the Edwardian Conquest by John Edward Lloyd, which is a classic, surely, but at a hundred years old must certainly have been surpassed by newer scholarship. Lloyd writes from the nation-state perspective typical of early 20th-century historiography, and even though the article itself is reasonably balanced, it's a bad signal to send that historical research doesn't develop at all over a hundred years. I will put some suggestions on the talk page for newer works that can be used.

Then there is the "Historical assessment" part. This is where Lloyd would be in his place, to show historiographical development. Instead a somewhat lazy solution has been chosen, with two lengthy quotes and no editorial comment. As the quotes stand now they appear as a historiographical disagreement between two schools of thought, rather than the result of historiographical development over time.

Finally there's the "Cultural allusions" which tends towards "In popular culture" (Sharon Kay Penman is like the Family Guy of medieval literature). This section should be limited to culturally significant portrayals of the subject, and not include a bullet-point list of every popular novel where he's mentioned. Apart from this I think the article is reasonably well written, and should be salvageable. Lampman (talk) 11:43, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from User:Ealdgyth

  • I wouldn't consider [24] a reliable source.
  • Some stuff is probably unreferenced. Examples:
    • "By 1175 Gwynedd had been divided between two of Llywelyn's uncles. Dafydd ab Owain held the area east of the River Conwy and Rhodri ab Owain held the west. Dafydd and Rhodri were the sons of Owain by his second marriage to Cristin ferch Goronwy. This marriage was not considered valid by the church as Cristin was Owain's first cousin, a degree of relationship which according to Canon law prohibited marriage. Giraldus Cambrensis refers to Iorwerth Drwyndwn as the only legitimate son of Owain Gwynedd." It has a citation on it, but it's to Gerald of Wales (Giraldus Cambrensis) and I'm betting ALL that information isn't in G of W.
    • "In 1197 Llywelyn captured Dafydd and imprisoned him. A year later Hubert Walter, Archbishop of Canterbury, persuaded Llywelyn to release him, and Dafydd retired to England where he died in May 1203."
    • "A year later Hubert Walter, Archbishop of Canterbury, persuaded Llywelyn to release him, and Dafydd retired to England where he died in May 1203." unsourced
    • "Dafydd succeeded Llywelyn as prince of Gwynedd, but King Henry was not prepared to allow him to inherit his father's position in the remainder of Wales. Dafydd was forced to agree to a treaty greatly restricting his power and was also obliged to hand his brother Gruffydd over to the king, who now had the option of using him against Dafydd. Gruffydd was killed attempting to escape from the Tower of London in 1244. This left the field clear for Dafydd, but Dafydd himself died without issue in 1246 and was eventually succeeded by his nephew, Gruffydd's son, Llywelyn the Last." unsourced
  • The reliance on Lloyd's 1911 work is scary. It's been supllpemented a bit by more recent works, but more should be devoted to more modern works, and less cited to Gerald of Wales and the Brut.
  • I cannot find this source in World Cat "Remfry, P.M., Whittington Castle and the families of Bleddyn ap Cynfyn, Peverel, Maminot, Powys and Fitz Warin (ISBN 1-899376-80-1)"
  • Nothing should be sourced to Weis Ancestral Roots .. it's unreliable.
  • I fixed some quotation issues, but I just don't have the sources to do this article justice. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:37, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The main source here should be Roger Turvey's Llywelyn the Great, that I mentioned on the talk page. Turvey's a respected historian, the book is highly relevant and of a very recent date. The problem is that it's hard to come by; even some well equipped academic libraries don't have it. Lampman (talk) 04:25, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

[edit]
Suggested FA criteria concerns is citations. Joelito (talk) 03:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed by Joelr31 15:34, 23 March 2009 [25].

Oddworld: Abe's Oddysee

[edit]

Review commentary

[edit]
Notified: Abraham Lure, WP Video games

This article was promoted in late 2006, and it's not up to current FA standards. Most obviously, its incredibly short "Development" section (as noted by the expansion tag) is a failure of criterion 1(b). The article could use an overall copyedit and a longer lead as well. Fair use rationales for the two gameplay images should probably also be beefed up. --TorsodogTalk 14:18, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I concur; the development is almost nonexistent, the images have no unique rationale, and the characters section doesn't assert notability, just truthfulness. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 07:58, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was beginning to wonder when this would come up. Having made a few very minor edits to the article (although that was a while ago), I also concur with the assessment of Torsodog, and can't say much more. I also checked Abraham Lure's contributions, and they don't seem to have edited since February 2007. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 12:03, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

[edit]
Suggested FA criteria concerns are prose, comprehensiveness, and images. Joelito (talk) 02:49, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist per above. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 03:52, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist per YellowMonkey (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 15:09, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist: I really enjoyed this game when it came out, but the article is definitely not up to Featured status... I was surprised when I saw it was an FA. The images look fine for now... they've now been nominated twice for speedy deletion, but it shouldn't take much work to make them valid, so deletion seems unnecessary; just expand the FUR a little with some more customized comments (I've already expanded them a little bit by clarifying what article they are considered fair use in). I haven't really looked at the prose (haven't read the whole article), but comprehensiveness is definitely lacking... the short development and reception sections show that. That being said, I think that this could make a decent GA with a little work. -Drilnoth (talk) 20:54, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed by Joelr31 15:34, 23 March 2009 [26].

Yoweri Museveni

[edit]

Review commentary

[edit]
WikiProjects informed

1c. Also has undue weight on recentism, YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 03:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you mean against recentism? The post-2006 election info is the skimpiest part of the article, probably because it happened after the FAC.
Most of the FA content was written by TreveX and I've informed him of this FAR, in the event he wants to have a go at it. - BanyanTree 01:45, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image problems I think the resolution of File:MuseveniInauguration.jpg and File:MuseveniCampaign1996.jpg should be reduced to strengthen the fair use rationales. The rationale for File:MuseveniGesturing.jpg is too weak since there are three free-use images of him shown. File:MuseveniStraw.jpg cannot be used in my opinion; since there are other free-use pictures of him meeting foreign leaders, the fair use rationale for this image doesn't apply. I'm not totally convinced by File:GadoMuseveni.png either since it is not being used to comment on the actual artwork (i.e. the style of the artist, the development of the caricature, or the use of motifs or themes in the cartoonist's work) but on the depiction of Museveni's constitutional changes in the press.

I have nominated File:Camp children.JPG for deletion on commons [27], as it was already deleted on wikipedia [28][29]. DrKiernan (talk) 15:47, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

[edit]
Suggested FA criteria concerns are citations and images. Joelito (talk) 02:43, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed by Joelr31 15:34, 23 March 2009 [30].

Black pepper

[edit]

Review commentary

[edit]
Notified: WP:India, WP:Food and Drink, WP:Plants, WP:Agriculture
  1. Largely unreferenced (factually accurate; FA criteria 1C)
  2. A few {{fact}} spread about the article (consistent citations; FA criteria 2C) Fixed
  3. The world trade section needs to be updated

For the most part, the article is fine in terms of prose and lede. However, nearly all of it is unreferenced, which is the main problem. Entire paragraphs lack referencing. WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 22:04, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as FA - I cited all of the {{fact}} tags, so #2 is now invalid. I also added some reference I encountered from various books and governmental agencies to help bolster many of the uncited sections. I'll work on it some more. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 23:39, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good job so far! I do believe the article is near completely accurate and well-written - as long as the proper referencing is added, it will do fine. However, another problem seems to be that many paragraphs are supported by only one reference. Luckily, that's easily fixable as well. WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 00:11, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I updated the World trade section with some numbers from June 2007-May 2008 as well as changing the production numbers to percentages instead of tonnage. That takes care of #3. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 00:13, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for working so hard! The article is looking much better than it did before. There are still some things to be fixed, but overall, the entire quality of the article has increased. I'm confident that this article will be well-restored by the end of the FAR. WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 16:25, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As of now, the problem I have is large sections of unreferenced material, or paragraphs relying on one reference. I'll go through and find them, but for now, here are a few:
  • The ancient history of black pepper is often interlinked with (and confused with) that of long pepper, the dried fruit of closely related Piper longum. The Romans knew of both and often referred to either as just "piper". In fact, it was not until the discovery of the New World and of chile peppers that the popularity of long pepper entirely declined. Chile peppers, some of which when dried are similar in shape and taste to long pepper, were easier to grow in a variety of locations more convenient to Europe.
  • Pepper (both long and black) was known in Greece at least as early as the 4th century BC, though it was probably an uncommon and expensive item that only the very rich could afford. Trade routes of the time were by land, or in ships which hugged the coastlines of the Arabian Sea. Long pepper, growing in the north-western part of India, was more accessible than the black pepper from further south; this trade advantage, plus long pepper's greater spiciness, probably made black pepper less popular at the time.
  • By the time of the early Roman Empire, especially after Rome's conquest of Egypt in 30 BC, open-ocean crossing of the Arabian Sea directly to southern India's Malabar Coast was near routine. Details of this trading across the Indian Ocean have been passed down in the Periplus of the Erythraean Sea. According to the Roman geographer Strabo, the early Empire sent a fleet of around 120 ships on an annual one-year trip to India and back. The fleet timed its travel across the Arabian Sea to take advantage of the predictable monsoon winds. Returning from India, the ships travelled up the Red Sea, from where the cargo was carried overland or via the Nile Canal to the Nile River, barged to Alexandria, and shipped from there to Italy and Rome. The rough geographical outlines of this same trade route would dominate the pepper trade into Europe for a millennium and a half to come.
  • Its exorbitant price during the Middle Ages — and the monopoly on the trade held by Italy — was one of the inducements which led the Portuguese to seek a sea route to India. In 1498, Vasco da Gama became the first European to reach India by sea; asked by Arabs in Calicut (who spoke Spanish and Italian) why they had come, his representative replied, "we seek Christians and spices." Though this first trip to India by way of the southern tip of Africa was only a modest success, the Portuguese quickly returned in greater numbers and used their superior naval firepower to eventually gain complete control of trade on the Arabian sea. It was given additional legitimacy (at least from a European perspective) by the 1494 Treaty of Tordesillas, which granted Portugal exclusive rights to the half of the world where black pepper originated.
  • The Portuguese proved unable to maintain their stranglehold on the spice trade for long. The old Arab and Venetian trade networks successfully smuggled enormous quantities of spices through the patchy Portuguese blockade, and pepper once again flowed through Alexandria and Italy, as well as around Africa. In the 17th century, the Portuguese lost almost all of their valuable Indian Ocean possessions to the Dutch and the English. The pepper ports of Malabar fell to the Dutch in the period 1661–1663.
Once these are fixed, I'll go through the article and find the remaining unreferenced material. WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 22:38, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Commment "Pepper as medicine" is a weak spot. It ends with four one-sentence paragraphs which don't have all that much in common. It goes from describing pepper as medicine to mentioning results of modern studies about the effects on the human body. The latter is not actually pepper as medicine as far as I can tell. Peter Isotalo 07:16, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Peter, has this issue been addressed? Do you feel the article can be kept without FARC? Joelito (talk) 15:36, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's been copyedited slightly, but it still looks like a straggler statement. I think the problem is that "Pepper as medicine" mixes info about cultural beliefs with modern medical science, which really are quite separate issues. I think a separate section on proven physiological effects would work better.
Peter Isotalo 19:24, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article is quite incomplete wrt to black pepper's physiological properties. I suggest using PMID 17987447—a recent review. (a search for "black pepper" in pubmed returned 8 reviews, and 13 more reviews can be found for piperine). At the very least, since piperine is an important component, that stub-class article should be better summarized in the article on black pepper. Also, I agree with the previous comment that historical medical uses could be separated from scientifically proven ones. Xasodfuih (talk) 03:35, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

[edit]
Suggested FA criteria is comprehensiveness. Joelito (talk) 00:47, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed by Gimmetrow 00:41, 22 March 2009 [31].

Chemical warfare

[edit]

Review commentary

[edit]
Notified: ClockworkSoul, Rmhermen, WP:MILHIST, WP:CHEMISTRY, WP:MCB, WP:MED (completed).

This article was promoted in 2005, and it's not up to current FA standards. Large swaths of it containing non-obvious information lack inline citations. Based on my experience with other FAs, this article would require considerable work to pass FA today. Xasodfuih (talk) 12:18, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

N.B.: I'm not trying to belittle other people's hard work. I hope that ClockworkSoul, now that he hopefully got past his PhD qual. exams, can blow off some steam with his favorite topic(s). :) Xasodfuih (talk) 13:51, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While I was the primary author way back in 2005 responsible for getting this to FA status, I actually agree that the article falls seriously short of satisfying current FA standards. Looking it over again though, it doesn't seem that it will require too much work to get it back up there. I'm still short on time, but I'll see what I can do. – ClockworkSoul 15:05, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have to admit that, while this is an excellent article in other respects, there are far too many entire sections without references. I'll see if I can find some time to add a few. Physchim62 (talk) 15:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the article is quite long: 52Kb of prose without including the bullet lists, quotations, or the large table (prosetool doesn't count those as prose). Summarizing some of text might result in fewer citations that need to be added. Xasodfuih (talk) 17:17, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mc-1 gas bomb.png doesn't have an original source. I've requested that the license of File:AOSpare-Dressing the Wounded during a Gas Attack 1918.jpg be checked. DrKiernan (talk) 16:55, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It fails WP:LEAD, having a one sentence lead. —Mattisse (Talk) 00:51, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

[edit]
Suggested FA criteria concerns are citations, lead, and images. Joelito (talk) 02:48, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed by YellowAssessmentMonkey 01:11, 18 March 2009 [33].

Paleolithic diet

[edit]

Review commentary

[edit]
Notified: WP Medicine, WP Food and drink, Phenylalanine.

I am concerned about the balance of this article. Research from primary studies is used to make generalized comments. "studies" is used when only one study is refed. Improved health outcomes is used when "16 diabetics have improved glucose control". It is implied that this plays a significant role in many conditions with out quantifying what that role may be.

I have not been convinced by the three or four studies presented that this is anything more than a fad diet and if that is so then it should be presented as such. Having experts say how great it is or what it might achieve if followed means nothing. As the say "show me the numbers". Unfortunately there are no numbers as the research has not been done. Therefore the health benefits are unknown.

I am not convinced there is a research base to make this a featured article in the field of medicine.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:56, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note that there are three controlled "studies" referenced, one on domestic pigs, and two human trials, and WP:FACR does not require a substantial "research base" for the diet. --Phenylalanine (talk) 04:26, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here are my gripes with this article (first posted on WT:MED). Since it has been promoted last year it has seen over 1,000 substantive edits, most of which were done by the same user that nominated it for FA (using two accounts). The result of these edits has be mostly a bias of the article towards an overly favorable POV by several means:

"World Review of Nutrition & Dietetics" is used for two sources in this article. For information on this series of publications, see [34][35][36]. Loren Cordain is one of the main proponents of the paleodiet as well as an internationally recognized expert on the subject, and the papers he posted at thepaleodiet.com are all published in reliable sources. I therefore rely largely on his and other proponents publications to support their views of the merits of the diet. --Phenylalanine (talk) 05:08, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • cherry-picking abstracts only for favorable facts, e.g. from PMID 17522610 only the positive findings are presented
Doc James has fixed this particular instance. --Phenylalanine (talk) 05:08, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • mentioning every disease ever associated with (modern) diet as to imply that paleo diet somehow would help [even though this is not explicitly stated], even those diseases that it would clearly not do so, e.g. osteoporosis.
Respectfully, that is your opinion. Yes, the diet is claimed by proponents to do help prevent numerous diseases, so it's important to mention which diseases. --Phenylalanine (talk) 05:08, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • reference spamming the studies section: every little newsflash about a study and even a Ph.D. thesis resulting from it is given as a separate reference in addition to the study giving the impression that bigger of evidence actually exits, e.g. "The results of initial prospective medical studies on the Paleolithic diet have shown positive health outcomes.[5][6][7][8]" If you read the NHS article on this study, it's nowhere near that optimistic in interpretation.
Refs
  1. ^ Daniel C. Schechter (2002). Pacific Northwest. Lonely Planet. p. 33. ISBN 1864503777.
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference Kiley-new-theater was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ "Home page". SYSO. Retrieved 2007-10-21.
  4. ^ "Home page". SYSO. Retrieved 2007-10-21.
  5. ^ Jönsson T, Ahren B, Pacini G, Sundler F, Wierup N, Steen S, Sjoberg T, Ugander M, Frostegard J, Goransson L, Lindeberg S (2006). "A Paleolithic diet confers higher insulin sensitivity, lower C-reactive protein and lower blood pressure than a cereal-based diet in domestic pigs". Nutrition & Metabolism. 3 (39): 39. doi:10.1186/1743-7075-3-39. PMID 17081292.
  6. ^ "The Health Benefits of Paleocuisine". Science. 317 (5835): 175. July 13, 2007. doi:10.1126/science.317.5835.175c. S2CID 220098755.
  7. ^ NHS Knowledge Service (May 9, 2008). "Caveman fad diet". NHS Choices. Retrieved August 1, 2008.
  8. ^ Jönsson, Tommy (November 23, 2007). "Healthy Satiety. Effects of Paleolithic diet on Satiety and Risk factors for Cardiovascular disease. (Doctoral Thesis)" (Document). Lund University, Sweden. {{cite document}}: Unknown parameter |url= ignored (help) ISBN 9789185897230.

This is just a sample of the problems in the article, but these problems are pervasive. Xasodfuih (talk) 11:33, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I repeat "The results of initial prospective medical studies on the Paleolithic diet have shown positive health outcomes." is based on three studies, one animal experiment (ref 1), and two human trials (ref 2 & 3). The doctoral thesis discusses the animal study and the first human trial and related matters. All the diseases mentioned are specifically referred to in the publications cited. If some sources are not reliable, I will remove them. Must they be indexed by JCR? I think you're right about PMID 17522610, I will mention the unfavorable effect on calcium.
I must admit that the article is still very much a work in progress (and I personally think that it improved a lot since featured; work has focused on improving scope (for example. including contrary POVs), summary style, sourcing and reference formatting): I have to admit that the article is still very much a work in progress, and I agree that some of the material should be framed in more NPOV fashion, specifically within the "Nutritional factors and health effects" and "Research" sections. I will try to address these issues within the following weeks, with the limited time I have. Although, I wouldn't mind going through the featured process again. --Phenylalanine (talk) 12:36, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Gone for the next few days will look more closely when I get back.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:27, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I landed on this article a few weeks ago and got an unpleasant feeling, and was very surprised it was a FA. There was unexplained other pseudoscience which I had to google to find out was about the alkaline diet in a caption, the article did not make clear what was believers in the diet's opinion rather than fact (i.e. what made up the majority of 'real' paleolithic diets would not have been this), WP:OWN on the article and a general pro-this diet tone. It is/was not neutral and should not be a FA. Not looked for a couple of weeks so will look tomorrow, I don't know much about the subject but know this is not an accurate description of what a paleolithic diet would have been in most regions, and that this is only a believer's view of what it might have been should be made very clear in the text at every point throughout the article. It should include more language like 'followers of the diet believe it is good for..." rather than saying such claims are proven to most scientist's satisfaction, and generally be more NPOV. Sticky Parkin 00:51, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I look forward to collaborating with you to improve this article. Cheers, Phenylalanine (talk) 00:49, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This diet is recognized as a fad diet and should be how it is protrayed. "www.eatright.org". --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:23, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think Doc James has pushed the article towards WP:NPOV in a significant way with his recent edits that described the existing evidence in accurate terms. I'm concerned however that a diet which claims (pre)historical roots has a measly one-paragraph section about archaeological evidence. A quick look at the rather beefy further reading section (now moved to the article's talk page) identified two reputable reviews that could be used as source for expanding that section; that could also address the issue that too many obscure sources are used, which I raised in my initial comment here. Xasodfuih (talk) 03:02, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
By saying that modern diet causes disease of civilization and thus the paleo diet prevents it is very misleading. All of these conditions mentioned are very complex and they way it is presented fails WP:WEIGHT.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:32, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I said your edits were an improvement. That does not mean all POV/WEIGHT issues have been solved, as you correctly pointed out. Xasodfuih (talk) 10:56, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I question the accuracy of the accompanying photo as representing the Paleolithic diet (abbreviated paleo diet or paleodiet), also popularly referred to as the caveman diet, Stone Age diet and hunter-gatherer diet. The photo is described as "bouillabaisse served in a Brazilian restaurant". —Mattisse (Talk) 03:56, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Bouillabaisse is a fish stock containing different kinds of cooked fish and shellfish and vegetables, flavored with a variety of herbs and spices such as garlic, orange peel, basil, bay leaf, fennel and saffron.". That seems to fit the definition. You don't have to eat wild foods to eat paleo. Cheers, Phenylalanine (talk) 04:16, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • So this is a food/recipe article and not a medical article. You should make that clear. In the lead it sounds like you actually know what this diet was composed of, and a photo reifies this pseudo knowledge. I doubt actual hunter-gatherers during paleolithic times ate dishes made of "different kinds of cooked fish and shellfish and vegetables, flavored with a variety of herbs and spices such as garlic, orange peel, basil, bay leaf, fennel and saffron." Where did these paleolithic hunter-gatherers live that they had such variety available? —Mattisse (Talk) 05:07, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Does this make it clear? "Centered around commonly available modern foods, the "contemporary" Paleolithic diet consists mainly of lean meat, fish, vegetables, fruit, roots, and nuts; and excludes grains, legumes, dairy products, salt, refined sugar, and processed oils.[2][4][5]" The paleolithic diet is based on "food groups", although some advocates recommend specific ratios. --Phenylalanine (talk) 05:19, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Phenylalanine is basically rejecting any reasonable fixes and wikilawyers endlessly over trivial observations like "there's little research about this diet" on that article's talk page. I don't see how progress can be made under these circumstances, and I therefore suggest to move to the voting stage (FACR). Xasodfuih (talk) 06:34, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think at the very least the title of the article be changed so as not to infer that this diet is anymore than superficially related to a hypothesized "paleolithic diet" reflective of the broad range of diets of paleolithic hunting and gathering paleolithic peoples in various parts of the world. "Ray Mears Caveman Diet" is the name given in one of the references to the article. It is a modern diet, loosely based on a hypothesized "paleolithic diet" and presented in the article as a "fad" diet, like the "South Beach diet" or others of the same ilk. There is no scientific evidence based on scientific findings regarding what Paleolithic hunter gatherers ate and what their consequent health status was. —Mattisse (Talk) 06:52, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The term "Paleolithic diet" is frequently used to refer to a modern dietary regimen which is based on ancestral paleodiets. It encompasses a range of dietary versions: different proponents will make different recommendations, but all of them claim that these prescriptions are based on certain patterns characteristic of ancestral diets. In the scientific literature (academic journals and volumes), "the paleolithic diet" is advocated by several proponents, e.g. Loren Cordain, S. Boyd Eaton, Staffan Lindeberg, and is strictly used to refer to a diet which excludes grains, legumes, dairy products, salt, refined sugar, and processed oils. There are some discrepancies between the way this dietary regimen is portrayed in popular books such as Neanderthin and the way it is described in the scientific literature, but the diet is always presented as being based on certain patterns characteristic of ancestral diets. You say that "there is no scientific evidence based on scientific findings regarding what Paleolithic hunter gatherers ate and what their consequent health status was." However, this is incorrect.[37][38] At the very top of the article, it says: This article is about a modern nutritional approach. For information on the dietary practices of Paleolithic humans, see Paleolithic#Diet and nutrition. Cheers, Phenylalanine (talk) 12:29, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And there's little experimental evidence supporting the beneficial claims of this modern approach. Also, this wiki article is uttely biased even in coparison with descriptive/analytical publications of the propopents of this diet. User:Phenylalanine claims that WP:MOS doesn't allow him/us to have section(s) outlining the shortcomings of this diet, and consequently suppressed that information. Compare the structure of the current version of the wiki article with that of a paper by proponents of the paleo diet pdf freely available. It that paper roughly one page is dedicated to the discussion potential shortcoming of the diet, in a clearly labeled section with the following subsections:

    • calcium
    • vitamin D
    • cholesterol

Can you spot these sections in the wiki article? I bet you cannot. For comparision, the potential benefits are discussed in that paper on rougly two pages, and has the following heading (I bet you find these in the wiki article):

    • protein
    • carbohydrate and fiber
    • sodium and potasium
    • trace nutrients

So about 33% of the analysis in a paper published by the proponents is about the potential risks. How much space is dedicated to potential risks relative to potential benefits in the wiki article? Virtually none. Add to this the suppression of negative findings from the only experimental study in humans (now fixed), and I hope it's clear I considered this article very biased, and why I think substantial bias still persists.Doc James (talk) 22:59, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Xaso. This page need a lot of work and I am all for bringing it to FARC now. This changes will take months to address.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:23, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cordain is presenting an example paleo menu based on what he believes would be an optimal animal/plant food ratio (that would closely resemble the ancestral paleolithic diet, and this is debatable, see "protein and carbohydrate" section. Another paleo advocate, Staffan Lindeberg, believes that a paleolithic diet can vary widely with regards to the proportions of meat vs. plant food. So the issue of cholesterol is limited to Cordain's framework. This means that it is not an inherent shortcoming of a paleolithic diet consisting of meat, veggies, seafood, roots and nuts. There is increasing evidence that individuals living in northern countries may need to take vitamin D supplements in the winter, especially older individuals (above 60 years I think), since less vitamin D is produced by the skin (seafood does not provide sufficient vitamin D). This would not have been an issue for ancestral humans living in Africa. So, we should probably mention that older individuals should take vitamin D supplements. Regarding calcium, this should be discussed further in the article, I agree with you, specifically in the "micronutrient density" section. I agree with Doc James that this article should be delisted. Regards, Phenylalanine (talk) 23:33, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We could indeed have a subsection on "calcium and vitamin D" in the "micronutrient density" section. This would be an acceptable compromise I think. --Phenylalanine (talk) 23:37, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note that I was referring to WP:STRUCTURE, not the Manual of Style, and I do believe that we need a set of useful subheadings, as that makes it easier for the reader to find information he might be looking for, the calcium and vitamin D issues would be an example. --Phenylalanine (talk) 23:49, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have a few concerns about the photos of dishes supposedly representitive of paleolithic diets: 'Pork loin roast dinner with mushrooms, onions, strawberries, cucumbers, and carrots' Carrots and courgettes never existed in anything approaching those forms before agriculture. Moreover, they originated on opposite sides of the world and certainly could never have been found together on a plate before around 1600 AD.Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 21:29, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it seems inappropriate to use, especially as a lead image. Such sophisticated modern meals are not representative of the diet this article describes imo. An image of a meal cooked from one of the diets cook books is needed.YobMod 09:16, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The image is fine. This modern diet is based on paleolithic food groups, and that includes domesticated animal and plant foods.[39] --Phenylalanine (talk) 14:39, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
With respect, they are not 'fine'. They're misleading.
On one hand the diet restricts use of foods (such as cereals that were most certainly used in the Paleolithic) based on vague and erroneous assumptions about what food was used in prehistoric times, and on the other it states that the use of crops that did not exist in prehistoric times is okay. I find it difficult to comprehend how a Vegan dish containing courgettes can be representative of the eating habits of primarily carnivourous societies that lived long before the courgette was bred.Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 11:55, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Whether you comprehend or not is irrelevant. This article about a modern dietary regimen, and the images are representative of the regimen. --Phenylalanine (talk) 23:15, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
People in ancient times eat what every was available. Therefore the diet was different in different areas of the world. I assume bugs would be have been rather prominent ( like grass hoppers and ants ) probably however neither fried nor covered in chocolate though. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:19, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They may well have been served with bread though, since it's apparent Paleolithic societies did indeed use cereals.Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 12:56, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looking back over the last few hundred edits, the balance of the article has shifted remarkably. It has gone from an article that was broadly critical of the diet to a promotion of it. See for example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paleolithic_diet&diff=226572744&oldid=226561600

--Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 16:39, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An editor added inappropriate material to the article, which I removed immediately. How does that prove your point? Less broad dismissive generalizations please, and more constructive specifics. --Phenylalanine (talk) 23:23, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, my main concern with that particular edit is that appropriate material was removed (sourced evidence of adaptation to post-paleolithic diet), and that there has been an overall shift in balance to a non-neutral POV with what appears to be a systematic removal of criticism of the diet. Apologies if this has not been your intent.
It seems to me that the article would be stronger if there was a specific section that dealt with criticisms of the diet, rather than having them peppered through the article. Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 09:48, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. I removed the material per WP:NOR — the material introduces a point of view on this dietary regimen, yet the sources do not refer to the regimen - I will search for appropriate sources;
  2. I integrated the criticism into the article per WP:STRUCTURE — I'm in the process of adding appropriate non-POV subheadings, such as "calcium and vitamin D"; and
  3. I summarized in the "Protein and carbohydrates" subsection, per WP:SS, the controversy regarding the specific macronutrient recommendations made by certain proponents, as their views about the regimen do not reflect those of other proponents, and none of the three prospective human studies on the paleolithic diet refer to specific ratios in defining the diet:
  • "comprising lean meat, fruits, vegetables and nuts, and excluding nonpaleolithic type foods, such as cereal grains, dairy or legumes"[40].
  • "based on lean meat, fish, fruits, vegetables, root vegetables, eggs and nuts as staple foods, while avoiding cereals, dairy products, refined fat, sugar and salt."[41]
  • "fresh or frozen fruit, berries or vegetables, lean meat, unsalted fish, canned tomatoes, lemon or lime juice, spices and coffee or tea without milk or sugar, for three weeks. All dairy products were banned as well as beans, salt, peanuts, pasta or rice, sausages, alcohol, sugar and fruit juice. However, participants were allowed up to two potatoes a day and were also given some dried fruit, cured meats and a portion of fatty meat as a weekly treat."[42]

--Phenylalanine (talk) 11:33, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That particular edit was not against WP:NOR. It was sourced material that was directly relevant to the subject, in that it contrasted with a particular claim of the diet.--Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 14:14, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a better reference:
Tishkoff, S.A., Reed, F.A., Ranciaro, A., Voight, B.F., Babbitt, C.C., Silverman, J.S., Powell, K., Mortensen, H.M., Hirbo, J.B, Osman, M., Ibrahim, M., Omar, S.A., Lema, G., Nyambo, T.B., Ghori, J., Bumpstead, S., Pritchard, J.K., Wray, G.A., Deloukas, P. (2006) Convergent adaptation of human lactase persistence in Africa and Europe. Nature Genetics 39: 31-40: http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v39/n1/full/ng1946.html
The authors describe two distinct evolutionary adaptations to Neolithic diet, namely in Lactase Persistence in pastoral populations, both occurring less than 10,000 years ago.
Another can be found here: Hum Genet (2007) 120:779-788--Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 15:58, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is the best and most recent criticism peace on the paleodiet we should be using. It discusses the issue of lactase persistence and other post-paleolithic adaptations in detail.[43] Cheers, Phenylalanine (talk) 23:00, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Let's pursue our discussion on the article talk page. Thanks Phenylalanine (talk) 23:01, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mattisse, "paleolithic diet" has two different meanings, one is the actual ancestral diet, the other is a modern dietary regimen advocated for health reasons. Using information on the actual ancestral diet to critique the way the dietary regimen is set up is OR unless the source refers to the dietary regimen. --Phenylalanine (talk) 01:08, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

[edit]
Suggested FA criteria concerns are comprehensiveness and NPOV. Joelito (talk) 02:53, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. --Phenylalanine (talk) 03:34, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist per confusion over what the article is about. Article editor claims actual evidence about what humans ate during the paleolithic era is OR because this article is about the "modern" use of the term. At the very least, the article name should be changed to "Caveman diet" or one of the alternative names that will not be confused with the scientic-based paleolithic diet. —Mattisse (Talk) 02:58, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Does anyone else feel confused over the article name, despite clarifications in the lead paragraph? --Phenylalanine (talk) 03:04, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why not call it something like Paleolithic diet (modern) or Paleolithic diet (contemporary) or even "Paleolithic diet" (modern) if its basically a commercial name.Fainites barleyscribs 12:26, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How about "paleolithic type diet"? — "The contemporary American diet figures centrally in the pathogenesis of numerous chronic diseases—'diseases of civilization'. We investigated in humans whether a diet similar to that consumed by our preagricultural hunter-gatherer ancestors (that is, a paleolithic type diet) confers health benefits."[44] --Phenylalanine (talk) 12:59, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NAME requires us to use a name the world uses, not to make up some compromise title nobody uses. The use of parenthesis is only for disamiguation when there already exists an article with the name we'd prefer to use (it breaks the rule "makes linking to the article easy and second nature"). The world mostly calls this the "Paleolithic diet", with the informal "caveman diet" in second place. The sources clearly show that the diet is usually discussed in academic circles as the "paleolithic diet" (or "palaeolithic diet"), while always making clear it is a contemporary diet regime. We should do likewise. No name change required. Colin°Talk 13:35, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is not an FA criterion. --Phenylalanine (talk) 03:32, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not all articles can be FA. I agree with the rest of the comments aswell.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:39, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist Article gives undue weight to pseudoscience/fringe science and ignores mainstream science when convenient. Neutral Point of View is seriously compromised by over-reliance on obscure journals, some of which have no official Impact Factor and have been denied inclusion on mainstream citation indexes. Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 10:30, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It would help if you told me which specific refs are problematic, in order for us to improve the article. --Phenylalanine (talk) 11:17, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Scandinavian Journal of Food & Nutrition was my initial concern.--Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 11:31, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What's wrong with the "Scandinavian Journal of Food & Nutrition"? --Phenylalanine (talk) 13:06, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed by Joelr31 03:20, 14 March 2009 [45].

Robert A. Heinlein

[edit]

Review commentary

[edit]
Notified: WP:Biography, WP:Science Fiction, WP:Missouri, WP:Kansas City, Bcrowell

I'm nominating this article for FAR because it plainly does not meet present day FA standards. Perhaps it did at one time. I've checked on this article now and then since it was TFA in 2006 and it continues to disintegrate into readers' own opinion and analysis of Heinlein. It is inadequately reffed, even the parts that are factual, rather than analysis. It needs serious work to retain its star. FA criteria 1c, 2c, 2d.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:02, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That would be Bcrowell. He's inactive, judging by his userpage.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've noticed this page, and previously said on other talk pages (eg. Science fiction) that this is not up to FA standard. It has all the basics one would expect, but a lot of the thematic discusion is completely unsourced and too ORish for my taste. I can do some improvements (about his approach to sexuality, and his fantasy writing), But i don't have the sources at hand for all the sourcing this needs. Unfortunately, i don't think removing the unsourced content would be helpful in itself, as these topics have been discussed in many reliable sources, so need a sourced discuion here to be comprehensive. The SF project is too disorganised for a concerted push on this, although i'll contact some members that might have more sources.Yobmod (talk) 09:43, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. There are plenty of analyses of Heinlein by RS, books and articles. I don't have them either.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:53, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are issues with the interpretation of author's work, in the direction of hagiography. Not up to FA standard, in my opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.165.5.221 (talk) 13:35, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it should be delisted. There are a lot of opinions, and a lot of things that essentially read as back-and-forth arguing between editors (phrases along the lines of "it could be argued that..., although some believe...."). It also seems to have accreted a lot of cruft and digressions since 2006. E.g., there's material in the lead that clearly isn't important enough to belong in the lead.--76.167.77.165 (talk) 22:41, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image problems

It does have a fair use rationale. I've made the rationale more detailed.--76.167.77.165 (talk) 22:44, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't have a rationale for its use in this article. It needs to have a separate rationale for each use of the image. DrKiernan (talk) 09:18, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Fixed. Thanks for the explanation.--76.167.77.165 (talk) 02:14, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

[edit]
Suggested FA criteria concerns are sources and images. Joelito (talk) 00:48, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed by Joelr31 01:03, 14 March 2009 [46].

Gunnhild, Mother of Kings

[edit]

Review commentary

[edit]
User:Briangotts notified; Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Middle Ages and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Norway notified

Throughout the article material from Norse sagas is presented as if it had a chance of being a reliable source. It frequently cites such sagas directly, which besides being in practice borderline violation of WP:NOR, is historically inadvisable and such sagas represent complex material whose legendary and historical elements are not distinguishable without much study and scholarship. The handling of the literature is very poor in relation to WP:RS. Note 16 writes Ashley 443–44; for an alternative reconstruction, see, for example Clare Downham, Viking Kings of Britain and Ireland (2007), i.e. preferring to use a mediocre tertiary source against a recent work of a specialist scholar (Mammoth Book of British Kings versus Dr Claire Downham) [and incidentally it's tough to get what parts of the text are being referred to here]. I have no doubt whatsoever that if I were to investigate more individual bits of the text closely it would come up failing. In aspiring wikilawyer language, this is a strong fail against 1 b)—d). Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:46, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have not actually raised any issues with the article. The article is quite clear what sources are used, and presents the information known from each source including skeptics like Gwyn Jones which doubt the validity of much or all of the source material. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 23:14, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sentences from first to last explain why the article cannot be held to FA quality. Read it again please. It's just poor history. E.g. the Life of St Cathroe of Metz says that Erik's only wife was a relative of Cathroe, a Scot, who was far from Gunnhild's background; this is a more reliable source, being near contemporary and 2 centuries younger than the sagas. If that source is correct then 1) either Gunnhild doesn't exist or 2) Erik of Norway isn't the same as Erik of Northumbria, and hence she was only married to one. Sorry, I just don't think wikipedia's corpus of FAs needs to accept literary characters masquerading as historical figures. We have many good FAs in the period. Angus' Oengus I of the Picts is an example of an article that handles sources well. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 02:31, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Eric of Northumbria should probably disambiguate between Mr Axe and Eiríkr Hákonarson (who was handy with the axe too, ask Eadric Streona). Haukur (talk) 04:42, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The notion that the Eric mentioned in St. Cathroe's life is intended to be the same person as Erik Bloodax is a relatively recent, and not widely accepted, theory. The king's list for Jorvik is probably incomplete and in any case its kings came and went with alarming frequency. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 16:31, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
When this article was first suggested for FA status I opposed a promotion and made extensive comments on what I saw as problems with the article (see here). Some of the problems were addressed but not enough of them to make me comfortable in supporting the article so I never struck my oppose. In my opinion the most serious problem remains that scholarly sources specifically on Queen Gunnhildr are not used in the article. With the most cursory of searches I identified two academic articles specifically about Gunnhildr and to this day they remain unused. I'm sure there are others. Now, despite all this, I'm still going to mount a little defence of the article and its methodology.
Queen Gunnhildr is a subject of historical study but she is also a literary subject. It is true that it is difficult to distentangle those two aspects but it is also true that they are both important. An article only on the historical aspect would not be complete, we need to summarize even the obviously unhistorical parts of the saga material. The problem here, speaking generally about articles like this, is that old historians liberally mixed and combined accounts from different primary sources into what they saw as the most plausible coherent narrative. More recent historians (which we would like to rely on as much as possible) are much more skeptical and may completely ignore a lot of the more literary material. In my opinion we do have to summarize the accounts of the sagas and often the only good way to do that is to use the primary sources directly. Just as we summarize the Harry Potter novels working from the books themselves. We do have to do this in the light of recent scholarly secondary sources as much as possible but sometimes it isn't quite as possible as one might like.
My longest foray into writing on a semi-legendary subject is the Battle of Svolder article. What I ran into there is that recent historians don't like to go into the legendary details. What they have will, in the worst case, amount to "There was a battle. Or there may have been anyway, we don't know. And if there was one we hardly know anything about it worth mentioning." That's just no good for writing an article about it. I ended up using the older historians who had bothered trying to sort out the legendary details. I also summarized the primary sources extensively, though I always tried to do that in light of the secondary sources I had. Now, I don't think I entirely succeeded - the article is a mixed bag, I'm happy with some aspects of it but not all, but I think that in principle I was using the right method.
So, in summary, I think the article does have non-trivial problems, including problems with use of scholarship but I don't think those problems are as deep and as methodological as Deacon implies. Haukur (talk) 23:52, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To follow up on what Haukur writes above: I fully intend to add new material as I'm able and to address his citation concerns. However, please note that these concerns were raised at the initial FAC vote and the community decided by consensus to make the article featured anyway, over Haukur's objections and despite the shortcomings he legitimately calls attention to.
Deacon, however, has not actually identified anything that's changed since the article was granted FA status that would merit it losing that status. In fact, the article is largely identical now to the version that passed FA. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 00:21, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I should say that the offending footnote was something I added the day before this went on the front page. It is hard to see, now and always, how the article can be said to fulfil item 1b on the "What is a featured article?" list. If it's to be read as "Writing about fiction", it's written in an in-universe style. That's a major flaw. It lacks much in the way of context. To pick one statement in the lead which leads nowhere, why were Icelandic sources hostile to Gunnhild and Eric? The sources Haukur mentioned, the introduction to the MacDougall's edition of Theodoricus, and an essay on Hakon in The North Sea World in the Middle Ages would help here. All in all, too much saga history, not enough modern academic herstory (IYKWIM). But not beyond repair. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:43, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. For all the good faith, I really don't see how the article can be saved without virtually a total rewrite. @ Briangotts ... I haven't compared each version, so you can be certain I didn't think it mattered what the article was when passing FA. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 02:39, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well that's the problem, isn't it. A FAR is appropriate if the article has been significantly changed so that it no longer meets the FA standards or if the standards have changed such that the article no longer meets them. The article was passed as FA by consensus of the community. You have not indicated any way in which the article has either declined in standards or no longer meets more stringent standards. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 04:22, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, while I deny that the article as it stood at the beginning of this review deserved to lose its FA status, I have made a number of additions from scholarly sources, rewritten the troublesome footnote, and added information regarding the hostility of Icelanders to Gunnhild. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 04:47, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Article will be delisted if the article is not of FA quality according to the reviewers. The system assumes the system sometimes makes mistakes, so an FAC can be overturned on an FAR. Looking at the diffs, the problems with the article were already present - as you said - when it passed. Unfortunately articles get through FAC primarily based on how they are written, and often no knowledgeable person is there to check the quality of the content. I incidentally find it rather perturbing that even when knowledgeable users do add their say, it often gets ignored and passed anyway because of a few !votes, as with what happened here. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:15, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Concerning the historicity of saga material, it should be enough to state that the accounts are doubted among historians, because there are rarely any consensus views on the historicity of material in the sagas. Sometimes, it is actually the sagas that get the last laugh, as in the case of Lund which was a commonly cited example of the un-historicity of sagas, since they claimed that it existed before the town was founded. Today, we know that such an early Lund actually existed (Uppåkra). A recent book defending their historical value is Mats G Larsson's Minnet av Vikingatiden (2005)[47].--Berig (talk) 20:12, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't think it's enough to to state that the accounts are doubted among historians. A saga's dependability depends on the source material the saga writers or compilers themselves used, being separated by the events they relate by centuries. This topic matter is beyond the competence and/or scope of most the references used and far beyond the handling of this article. I think if this were grasped there'd be no question of this article remaining an FA. The article as it stands constructs a narrative of this woman's life using primary sources taken from unannotated translations in a manner that'd make the designers of WP:SYNTH shudder, with no reference to provenance or reliability nor any evidence that the editors knew what they were doing in this regard. Doing this is probably overlookable for normal articles, but not for GA let alone FA articles, which act as ambassador articles for wikipedia. Simply unacceptable to wikipedia and potentially embarrassing thusly. I don't see where the room for debate is here, quite frankly. The article is however very enjoyable to read and well written, so all credit to its writers for that. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 06:39, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything in the concerns raised above that warrant a delisting from FA.--Berig (talk) 15:20, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever the case may be on the status of the FA article (I admit that I haven't dipped by toe in this pool yet and as a result my understanding of the process is minimal), I recommend restructuring the article to reflect the body of work we're drawing on to squeeze out what information we have and point out any contradictions. Right now, there is basically a single narrative divided into subsections. I think it would be much better to break down Gunnhild's major attestations source by source in an "attestations" section, organized chronologically. I would remove all theories from this "attestations" section. Second, I would bring out the theories into a "theory" section, where theories can be listed by author and they can present their cases individually. In my experience, this solves practically all issues that come up regarding primary sources, is completely neutral, and also facilitates growth of the article (additions can be added with ease to their appropriate sections, for example). :bloodofox: (talk) 17:19, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure this grabs the jist of concerns here. I think a good exemplar for how this article ought to look to stay an FA, roughly, would be an article no less famous than King Arthur. A bit literary perhaps, but that is king Arthur. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 06:50, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See valkyrie for an article I've recently rewritten from scratch for an example of the system I'm talking about. Sources are isolated and handled on their own terms and commentary is brought in later. :bloodofox: (talk) 06:52, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yes, that's the way to do it; I don't think though this article's gonna get up there any time soon, and the rewrite would need to be so drastic that it wouldn't be the same article. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 07:04, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In places, the article does frame the saga information as legendary, but too often it narrates saga material as if it were history. This leads me to agree reluctantly with Deacon that the article is not satisfactory. A useful distinguishing device would be to report saga narrative in the literary present and historical information in the historic past tense. Passages of saga narrative could then be included so long as they are topped and tailed by clear indications of their nature, along with pertinent analysis. qp10qp (talk) 20:07, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not really seeing any major issues here; if editors are concerned that the article doesn't make it sufficiently clear that the material is based on the sagas, then two or three more "according to the Icelandic sagas" etc. should suffice. Jayjg (talk) 01:46, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, as is written above, that won't suffice to rescue the article. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:54, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

[edit]
Suggested FA criteria concern is sources. Joelito (talk) 15:48, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove Sorry, I still find it confusing. I agree that the distinction between accepted history and fable is still unclear in parts. It's certainly unclear to me, as a non-specialist, anyway. DrKiernan (talk) 13:52, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove, As well as agreeing with this comment by DrKiernan (talk · contribs) that pieces of the article are confusing, I also agree with above assessment by Deacon of Pndapetzim (talk · contribs) that there are sourcing issues and a wider issue of WP:NOR to be addressed in greater depth as well. Cirt (talk) 16:50, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The assumption that information from Heimskringla is necessarily false is one with no basis. The article clearly provides the sources for all information; readers are capable of judging for themselves the historiocity of the sources. This is like denying an article about Leonidas I featured status because the information must, of necessity, come primarily from Herodotus and similar sources. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 17:51, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove. Briangotts, no-one here has expressed that blanket assumption about Heimskringla, and the concerns are about how the article is written and how it uses and presents its sources, not that such sources are indirectly used. Given the point made by Alex Woolf in "Eric Bloodaxe Revisited", Northern History, 34 (1998), and by other historians since, and repeated by me above (i.e. that Erik of Northumbria's wife is verifiably NOT Gunnhild), the narrative section and infobox about "Queen of Norway and Jorvik" is pseudo-historical fiction. This is embarrassing to have in an FA, and there is no question that it should be removed. Let me add I think it's undignified to be !voting on your own article, though I think you are a great contributor Brian and hope you don't resent me for listing this. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:03, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Undignified? How is my vote any less valid here than yours? That is preposterous.
The theories you cite are revisionist history, and should be dealt with as such. The fact is that such historiography is by necessity unverifiable. I agree it should be included in the article, but as side-notes, or footnotes, not instead of the multiplicity of sources (Fagrskinna, Morkinskinna, Heimskringla, etc.) far closer to the source temporally. Just because Woolf disputes the account in those sources doesn't make them the fringe and his the mainstream, accepted version. Not that it's relevant to this vote, but I should note that historians like Woolf have a vested interest in proposing controversial new theories, because if they write accounts agreeing with Heimskringla in any significant way nobody will be interested in reading it. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 20:33, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This response is completely counter-productive for your purposes, Brian. Woolf is a mainstream expert in the area, and all early medieval historical writing is by necessity "revisionist". Your dismissal of him will only bring discredit on yourself, not him. It's not just Woolf btw, read other historians like Downham. If you'd actually bothered reading the article you'd know that Woolf doesn't discount Heimskringla, rather he demonstrates that Erik of Northumbria's wife was not Gunnhild, in reference to the late 10th century Vita of St Cathróe of Metz. Downham argues that this shows Erik of Northumbria was not Erik of Norway. These are salaried historians who've published in highly respected peer-reviewd sources, and you have to take them seriously whether you like it or not, per WP:RS and WP:NOR. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:46, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am quite familiar with Woolf's article, and with Downham's book. Both are interesting works, but both are revisionist works that present theories. These are interesting and worth mentioning but do not replace the more mainstream, traditional account and do not relegate that account to the realm of folklore. Other historians have disagreed with Woolf's translation of the Vita, and if you're going to include his opinion you need to include theirs; in any case these are supplemental to the traditional narrative and not instead of it. Peer reviewed in this context means that other scholars have found Woolf's work plausible, and nobody is arguing that point.
Frankly, I have reached the limits of my interest and patience in this article, and to a great extent with this project as a whole. So I will not be making the changes you demand. Have at it. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 21:12, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You don't seem very familiar, honestly. Woolf didn't "translate" this saint's life for instance, and your understanding of the historiographical debate seems limited; the number of historians who contribute on such topics could be counted on one hand, essentially in English there's about 4 historians, and two of these have been mentioned. You actually seem to misunderstand entirely how early medieval insular/Scandinavian history works, by presenting it as one would expect, say, World War I or something. Mainstream early medievalists are paid to be nontraditional. There are no "mainstream traditional" accounts in the area. Sometimes you just need to admit when you're wrong and move on. All the best, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 21:16, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You seem wish to accord Woolf (who certainly did use a translation of the vita in preparing his article) equal status with Gwyn Jones, Kendrick, Foote, Miller, et al., without any evidence in support of this status. This is laughable, but as I said, you may do as you like. I am no longer monitoring this page and will not be responding to any further comments by you, including speculations as to whether I did or did not read Woolf's article and/or understand it. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 21:21, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As I've already said, the article's problems go far beyond you "ignoring" (i.e. not having been aware of) the publications of specialist historians, but its use and presentation of sources and the information they supposedly reveal. I don't see why Woolf wouldn't have the same status as those writers, none of whom as far as I'm aware have expressed an opinion on Woolf's article, nor am I any wiser about why you're casting aspersions against Woolf (like I said, attacking a good historian like that is just gonna bounce back on you and is thus counter productive). At any rate, an article in a peer-reviewed journal by Woolf is a more reliable source than your own assertions, and, for all your laughter, that's really where the matter on wikipedia ends. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 23:18, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, if articles were perfect when the passed FAC we would protect them at that moment. The opposes appear to be based on the assumption that there is a clear-cut difference between "accepted history" and "legendary history", which there is not. Different scholars accept information in the sagas differently, ranging from almost uncritical stances to what I consider to be virtual conspiracy theories. IMO, the most recent publications are strikingly uneven by being surprisingly uncritical as to the description of cultural and religious practices and more critical concerning biographical content, and I'm quite sure that the fashions will continue to change which they have done for centuries now. As long as this kind of article sources the information properly, there should be no need for delisting.--Berig (talk) 13:15, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think I've already explained above. For your own info, while it is true that historians are not always able to tell the difference, it isn't quite as black and white as you think. It comes down to the strengths and limitations of current methodologies. The basic one is that the reliability of any particular "saga" passage depends on the sources used to write it, something that can sometimes be worked out. See the first paragraph in the Eric_Bloodaxe#Marriage, for an example of this. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 12:51, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove The article is a terrible mishmash of legend, fiction and dates given with historical accuracy. It does not take account of current scholarship like the biographical article by Claus Krag, described by User:Barend in this response on the talk page. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:23, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Claus Krag is hardly a representative scholar. He is most known for the extreme theory that Ynglingatal is a forgery from the 12th century, a theory that has been widely debunked since.--Berig (talk) 08:00, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Berig's arrogant dismissal of Krag's recent scholarly review in Norsk biografisk leksikon is just incredible. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:37, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Show me a single recent publication that takes his Ynglingtal theory seriously, Pieter.--Berig (talk) 09:16, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This FARC is not about Krag's PhD thesis, but its conclusions were well received by many hisorians as can be seen in the current article in Nationalencyklopedin about Yngligetal (link probably requires subscription). The 1991 book invigorated scholerly debate about the subject, and few history PhD theses have been as influential as his. More recent reevaluations of the dating have led to different conclusions. This is no reason for a Featured Article to withhold wp readers Claus Krag's review of current scholarship on Gunhild in the standard Norwegian biographical reference. Berig seems to be advocating censorship of scholars that he/she does not agree with. That is even worse than POV. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:38, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think that lacking a reference to Krag is a valid reason, Pieter, but how could that be tantamount to "advocating censorship"?--Berig (talk) 13:28, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove. I've just read the article again, and though it has some good critical material in places (and I respect the amount of work Brian has put into it), it too often veers into straight narrative without the necessary framing. By framing, I mean that dates and composition information (why and from what sources were the sagas written, etc.) need to be given for each of the sagas, and that it should be made clear at each point which saga or history any particular narrative detail is taken from (a footnote is not enough, because that does not overtly frame the narrative). Pure saga narrative needs to be placed in the present tense to show that it is literary. Passages such as the following mix things up in a way that it is (for me at least, a medieval history graduate) imprecise.
Gunnhild was widely reputed to be a völva, or witch.[14] Prior to the death of Harald Fairhair, Erik's popular half-brother Halfdan Haraldsson the Black died mysteriously, and Gunnhild was suspected of having "bribed a witch to give him a death-drink."[15] Shortly thereafter, Harald died and Erik consolidated his power over the whole country. He began to quarrel with his other brothers, egged on by Gunnhild ...
Use of the historic perfect here and at similar points assumes the authority of the article's voice.qp10qp (talk) 15:35, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed by Joelr31 01:03, 14 March 2009 [48].

Isaac Newton

[edit]

Review commentary

[edit]

Article is full of [citation needed], [clarification needed] or various cleanup tags. The article is not bad, but if it were to undergo FAC right now, it would spectacularly fail. Hence, FAR.Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 19:16, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are absolutely right. There are places where citations are desperately needed. We need a speedy remove in FAR, to handle such articles passed long back in 2005 or so and currently do not meet the present FA status.--Redtigerxyz Talk 15:23, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The intent of this page (FAR) is to review, improve, and bring articles back to FA standard not to delist them. Speedy removals contradict this objective. Joelito (talk) 19:01, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Notified User:Borisblue (FA nominator), WikiProject Physics, History of Science, Astronomy. --Redtigerxyz Talk 15:30, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy remove would be a good idea in theory. However, I just think we need to improve the existing FAR so, you know, it doesn't take 48 weeks to delist anything that is clearly below FA class. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 21:04, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So how long did it take to fail to remove Kingdom of Mysore? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:33, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

[edit]
Suggested FA criteria concerns are citations and style.Joelito (talk) 14:53, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, there are no tags left now. By the way, quite a few people have edited the article since this FAR started: it is not true that no-one is working on it. PaddyLeahy (talk) 21:23, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
56 citations in a relatively short article is "largely uncited"? Citations are supposed to be for facts likely to be challenged, IIRC. This article has been on FAR for 2 months or so but no-one has challenged any specific items over and above the fact tags present at the beginning...which have all been dealt with now. (Well, I requested a cite for something added yesterday). PaddyLeahy (talk) 22:18, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've added numerous several fact tags. More could easily be added. --Peter Andersen (talk) 07:56, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(numerous = 6). Here's the deal: I have access to a good university library and I'm quite prepared to spend an(other) evening there adding cites that are agreed to be missing. But I don't have time to do that repeatedly, nor to re-write the article significantly. FAR is supposed to be about reviewing FAs with the object of improving them but in this case the "review" just consists of a bunch of people wishing they could speedily delist. If people here want to make the process work then please help by adding {fact} or specific suggestions on the talk page—I'm not up to speed on current FA citing requirements. For instance:
  • Query to FAR(C) regulars: as well as some good calls, Peter Andersen added two {fact} tags in the middle of a paragraph on the Chaloner episode, which ends with a citation to five pages of Westfall's definitive Newton biography. I don't have the book to hand now but I'd assume the paragraph is a summary of those pages. Do we really need cites in the middle of such a paragraph? This certainly used to be deprecated.
PaddyLeahy (talk) 17:08, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I think I have added references for all the remaining new {fact} tags - the Chaloner episode; influence on the Enlightenment; "shoulders of ye Giants" quote regarded as an attack on Hooke. Do we need to go round this block again ? Gandalf61 (talk) 11:31, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why is one of the categories listed "People with Bipolar Disorder" when there is nothing in the article to back that up? It seems like a pretty strong statement to leave unfounded, especially about a man who lived in a time before the disorder was ever diagnosed.71.56.216.30 (talk) 12:16, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed that category. DrKiernan (talk) 10:38, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove Even the infobox is problematic. The "residence", "citizenship" and "nationality" fields are repetitive. The source given for his "academic advisors" says it was not Barrow but Pulleyn. Are Cotes and Whiston his students or co-workers? Their articles seem to favour the latter. The "influences", which should be singular, is rather restrictive. The influenced are not mentioned anywhere in the article. The "religious stance" is not confirmed. The notes are extraneous. DrKiernan (talk) 13:33, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Revisiting. Still not happy. Even just a very brief skim through reveals wierd claims sourced to barely reliable websites (e.g. "Mercury poisoning could explain Newton's eccentricity in late life." Well, he was eccentric his whole life, so that makes no logical sense. The source, "Eric Weisstein's World of Biography", describes itself as "assembled ... by [an] internet encyclopedist with assistance from the internet community.") and large amounts of trivia (e.g. there are five paragraphs on the apple). DrKiernan (talk) 13:16, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove The discussion above has mostly focused on references. In my opinion that wasn't even the main problem, and in any case there is only a single cn tag remaining. The real problem is that the article focuses almost entirely on the wrong things. It's true that Newton devoted a huge part of his life to theology, alchemy, and running the mint. However, those activities had essentially no lasting impact. The main things he's remembered for are the invention of the calculus, the laws of motion, and his solution of the problem of planetary motion. The article has very little material on those things -- far too little in proportion to the material on religion -- and changing that isn't going to be a quick fix.--Fashionslide (talk) 20:53, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for doing the referencing. I don't have reservations about keeping the article now. However, I think the the planetary motion thing, and newton's law thing are or satisfactory length, even if the planetary motion thing could be a bit longuer. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 21:04, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove, unless some serious works gets underway soon. This has been at FAR for a very long time, and yet there is still an external link farm, extensive problems in the section headings with WP:MSH, and WP:MOS cleanup needs (dashes, etc.), WP:ACCESSibility issues throughout with images (PLEASE, someone, read accessibility as to the order of items within sections and in the lead), and a See also farm as well (see WP:LAYOUT on See also and external links. We shouldn't be keeping articles at FAR this long unless work is really happening. If the article is to be kept, it needs extensive cleanup, and that's without looking at the prose. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:29, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Locke and Voltaire applied concepts of Natural Law to political systems advocating intrinsic rights; the physiocrats and Adam Smith applied Natural conceptions of psychology and self-interest to economic systems and the sociologists criticised the current social order for trying to fit history into Natural models of progress. Monboddo and Samuel Clarke resisted elements of Newton's work, but eventually rationalised it to conform with their strong religious views of nature.
It doesn't appear that this article is followed closely enough or maintained well enough to be ranked among Wiki's best article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:43, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are also mixed citation styles, some inline, others using cite.php. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regretful delist. A wonderful article and an important article, one that ought to be featured. But the sourcing issues are not minor. Note, for example, how neither of these statements regarding a central controversy about Newton's reputation is directly cited: Newton's Royal Society proclaimed in a study that it was Newton who was the true discoverer and labeled Leibniz a fraud. This study was cast into doubt when it was later found that Newton himself wrote the study's concluding remarks on Leibniz. To anyone who speaks German (and I do), the priority of Newton v. Leibniz in the development of calculus is a very serious matter. Neither of those statements carry an individual citation, and although a subsequent sentence in the paragraph is cited the source dates from 1908. Not necessarily representative of modern scholarship. The people who wrote this article did a fine job, and perhaps Wikipedia's best work by the standards of 2005. But I checked this page's traffic: over 300,000 page views last month.[49] The most important part of that readership is students, most of whom are not allowed to cite Wikipedia as a source on their term papers. When we cannot point them to modern scholarship on important disputes, we really cannot call this our best work. I would proudly re-promote this to FA when such matters are addressed. Until then, this doesn't put our best foot forward. DurovaCharge! 23:59, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed by Joelr31 02:45, 9 March 2009 [50].

Dundee

[edit]

Review commentary

[edit]
Ydam, Adambisset, Friedfish, Citizensmith, WP:Cities, WP:Scotland, WP:UK Geography notified.

The article, as it stands, does not meet many of the criteria of Good Article status, let alone Featured Article status, and could do with improvement.

A major problem is in referencing. A number of claims throughout the article are unsourced. Some claims in the article have dubious neutrality. In addition, the lead is insufficiently concise. Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 13:49, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The notifications have not been completed; please add {{subst:FARMessage/Dundee}} to each page listed above. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:22, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I took care of it. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:47, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I'm trying to improve the article as I go, but there's a lot to do. Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 11:59, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I had another look at the article this morning, with a view to improve it more. It will take a long time (months) to bring it up to GA status, and there doesn't appear to be any appetite amongst previous contributors to improve it. I suggest it's removed as a featured article until it can again be put through FA nomination. Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 11:04, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually hold that thought... I may be able to knock it into shape quicker than that. --Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 17:32, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

[edit]
Suggested FA criteria concerns are citations, lead, and NPOV.Joelito (talk) 19:03, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed by Joelr31 02:45, 9 March 2009 [51].

Władysław Sikorski

[edit]

Review commentary

[edit]
Piotrus (talk · contribs), Logologist (talk · contribs), WP:POLAND and WP:MILHIST notified.

Several paragraphs appear to be primarily based upon one reference, while others have citation needed tags and/or no references whatsoever. D.M.N. (talk) 16:23, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This nomination seems like some kind of misunderstanding. I spotted one citation–needed tag. Are we at the right place? --Poeticbent talk 23:46, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My nom isn't a misunderstanding, several paragraphs seem to be backed up by a single source, I spotted 3/4 citation-needed tags and a few paragraphs are unsourced. D.M.N. (talk) 09:22, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Some messy referencing thing moved to the talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:15, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Some sentences and assertions in the section Władysław_Sikorski#Prime_Minister_in_exile are rather close to those in a David Irving book. Compare "Sikorski insisted that there could be no question of Poland emerging from the war with territorial losses" to the book's "Sikorski insisted that there could be no question of Poland alone emerging from the war with territorial losses." [52] p. 13. This book also contains some of the quotes for which citations were requested.The unyielding stance on borders is not supported by this book cite [53] ("refused to make a firm statement in support of Poland's eastern borders") or here "unique among the exiled Polish politicians for his determination to negotiate with the Soviet Union" [54]. Novickas (talk) 19:34, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
More Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing examples on Talk:Władysław Sikorski. Novickas (talk) 12:31, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm surprised this is an FA in which case.... I would have to suggest that the sentences in question are completely reworked to avoid "close paraphrasing". D.M.N. (talk) 15:04, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article needs a rewrite, and more referencing. Which, in all honestly, I currently do not have the time to do, particularly as I am helping save the Warsaw Uprising article, also on FARC. Once that one is closed, I will see if I can help with this one.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 02:21, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Concerned about the first footnote and the first book in the list. The first was written for Sikorski's anniversary by a government agency whose name makes me wonder whether it is a propaganda outlet. Aside from that the book is just referenced generally without pages for the paragraphs cited. The second one, is the museum intended to "promote his legacy" etc? If so, I would also be dubious if it had a pre-ordained intention...YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 02:16, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

[edit]
Suggested FA criteria concerns are citations and copy-vio. Joelito (talk) 15:52, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed by Joelr31 02:26, 4 March 2009 [55].

Plug-in hybrid

[edit]

Review commentary

[edit]
Notified: Mac, Fbagatelleblack, Jack Rosebro, WP AUTOS.

Needs cleanup; it has citation needed tags and an expansion tag. I also think that there are problems with regards to criterion 4, in particular the History section; it isn't excessively long, but it doesn't seem to provide completely relevant information to the reader, it seems to be an indiscriminate list of events that are somewhat relevant of the topic without much connection to each other (proseline). Many of the inline citations are not formatted, and most troubling, many of those sources are of questionable reliability. Also, the Organization section lacks references and should probably be converted to prose. Some of the subsections are a bit stubby to me. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:17, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The History section is in WP:SUMMARY style and chronological order (as prose, not a list or "proseline" -- which I believe to be a poorly-defined term the case of summary-style chronological history sections) with less-important details relegated to History of plug-in hybrids. This issue has been raised before, but there have been no ideas forthcoming about how to address it with improvements. Do you have any specific ideas about how you would fix the History section?
The Organization section has been converted to prose, as requested. The expansion tag is, I believe, not a defect and is encouraged even in featured content to help point editors to where the article can most reasonably expanded, but I deleted it anyway. All of the citation needed, citation formatting, and source issues occurred after the FA promotion, of course, and the source issues which are specifically called out here have been addressed. All of the citation needed tags have been properly fixed, a dead link has been patched from a WP:CONVENIENCE archive, and all of the bare URL references have been reformatted.
Which subsections do you find the most stubby? 69.228.201.125 (talk) 14:18, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On the proseline, perhaps it would look better if some of the one- and two-sentence paragraphs were combined. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:44, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I tried that, and I agree. It allowed for the deletion of several redundant years in dates. 69.228.201.125 (talk) 16:00, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, much better. I will try to find a copy-editor, and post more comments here later today. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:14, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


FA should be revoked. It fails to meet FA standards.
(a) well-written: its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard; FAIL
(b) comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context; OK
(c) factually accurate: claims are verifiable against reliable sources, accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge, and are supported with specific evidence and external citations; this requires a "References" section in which sources are listed, complemented by inline citations where appropriate; FAIL uses at least one non RS as a ref
(d) neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias NOT TOO BAD
(e) stable: it is not subject to ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process. POSSIBLE PASS Greglocock (talk) 00:21, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have specific problems with the prose; if so, can you please suggest how you would improve it? The reference reliability issues which Dabomb87 lists below have been addressed. 69.228.201.125 (talk) 12:12, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note to Greglocock: Please see the FAR instructions; in the FAR stage, "possible improvements are discussed without declarations of "keep" or "remove". The aim is to improve articles rather than to demote them. Nominators must specify the featured article criteria that are at issue and should propose remedies." As 69.228 has requested, specific issues would be helpful. Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 16:13, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. I'll look at the prose after the tech stuff is finished.Greglocock (talk) 23:13, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The section on the PG&E tariff has been re-written. Can we get figures for the VW Golf TwinDrive instead of whichever plug-in SUV they used to come up with those gas price numbers? 69.228.80.150 (talk) 17:06, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Better yet, can we use User:CanExplain's suggestion for how to compare with petroleum prices? 69.228.197.195 (talk) 14:07, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sourcing

A non-exhaustive list of sources of questionable reliability:

This was a troubling source per Wikipedia:Reliable source examples#Business and Commerce because while on one hand it is an email authored by the founder of the California Cars Initiative (a nonprofit organization) who is a recognized and widely-published authority on the topic, it is also clearly a book recommendation and thus an ad (for someone whose views on foreign policy have been called in to question by himself -- but that should have no bearing on his views on environmental policy.) This reference is being used to support the fact that carbon dioxide contributes to global warming. There have been arguments over this assertion before, so I supplemented the email describing the less reliable but more generally lay-accessible source with a reference to a peer-reviewed academic journal article. I also put the book citation first in front of the email review link inside the reference. 69.228.201.125 (talk) 13:01, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I will leave this unstruck for other reviewers to look at. Since it is supported by a journal, I suppose it can stay. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:49, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Boschert's book is better than Friedman's for this reference. 69.228.197.195 (talk) 14:07, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is an absolutely irreplacible historical document, used in the History section, originally sourced to a 1969 Popular Science article and fully meets or exceeds the criteria for primary sources in Wikipedia:Reliable source examples#History -- but it is also a secondary news report of the 800 car GM XP-883 concept fleet. The blog link is merely for WP:CONVENIENCE to our readers so that they might view the the primary and secondary source. 69.228.201.125 (talk) 10:44, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but the convenience link itself should be reliable, as per WP:CONVENIENCE: "In cases where an editor reads only an "intermediate source" such as an on-line copy of a print publication, the editor should cite the intermediate source, but may also mention the original source. In such a case, the intermediate source must itself be reliable." Dabomb87 (talk) 15:49, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That ref has been returned to its form during initial FA passage, with an access date added. 69.228.201.125 (talk) 16:24, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is used thirteen times, going back to articles from 2005 to the very recent. As a news source, it has an experienced editorial and seperate publishing/commercial staff, the Editor holding a graduate degree in journalism from the Medill School at Northwestern. Per WP:RS, it is and has always been a reliable, third-party, published source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Nobody in my memory has ever called its reliability, independence, fact-checking, or accuracy into question. As such, it does not suffer from the drawbacks described in Wikipedia:Reliable source examples#Business and commerce and should be accepted as a primary source per Wikipedia:Reliable source examples#History. 69.228.201.125 (talk) 10:33, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, having a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". To determine the reliablity of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliabilty that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:49, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I admit I'm going only on the Editor's Medill School graduate degree when I suggest, per Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches#Responding to queries about reliable sources, that he must be, "a member of the press with a reputation for reliability." Also I found several press citations with a web search, such as this from a major newspaper business writer. 69.228.201.125 (talk) 16:19, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, that should work, although another would be nice. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:22, 31 December 2008 (UTC) OK, this does the trick: http://www.greenpresswire.com/cgi-bin/press.pl?record=22. Striking. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:26, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Google News says this is another although I haven't personally breached the subscription wall on that particular article, it is certainly an insider trade publication ("AutomotiveWorld.com has been delivering accurate, insightful and timely information to professionals working in the global automotive industry for more than 15 years."[56]) 69.228.201.125 (talk) 16:32, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for catching that; the Lutz quotation is now sourced to Naughton, K. (December 31, 2007) "Bob Lutz: The Man Who Revived the Electric Car" Newsweek. 69.228.201.125 (talk) 11:03, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Another excellent catch! http://motortorque.askaprice.com/news/auto-0801/toyota-announces-plugin-hybrid-by-2010.asp has been superseded by Ohnsman, A. (August 28, 2008) "Toyota Plans Electric Car, Earlier Plug-In Prius Test" Bloomberg, which was already cited in the article's introduction. There are no other instances of "askaprice.com" in the wikitext. 69.228.201.125 (talk) 11:16, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That was replaced by California Air Resources Board (March 27, 2008) "ARB passes new ZEV amendment - Measure could produce 65,000 cleaner vehicles by 2012" (government agency release) as a primary historical source in the History section. 69.228.201.125 (talk) 11:20, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article has no link to that URL. We link to http://www.nicecarcompany.co.uk/go-electric-says-gordon-brown.html to document the Brown statement and http://www.nicecarcompany.co.uk/plug-in-hybrids-and-battery-electric-vehicles.html for the Leape quote. Are either of those uses troubling? I replaced the latter with http://www.panda.org/index.cfm?uNewsID=129321 which seems to be the primary source for the quotation in question. 69.228.201.125 (talk) 11:30, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That was the base URL, not the specific page. Struck the latter, may need to scrutinize more later. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:49, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Replaced and struck the former with number10.gov.uk source from 2007. 69.228.80.150 (talk) 06:17, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As done as possible, pending answers to my boldfaced questions from the reviewers. All of the specific issues raised were addressed, along with other sourcing, formating, and a few related issues. 69.228.201.125 (talk) 13:08, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very nice work 69.228! I'm glad that this article, which is of considerable relevance in this day and age, is undergoing improvement. I still have questions about some more sources. In addition, all web citations should have a publisher and last access date. Now that some of the technical issues have been cleaned up, it is time that we find a copy-editor, because the prose needs some cleaning. As you request, I will be back with more specific issues and replies after I look at the rest of my watchlisted items and take care of something in real life. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:35, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I will certainly add access dates and publishers. 69.228.201.125 (talk) 16:04, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Intro down, 22 sections to go. 69.228.80.150 (talk) 06:36, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For the access dates, you can put down today's date; the access dates are there so that if a link goes dead, we know when the last time it was live so that we can replace the link with one from the Web Archive from that date. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:19, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying you checked that all the links worked today? 69.228.80.150 (talk) 17:06, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Everything that works does not show up here (only the links with red background are dead). Dabomb87 (talk) 22:37, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so are there any objections to repeatedly stating January 8 for default access dates? I guess I'll try some and see how it looks. 69.228.197.195 (talk) 14:07, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How is this? 69.228.197.195 (talk) 13:38, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, because then readers won't know when the article was last accessed. Other purpose of access dates is that readers know how long ago the article was updated with that information. Putting the hidden comment up there makes it hard for other editors to find the access date, they won't expect it to be there. If you don't mind, I can put in the access dates; I have a script that eases the job a bit. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:50, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please do; I will remove the comment. 69.228.215.76 (talk) 00:05, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can we trim the External links section? It seems that some of those links could be used as reliable sources. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:29, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely, "Groups promoting plug-ins" should merge into "Organizations," and "News" has always been kind of a holding pen for things that should be written up in "History" or it's main article, but haven't been yet. 69.228.201.125 (talk) 17:09, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Done with blue-sided ambox to suggest expansion at future production. 69.228.197.195 (talk) 14:07, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Duplication and globalization
  • There are now three places where "plug-in hybrids that are planned or in production" are listed - the intro, "History", and "Production and commercialization". I think any announcements about future cars isn't really the level of detail History should have, that should be merged into "Future production". -- Beland (talk) 16:54, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Public Law 110-343 is mentioned three times, sometimes I think under the wrong name. Perhaps this and the California regulations should be consolidated in one place like "Government support". Not sure that needs to be under "History". I added a "globalize" tag because I'm sure there are other countries not mentioned which also have subsidies or relevant policies. -- Beland (talk) 16:54, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Compare to BYD F3DM#Principles of operation's section on modes of operation, which needs Anglisization to be in En. 69.228.197.195 (talk) 14:07, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

[edit]
Suggested FA criteria concerns are citations, MOS, and prose. Joelito (talk) 14:50, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So I started to clean up the references, but then I encountered a far larger problem: there is no consistent cite format. Some references are formatted manually, others use the cite XXX family ({{cite web}} and {{cite news}}), yet others use the {{citation}} template. The first thing that needs to be settled on is which citation format should be used. The second thing is the addition of ref information and making sure that all sources are reliable, the latter of which is the most important. The last thing is the actual formatting, which can be done given time. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:21, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does criteria 2c require that the wikitext be the same "family"? Can I just upgrade the bare URLs and refs without publisher information instead, please? 69.228.195.86 (talk) 20:49, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, publisher information is required. As I said, I can do all that, but we need to settle on a consistent format and make sure that all sources are reliable. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:14, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, which format is easiest to convert them all to? 69.228.195.86 (talk) 03:46, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The cite XXX templates, since many of the references are in that format already. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, but if the proposed time frame for completion is anything less than a couple months, I would like to see some evidence that criteria 2c has in the past required conformance of wikitext formats instead of the traditional footnote/Harvard distinction. 69.228.195.86 (talk) 08:06, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As long as work is being done, the director will let the FAR stay live. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:39, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what you mean by "required conformance of wikitext formats instead of the traditional footnote/Harvard distinction". Dabomb87 (talk) 14:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring to the text of featured article criteria 2c. 69.228.216.60 (talk) 14:16, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More source reliability issues:

On which aspect of reliability is this source being questioned? 76.254.84.5 (talk) 19:47, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it currently sources this statement: "Design issues and trade-offs against battery life, capacity, heat dissipation, weight, costs, and safety need to be solved." Dabomb87 (talk) 19:52, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is that statement being challenged? It doesn't seem controversial to me. Assuming that someone thinks that the design issues don't need to be solved, which aspect of reliability is in question? 69.228.86.219 (talk) 00:15, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is it an accepted fact in this area that these problems need to be solved? Dabomb87 (talk) 01:05, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've never seen a suggestion that the problems do not need to be solved in any source anywhere near the reliability of the MIT Technology Review. 69.228.216.60 (talk) 14:16, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I will let this one go for now, but I won't strike just yet. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:18, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try to see if I can get it in web.archive.org or a more reliable live link. 76.254.84.5 (talk) 19:47, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, if I can find it. 76.254.84.5 (talk) 19:47, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I need to review this. 76.254.84.5 (talk) 19:47, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'll try to find another report of the same press release, or the original release. 76.254.84.5 (talk) 19:47, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't there special dispensation towards howstuffworks.com and about.com in the reliable source criteria, somewhere? I think there was at one time. Maybe on WP:RSN or its archives. I'll look for that and try to address all of these. 76.254.84.5 (talk) 19:49, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
about.com covered here. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:57, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's quite long, some more trivial points, such as "Greg Hanssen and Peter Nortman of EnergyCS[118] and EDrive[119] attended the two-day session, and during a break in the proceedings, made an impromptu display in the LADWP parking lot of their converted Prius plug-in hybrid." could be removed without loss to the article. I also think the wiktionary links can be removed.

There is a little swapping between " x miles (y km)" and "y km (x mi)"; perhaps stick to miles first? The "smog" section could possibly be merged into the "greenhouse gas emissions" section; "operating costs" with "fuel efficiency"; and "Energy resilience and petroleum displacement" with "Vehicle-to-grid electricity". The sentence "has now taken over where Calcars left off..." is missing a word.

As the "greenhouse gas emissions" and "Emissions shifted to electric plants" sections cover the same ground, I would take them out of the "Advantages" and "Disadvantages" sections and merge them into a new section covering these issues outwith the advantages and disadvantages.

The "external links" and "see also" sections should be trimmed. Only the most relevant links should be given. DrKiernan (talk) 12:48, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Remove Comments not addressed. Indeed, since my review more trivia appears to have been added as there is now a list of converters which consists mostly of red links. DrKiernan (talk) 13:08, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove, agree with DrKiernan (talk · contribs), also there are major sourcing issues and structural/organizational issues. Cirt (talk) 16:46, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Demote - Since Obama and the bailout bill thrust plug-ins back into the public light as a matter of national political interest and debate, it's been essentially impossible to keep the article as stable as required by criteria 1(e), and I expect that such stability will become more and more difficult as federal orders and manufacturer bailout negotiations bring new models into production. The demands of some FAR commentary are difficult to see as entirely in good faith, as well. The article should be re-considered for FA status after more models are in production, but in the mean time it seems to meet the GA criteria. 76.254.86.42 (talk) 17:13, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/archive/March_2009&oldid=281077292"