Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article review/archive/March 2010

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 Dana boomer 21:04, 29 March 2010 [1].

Gol Transportes Aéreos Flight 1907

[edit]

Review commentary

[edit]
Notified: Crum375, LeadSongDog, WhisperToMe, AntiUser, KillerChihuahua, Spike Wilbury, WikiProject Airlines articles, WikiProject Aviation articles

I am nominating this featured article for review because I feel it no longer meets the featured article criteria. The main reason is that most of its content was written before accident investigation was concluded at December, 2008. It omits major findings gathered during investigations. Thus it doesn't meet criteria 1.b, it is not comprehensible. Since most of findings involve information about living persons, all findings and conclusions of Final Report cannot be described in the article without raising Biographies of living persons issues. The editors turned the subject of the article from the Accident to Accident Final Reports. If we have a perspective of the accident, Final Reports are secondary source as we can verify in Original research and Secondary source. But as the editors turned the subject to Accident Reports, the Final Report itself becomes a primary source. The editors don't allow us to cite Final Report findings, because it raises BLP issues, which turns de accident not understandable. All the findings that are human errors cannot be included in the article, even if they were reported in the investigation. The article should return having as subject the accident, allowing us to describe the accident including the findings of the investigation. If the investigation is the subject by itself, it should be transformed in a new article. E.g. it is the same as in a car accident article we could not write that the driver crossed a red light. We would be criticizing a living person and raising BLP issues.

The article doesn't meet criteria 1.c; it is not well-researched. It discarded the most relevant literature on the topic, which is the Final Report of the Accident. Turning Final Report into a primary source, as described above, we are not allowed to cite it or quote it without referencing what would be a secondary source. The article is full of newspaper and magazines articles as references, that although may be considered reliable sources to public facts and events, and even that they may be considered specialized magazines and well-known newspaper, they cannot be considered comprehensibles sources to describe a accident as the Final Report produced by aeronautical accident researchers and submitted to a kind of peer review of governmental authorities before publishing would be.

The article doesn't meet criteria 1.d; it is clearly not neutral. The article makes large use of articles of magazines and newspaper of the same publisher that hires Joe Sharkey, a journalist that runs a blog in defense of the crew, and also articles whose author Sharkey calls "my correspondent in Sao Paulo". The accident involves human failures of Brazilian ATC (Air Traffic Control) and an American aircraft crew. The editors using a reasoning that an entire organization doesn't fall under BLP unless specific individuals are targeted, criticize Brazilian ATC, making what one could call an inverted Hasty Generalization which is a logical fallacy of faulty generalization by reaching an inductive generalization based on insufficient evidence. It commonly involves basing a broad conclusion upon the statistics of a survey of a small group that fails to sufficiently represent the whole population. The editors criticize indirectly the individuals, criticizing generically the organization. E.g. "Many have poor English skills, limiting their ability to communicate with foreign pilots, which played a role in crash of Flight 1907". Since we are not allowed to mention any fact or event mentioned in Final Report that could be considered criticism to the crew because it would be raising BLP issues, the article becomes clearly not neutral and biased against ATC. Although there are a lot of Brazilian sources that summarizes the accident causes, the editors discarded them all.

XX Sdruvss 01:54, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • "The main reason is that most of its content was written before accident investigation was concluded at December, 2008": Almost half this article (by edits) was written after the final report had been published (December 9, 2008),[2] and the article cites the CENIPA and NTSB primary final reports directly over 30 times. In addition, there are ten secondary sources in the article which summarize and interpret the final reports.
As was said, they are selectively quoted to advance a position, and the main findings of CENIPA report are not cited. XX Sdruvss 11:04, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The main findings of CENIPA are summarized in the CENIPA final report section. We provide a reference to the primary CENIPA report itself, as well as to high quality secondary sources which summarize the findings. We say that CENIPA found fault with both ATC and the Embraer crew, and say about the latter: "CENIPA concluded that the Embraer pilots also contributed to the accident with, among others, their failure to recognize that their transponder was inadvertently switched off, thereby disabling the collision avoidance system on both aircraft, as well as their overall insufficient training and preparation." What is selective here, and what position is it advancing? Crum375 (talk) 13:35, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Brazilian news that summarize final reports XX Sdruvss 15:25, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It discarded the most relevant literature on the topic, which is the Final Report": Per above, the primary final reports are cited in the article directly over 30 times, and there are also ten secondary sources which help interpret or summarize the final reports.
Yes, but selectively cited, just to criticize Brazilian ATC, and this is the point: partisans "secondary sources" to summarize an accident final report. XX Sdruvss 11:04, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are quoted above as saying we "discarded" the Final report. It is linked to 30 times. We make extensive use of it, along with high quality secondary sources to help interpret it. If you believe there is lack of neutrality, you need to gain consensus for that view on the talk page. Crum375 (talk) 13:35, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Brazilian news that summarize final reports XX Sdruvss 15:25, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It omits major findings gathered during investigations": Please specify a single "major finding" which is omitted, per a high quality secondary source.
Crew was distracted with a notebook in the cockpit for almost one hour; failure to carry out an appropriate flight planning; hurry to take off and pressure of the passengers of the Legacy, preventing sufficient knowledge of the flight plan for pilots; inadvertent shutdown of the transponder, possibly by the limited experience; lack of communication between pilots and controllers.XX Sdruvss 11:04, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is your own personal analysis. On WP we use high quality secondary sources to help summarize long and detailed primary sources such as the CENIPA report. If you think the current summary or weighting is incorrect, you need to point out a high quality secondary source which weights the findings differently. Crum375 (talk) 13:35, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Brazilian news that summarize final reports XX Sdruvss 15:25, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "it is clearly not neutral": The fact that Joe Sharkey (a surviving passenger on the business jet) wrote some articles for The New York Times does not make the NYT a non-neutral or unacceptable source. In fact, sources are always non-neutral; neutrality is achieved by properly weighting all top level secondary sources and mainstream views. Please show a top level mainstream publication which contradicts any of the statements (or their relative weighting) in the article.
A newspaper that hires a journalist that runs a blog in crew defense are not a reliable source to analyze, interpret and summarize a final report, what its not needed. We should not "interpret" it. XX Sdruvss 11:04, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Brazilian news that summarize final reports XX Sdruvss 15:25, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Many [Air Traffic Controllers] have poor English skills": This is based on a high quality mainstream source, and is also supported by the CENIPA report (which is primary). There is no known high level source in conflict with this. It does not criticize any specific individual but an entire organization, and is not a BLP violation by any standard I am aware of.
I keep the point. It is generalization to avoid BLP issues. And, as I said, all ATC faults were not forgotten. XX Sdruvss 11:04, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure what you mean. If you agree we are avoiding BLP issues, there is no BLP issue. And note again that we are allowed to criticize anybody, including groups, as long as we rely on high quality mainstream secondary sources. Crum375 (talk) 13:35, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Brazilian news that summarize final reports XX Sdruvss 15:25, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Although there are a lot of Brazilian sources that summarizes the accident causes, the editors discarded them all": Please check the references section. There are currently 26 (my count) Brazilian sources out of a total of 66. The main primary source is Brazilian (CENIPA) and the article makes 28 references to it, and these sources in Portuguese give a typical summary. Unfortunately, this case is highly politicized, and it's hard to find a high-quality Brazilian source summarizing the U.S. NTSB report, which was the only final report which included a 'probable cause' statement, and disagreed with the CENIPA report about key issues. The top level English secondary sources (e.g. [3][4]) do summarize both the Brazilian CENIPA report and the U.S. NTSB report.
This is not true, there are many indicated sources that summarizes the reports. Instead, they are selectively quoted. The citations are biased. And the statement "it's hard to find a high-quality Brazilian source summarizing the U.S. NTSB report" is offensive. It's is because all Brazilians sources don't believe that CENIPA and NTSB disagree about findings. NTSB just highlights ATC faults pointed in CENIPA report and that crew acted according what the rules prescribe. One of the most reliable sources that summarizes very well the reports is not cited: FAB expõe falhas de pilotos e do controle. XX Sdruvss 11:04, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the statement "it's hard to find a high-quality Brazilian source summarizing the U.S. NTSB report" is offensive": Can you please provide us a list of high quality mainstream Brazilian sources which summarize the NTSB report? Crum375 (talk) 13:35, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Brazilian news that summarize final reports XX Sdruvss 15:25, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overall, there is ongoing discussion in the talk page about these issues, but there is no consensus at this point that any change is needed. If such consensus is reached, modifications will be made as required. Crum375 (talk) 02:32, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It seems impossible to reach a consensus. XX Sdruvss 11:04, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Brazilian news that summarize final reports XX Sdruvss 15:25, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. As near as I can make out, this is a content dispute that should not be the basis of a FAR. Eubulides (talk) 09:50, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Contrary to the notice at the top of this page, I was not notified of this FAR. So, I'm not sure who else may not have been notified. I have not been involved in editing this article; rather, I was trying to sort out a BLP issue related to it. Sdruvss has a personal/professional/academic interest in the subject and has been debating the article content for quite some time. I believe Sdruvss's concerns are in good faith, however his unfamiliarity with Wikipedia processes has caused him to take some misguided actions. This is one of them. He has failed to build consensus for the changes he wants, and I don't think this FAR is with merit. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 07:40, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't have personal/professional interest in the accident. I clearly said that I have professional technical knowledge that allows me to understand most of the issues involved in the accident as the radar system. Besides that, I've deeply researched it, and I am writing an academic paper about it, as case study. "Personal/professional interest" is not a good expression to describe my interest. This knowledge allows me to conclude that this article doesn't meet the featured article criteria (1.b, 1.c, 1.d) and it will be impossible to reach a consensus, because editors there refuse strongly to summarize accident causes following Brazilian reliable sources. XX Sdruvss 11:58, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "editors there refuse strongly to summarize accident causes following Brazilian reliable sources": As I noted above, of the 66 total sources in the article, 26 are Brazilian. The most heavily used source is Brazilian (CENIPA report), linked to and referenced 28 times in the article. We would welcome any additional top level secondary source, in any language and from any country, to help us interpret and compare the two final reports (CENIPA and NTSB). Crum375 (talk) 14:36, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relatório do Cenipa aponta erros de pilotos e militares
Aeronáutica culpa pilotos e controladores por acidente da Gol
FAB expõe falhas de pilotos e do controle (In my humble opinion, this is the best)
Pilotos desligaram transponder inadvertidamente, diz Cenipa
Cenipa apresenta relatório final do acidente aéreo da Gol; leia o relatório
Relatório sobre acidente da Gol aponta erros dos controladores e pilotos do Legacy
Relatório aponta erro de operação em acidente de avião da Gol
Deficiências no preparo dos controladores e dos pilotos do Legacy contribuíram para o acidente da Gol, diz relatório do Cenipa
There is more if you need. There aren't two final reports. There is just one, "CENIPA Final Report" (266 pages), NTSB Appendix 1 to CENIPA final report ("U.S. Summary Comments on the Draft Final Report", 4 pages) and NTSB Appendix 2 to CENIPA final report ("U.S. Detailed Comments on Draft Final Report", 10 pages), which means that NTSB made comments to the CENIPA draft final report and not another final report. XX Sdruvss 15:35, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"There aren't two final reports": The New York Times calls the NTSB report, which was published separately by the U.S. government,[5] "a dissenting report".[6] That report, which was also appended into the CENIPA report by the NTSB, is the only one to include a 'probable cause' statement (which is the bottom line summary of an aviation accident). Sdruvss, if one of your above sources analyzes or interprets the NTSB report, or the 'probable cause' statement, it would be most useful. Thanks, Crum375 (talk) 16:23, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, all of them do it, but the best (my humble opinion) is: FAB expõe falhas de pilotos e do controle. It doesn't say "probable cause", but "causes". Is that why you don't want to use it?:

CAUSES

  • 1. Failure to carry out an appropriate flight planning by Legacy's pilots.
  • 2. Hurry to take off and pressure of the passengers of the Legacy, preventing sufficient knowledge of the flight plan for pilots.
  • 3. Inadvertent shutdown of the transponder, possibly by the limited experience of the [Legacy's] pilots.
  • 4. Lack of communication between pilots and controllers.
  • 5. Lack of integration between the Legacy pilots and little experience in piloting this type of aircraft.
  • 6. The air traffic control in Sao Jose dos Campos, Brasilia and Manaus, although providing surveillance radar, did not correct the flight level of the Legacy or conducted procedures for certification of altitude when they started not to receive information from the transponder.
  • 7. The controllers did not transfer correctly traffic from Brasilia to Manaus.
  • 8. Flight controllers did not provide the predicted frequency for the Legacy to communicate adequately in the Amazon region.
  • 9. The lack of involvement of supervisors of controllers, letting that decisions and actions over the Legacy flight were taken individually, without monitoring, advice and guidance provided for the air traffic control.

XX Sdruvss 16:40, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

The fact that New York Times calls the NTSB report a dissenting report proves they are wrong because there is only "Comments on Draft Report". The fact that it was published before Final Report disclosure is because it was done on a draft report basis as they say in the title. We do not even know what happened between Draft Report and Final report disclosure. Final report could even had included NTSB comments.XX Sdruvss 16:49, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sdruvss, major accident investigation reports typically have many findings, but a 'probable cause statement' is a brief "bottom line" summary of the most critical and immediate reasons for the accident. Virtually all accident reports have them, and they are typically cited in their entirety by the press, because they are a concise summary of the causes. In the case of this accident, CENIPA itself does not provide a 'probable cause' statement, only a section called 'Conclusions', in which it lists 40 different "facts" (typically called "findings"), some of which are contributory and some not (e.g. "The recovery of the N600XL airplane was considered economically viable."). CENIPA then has section 5.2.1.1.2 in which it has a long dissertation explaining the various ways it believes the Embraer pilots contributed to the accident, but without any prioritization.[7] CENIPA also has another section, 5.2.1.1.3, where there is another long essay-type description of contributory ATC errors. There is no brief prioritized summary by CENIPA of the key causes of the accident, under any name. On the other hand, the appended NTSB report conforms to the standard aviation accident report format.[8] It lists 16 "findings", followed by the brief and concise 'probable cause' statement. Since the entire NTSB report was included verbatim by CENIPA inside their own report as "Appendix 1", one could say that the NTSB 'probable cause' statement is the only one available (from an investigative agency) for that accident. The list of "causes" you quote above, was (as far as I know) written by a Brazilian newspaper reporter, and is not the official one by the Brazilian Air Force or government, or any other investigative agency. Again, if any of your above sources interpret the NTSB report, or compare and contrast it to the CENIPA report, please point it out and it would be most helpful. Crum375 (talk) 17:27, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean? That CENIPA report (266 pages) is not good enough to we know the causes of the accident? You think that all Brazilian mainstream newspaper are not able to summarize them as well as Sharkey's publisher? Do you think that because CENIPA doesn't point a "probable cause" it can't be summarized by Estado? Do you think that Pedicine is a better researcher then all these Brazilian newspaper? XX Sdruvss 20:54, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to Brigadier Jorge Kersul Filho, CENIPA’s chief, "An accident does not occur only by a factor. They are several factors combined". Do you think that Sharkey’s publishers are more reliable then Kersul? Do you believe that CENIPA report is not neutral because CENIPA is a military organization? Do you believe that there is a compíracy theory that explains CENIPA report? XX Sdruvss 21:35, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think I explained all this above and on the talk page, but I'll try again. On WP, esp. in contentious BLP cases, we need high quality secondary sources to help us analyze, interpret and summarize primary sources, such as the detailed investigative reports in this case. We have two separate primary investigative reports, one by CENIPA and one by the NTSB, which have been characterized by The New York Times and Aviation Week to be "dissenting" and "sparring" with each other. Normally, for the actual summary of an aviation accident report, if there is an official 'probable cause' statement, we can quote it, since it is short and self contained. But as I noted above, the CENIPA report has no 'probable cause' statement, or any short top-level prioritized summary of the causes, only long lists of individual findings and long essay-like sections discussing the various contributory issues, without any prioritization. For this reason, and because the CENIPA report is in conflict with the NTSB one, we need high level mainstream secondary sources to interpret both reports and put them into perspective for us. If there is any such source we have missed, please let us know. Crum375 (talk) 21:36, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is cesoring. The quotes can be verified, and they come from the most reliable sources one can find. XX Sdruvss 21:46, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you are referring to quotes pulled from primary sources, it's not an issue of "censoring". The point is that if a detailed investigative report has a large amount of material (266 pages for CENIPA report in our case), we are not allowed to pick and choose pieces from it, because it can easily be used to promote a specific point of view. The best way to interpret such sources, esp. when they are in conflict with each other, is to find the most reputable mainstream secondary sources, which have the highest top level perspective, and use them. In our specific case here, since the NTSB and CENIPA reports are in disagreement about their conclusions, we need high quality secondary sources to help us put the conflict between these sources into perspective, by comparing them to each other. Crum375 (talk) 22:02, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am referring to quotes pulled from secondary sources (sic): Estado, Folha, Globo. Do you mean that Estado, Folha and Globo are not reputable mainstream secondary sources (sic), which have the highest top level perspective? Are you saying that only Sharkey's publisher is? XX Sdruvss 01:58, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For those who don't know, Sdruvss refers to The New York Times as "Sharkey's publisher", because Joe Sharkey has a private blog (which we don't use in the article). To answer Sdruvss's question, we do use Brazilian sources extensively in the article, 26 out of the 66 total. In the "CENIPA" section, which describes the final CENIPA report, we use as sources the raw CENIPA report, along with three secondary sources to help interpret it, two of which are Brazilians. In other words, in that section, out of a total of 4 sources, only one is non-Brazilian, and the NYT is not used there at all. In the "NTSB" and "Conflicting CENIPA and NTSB conclusions" sections, we do rely on the original Brazilian CENIPA report, but we have yet to find Brazilian secondary sources which analyze the NTSB report, or compare and contrast it to the CENIPA report. If anyone can find such sources, it would be very helpful. Crum375 (talk) 02:37, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment I concur with Eubulides and Spike Wilbury that FAR is not the most appropriate venue for what does boil down to a content dispute (and not a very broad one at that, though it affects the entire article and should certainly be addressed), particularly as there is ongoing, productive, multi-party discussion at the Talk page. If the article fails to meet the FA criteria after a compromise has been reached and the necessary changes have been implemented, then it should be brought to FAR. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 21:27, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As may be noted in the Talk Page of the article, I have fulfilled all Crum375 requirements. I've found many high levels "secondary sources" (sic) that summarize accident causes. The most important is O Estado de São Paulo (FAB expõe falhas de pilotos e do controle), one of the most reliable Brazilian newspaper with the exact content required by Crum375. I would like that people who speak Portuguese read this newspaper article and WP article and compare them and note how different they are. I'm unsuccessfully trying to correct citations not verifiable, as that Sharkey's publisher said that "crew acted properly", whereas Sharkey's publisher said "was not in violation of any regulations", which has a completely different meaning. He insist that there are a NTSB dissenting report because Sharkey's publisher said so, whereas NTSB made "Comments on the Draft Report" which were appended to CENIPA Final Report, and it is part of Final Report as Appendix 1 (4 pages) and 2 (10 pages) in accordance of ICAO Annex 13, and most of their content is about CENIPA recommendations. Concluding, he doesn't admit to include in the Final Report topic the most import subject of the article: readers want to know accident causes according to CENIPA Final Report. That is why I confirm what I said that it doesn't meet the featured article criteria because this article is biased, partisan, and full of not verifiable citations. XX Sdruvss 13:04, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
PS: and using the same deeply reasoning and reasons of the editors: I think so. XX Sdruvss 13:41, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sdruvss, you are saying or implying that somehow we discriminate against Brazilian sources. As I noted several times above and elsewhere, we use 26 Brazilian sources (out of 66 total) in the article, and refer and link to the original Brazilian CENIPA final report 28 times (more by far than any other source). In the "Final reports" section, under "CENIPA" subsection, we rely on a total of four sources, three of which are Brazilian. To conform to WP's content policies, improvements to the "Final reports" section need to be based on a top level view by high quality secondary sources, which interpret and contrast the conflicting primary source reports (CENIPA and NTSB) which we have in this case. Crum375 (talk) 15:14, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As you use to say as reasoning: I think so. You practice selectively quoting to make your point, and don't allow others to correct your "mistakes". XX Sdruvss 22:32, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sdruvss, Wikipedia works by consensus. I have no more editorial power here than you or anyone else. If you can gain consensus to use different quotes, or summarize things differently, or anything else, it will be accepted. Also, if you can find more high quality sources comparing the final NTSB and CENIPA reports, it would be very helpful. Crum375 (talk) 23:23, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
May I? I have read the Estadão story (I may even have read it when it was originally published, though I usually read Folha) and fail to see "how different" it is from the Wikipedia article. If you like, I can do a point-by-point comparison.
  • You don't need going too far. WP article don't have a word about many causes pointed by CENIPA (lack of pre-flight preparation, insufficient knowledge of the flight plan, inadvertent shutdown of the transponder, possibly by the limited experience, lack of communication between pilots and controllers, Lack of integration between the Legacy pilots and little experience in piloting this type of aircraft). We find in WP article only ATC faults. XX Sdruvss 11:45, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I did note a flagrant inconsistency within the Estadão article: immediately after stating "O órgão da Aeronáutica concluiu que os pilotos 'desligaram o transponder, inadvertidamente, durante familiarização ou operação da RMU'", it states "No processo de conclusão, o Cenipa descartou várias hipóteses. Uma delas é a de que não houve intenção de desligá-lo..." So, CENIPA concluded that the Legacy crew switched off the transponder (1) inadvertently and (2) intentionally? That's impossible. I haven't read the report, but something's off there. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:47, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think that here is not the place of this debate, and to say that a source is "wrong" or "right", as Crum says, but CENIPA and news clearly say that crew turned transponder to standby. Since there is not any indication of intentionality in CVR, they assume it was inadvertently turned to standby. XX Sdruvss 01:00, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this featured article for review because I feel that the consensus between editors doesn't meet the featured article criteria. Although I assume editors good faith, there is a not neutral consensus. I have the right to do it, right? XX Sdruvss 00:51, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean? On August 3, 2009, the community consensus was that this article met all of the featured article criteria. There have been no substantial changes to the article since then. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:57, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I mean that I (Sdruvss) feel that the consensus between editors doesn't meet the featured article criteria 1.b, 1.c, 1.d. XX Sdruvss 01:04, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This editor sentence deserves to be copied here: "The New York Times and Aviation Week tell us the CENIPA and NTSB reports are in conflict with each other. Are you aware of any secondary source, in any language, from any country, which tells us NTSB and CENIPA are not in conflict with each other? If so, please provide that source" (Crum375). NYT and AW are Joe Sharkey's publishers. This is the reason that ALL Brazilian sources that summarize the accident causes are obstructed: ALL sources don't say that NTSB disagrees! He accepts only sources that mention NTSB and ALL Brazilians sources don't mention NTSB. XX Sdruvss 23:58, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We have two high quality secondary sources, The New York Times and Aviation Week, telling us that the NTSB and CENIPA reports are in conflict with each other. We have no secondary sources, in any language, from any country, telling us they have compared these two reports and found them in substantial agreement. Therefore, we need to assume the two reports are in conflict with each other, and present them as such, with high quality secondary sources analyzing, comparing and contrasting them. Crum375 (talk) 00:58, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As I said: the above explanations is why ALL Brazilian sources that summarize the accident causes are obstructed. ALL sources don't say that NTSB disagrees! The New York Times = Sharkey's publisher, Aviation Week = Sharkey's publisher. If "we have no secondary sources, in any language, from any country, telling us they have compared these two reports and found them in substantial agreement", is not a strong reason that they essentially do not disagree with each other? This is a nonsense debate. XX Sdruvss 12:59, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We have two high quality reliable sources, The New York Times and Aviation Week, telling us they consider the NTSB and CENIPA reports to be in conflict with each other, and no reliable secondary sources telling us they have compared the two reports and found them to be in substantial agreement. That you, Sdruvss, don't like the high quality sources we use, doesn't render them unacceptable or unreliable. I do agree that this is a "nonsense debate". Crum375 (talk) 13:57, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If "we have no secondary sources, in any language, from any country, telling us they have compared these two reports and found them in substantial agreement", is not a strong reason that they essentially do not disagree with each other? This is a nonsense debate, but I assume your good faith. I recommend to those who want to know accident causes and don't speak Portuguese, use Google translation and access directly Brazilian news that summarize final reports. XX Sdruvss 14:04, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If we have two high quality secondary sources, The New York Times and Aviation Week, which tell us something, and there are no sources to contradict it, then we can accept it as an assertion, cited to these sources. Crum375 (talk) 14:20, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I confirm all I wrote.
There is consensus there to hide CENIPA Final Report."The devil can cite Scripture for his purpose" (Shakespeare in The Merchant of Venice). XX Sdruvss 17:25, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's incredible that an accident that has happened in Brazil, has had a huge impact in Brazilian politics, has originated a Parliament Investigation Committee, and is being reported by newspapers as Folha. which has 604 articles about it, Estadao which has 255 articles, Globo which has 732 articles, has as only reliable sources to summarize final report one article of Aviation Week and one article of New York Times written by a freelancer journalist, correspondent in Brazil. XX Sdruvss 22:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Material is written in a manner that NTSB comments overwhelm the article and appear to take crew side; it needs to be presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone. It gives disproportionate space to the particular NTSB's viewpoint, omitting CENIPA findings, facts, and evidences. Care should be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation is broadly neutral; in particular, section headings should reflect areas important to the subject's notability. If there is only one Final Report, the section title couldn't be "Final Reports". The space of "Comments on Draft Final Report" (10 pages) couldn't be longer than the "Final Report" (266 pages) and couldn't entirely obstruct Final Report findings. Even if the source is reliable, but what they say is easily verified to by false, they should be discarded. Many sources use extracts of NTSB comments to build new meaning. People reading WP article want to know what happened and judge by themselves. They don't want that facts, evidences be omitted. They can make up their minds, they don't need someone else conducting their conclusions. The editors of this article end the Final Report section saying: "Aviation Week adds that the Brazilian military operates that country's air traffic control system, conducted the investigation and authored the report", inducing readers that CENIPA report is not neutral and raising a "conspiracy theory". XX Sdruvss 17:24, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's mission is to present information based on reliable and verifiable sources in a neutral fashion. Neutrality, as well the relative quality of sources, is decided on WP by consensus. It's interesting that Sdruvss mentions Shakespeare above, because as a single purpose account he came to this article's talk page and unleashed a troupe of actors, or sockpuppets, of various "personalities", to create an impression of multiple editors addressing these issues. This was a clear attempt to subvert the process of finding a proper consensus for the relevant issues, by attempting to create a fictitious majority for his personal views. I normally try (and tell editors) to focus on the message, not the messenger, but in this case, Sdruvss has abused our good will and good faith by resorting to fraud and deceit, and by wasting precious time and energy of volunteers, such as myself. I spent many hours, and wrote countless words, in response to him and his socks, yet he tends to ignore my responses, and repeat his allegations, which focus on his perceived lack of neutrality. Unfortunately, this behavior, while resorting to fraud and deceit, is no way to find neutrality, or consensus for the correct balance of sources and information. Crum375 (talk) 23:39, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
NYT reference (Brazil Lays Some Blame on U.S. Pilots in Collision) is an article signed by Andrew Downie and Matthew L. Wald. Andrew Downie is a Scotch freelancer journalist that wrote this article from Sao Paulo reading Brazilian news. He writes about any issue that happens in Brazil. He writes about carnival, soccer, and wines until politics, economy, and business. He lived first in Mexico, where he became a journalist. Sent to Haiti by the Reuters news agency, worked with Larry Rohter. [reference]. Rohter published an known article in New York Times titled "Brazilian Leader's Tippling Becomes National Concern", insinuating the Brazilian president Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva had a drinking problem that affected his presidency. The article's only quoted source for Lula's alcoholism was Leonel Brizola, a sworn political enemy of Mr. da Silva. The article caused consternation in the Brazilian press. Rohter's visa was temporarily revoked (and quickly reinstated) by Brazil's government, an event which overshadowed much criticism of Rohter's reporting. [reference]. Joe Sharkey is also a columnist for the New York Times. NYT is the single one and only source saying "dissenting report". As Crum well said, "on WP we need better sources than some reporter copying things from a press conference". XX Sdruvss 11:58, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"A truth weakens when one tries to hide a lie and a lie is more powerful the more one tries to hide truth" (Inacio Dantas). XX Sdruvss 17:27, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please see more information in A possible comprimise. XX Sdruvss 23:05, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After intense debate, (admin) editors of this article rebuff correcting their mistakes:

  • Section 7 Final Reports leads readers to error, making then believe that NTSB made a "dissenting" Final Report. There is one and only source that uses the expression "dissenting report", that is New York Times, but even NYT doesn't say "dissenting final report". There is only one Final Report made by CENIPA, as can be proved searching NTSB site for "GOL 1907 Final Report". NTSB is clear saying "The U.S. accredited representative provided detailed comments on November 18, 2008 to CENIPA's draft report, which have been appended to the final version of the CENIPA investigative report".
  • NTSB comments on draft final report overwhelms CENIPA findings and conclusions in WP article. There is more space to NTSB comments then to CENIPA findings and conclusions. NTSB comments are about what they don't agree, but what they agree on most basic facts and findings are intentionally omitted in the WP article. NTSB is clear saying "The flight crew of N600XL, although not in violation of any regulations, was not aware of the loss of transponder and collision avoidance functionality, lack of ATC communication, and the flight's progress reference altitude convention. The team agrees that safety lessons in these areas can be determined to better prepare flight crews for international operations".
  • WP article says "that both flight crews acted properly". No one of the references says that. This affirmative is not verifiable.
  • The article hides in a footnote the functional relation between transponder and secondary radar. Transponder provides readout of aircraft altitude, heading, speed, and allows its identification on radar screen. As written in the article, it leads readers to believe that transponder is only necessary to the collision avoidance system functionality. XX Sdruvss 21:58, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It’s very curious that nobody made any comments after my analyses of Crum’s reliable sources. XX Sdruvss 19:52, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As can be proved by this edition reverted by Crum375, there is a clear intention to cover the evidences gathered in accident final report and build a false story of two final reports to WP readers. This article clearly has never meet the featured article criteria. XX Sdruvss 15:40, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cover-up: “Cover-ups do not necessarily require the active manipulation of facts or circumstances. Arguably the most common form of cover-up is one of non-action. It is the conscious failure to release incriminating information by a third party. This "passive cover-up" is often justified by the motive of not wanting to embarrass the culprit or expose them to criminal prosecution or even the belief that the cover-up is justified by protecting the greater community from scandal. Yet, because of the passive cover-up, the misdeed often goes undiscovered and results in harm to others ensuing from its failure to be discovered”. XX Sdruvss 14:00, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gatekeeping: "In human communication, in particular, in journalism, gatekeeping is the process through which ideas and information are filtered for publication. The internal decision making process of relaying or withholding information from the media to the masses. The theory was first instituted by social psychologist Kurt Lewin in 1947 and is still one of the most important theories studied by students of mass communication and journalism. Gatekeeping occurs at all levels of the media structure - from a reporter deciding which sources are chosen to include in a story to editors deciding which stories are printed, or even covered". XX Sdruvss 16:54, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This WP article is clearly being edited by some press secretary of one or more companies involved in the accident, and blocking all information that could make WP readers better understand the accident. But I assume their good faith. XX Sdruvss 18:59, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

[edit]
Featured article criterion of concern are comprehensiveness and neutrality YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars photo poll) 05:56, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The only editor who has criticized neutrality is an WP:SPA confirmed sockmaster of multiple sockpuppet accounts, who ignores replies, considers the New York Times and Aviation Week corrupt and unreliable, and tends to drown out rational discussion with endless missives. Do you have specific neutrality or comprehensiveness issues you'd like to address? Crum375 (talk) 13:38, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't consider NYT and AW corrupt and unreliable. In References used in "Final Reports" there is a long explanation of the sources used in this article. XX Sdruvss 22:50, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Crum, just FYI, YellowMonkey just lists any concerns which were brought up in the FAR, regardless of who listed them or how valid they are. Simply protocol, and in no way stating that he has an opinion on whether they are actually concerns. Hope this helps! Dana boomer (talk) 14:12, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thank you. Crum375 (talk) 14:42, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The New York Times most certainly is a reliable source on the reporting of news. The wall of text approach by the nominator along with the sock investigation result does not inspire any confidence in me concerning anything that user says. --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs/PRs) 01:43, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t expect to inspire confidence; I expect that people read what sources (including NYT) say and check that what is written in this WP article is not verifiable in any of the references. There are not two accident final reports; there is only one final report from Cenipa and Comments on Draft Report from NTSB (anyone can check it). WP article hides Cenipa findings and conclusions. XX Sdruvss 19:16, 22 March 2010 (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 YellowAssessmentMonkey 00:37, 26 March 2010 [9].

Samuel Adams

[edit]

Review commentary

[edit]
Notified: Nishkid64

I am nominating this featured article for review because of over-reliance on one single book. Not enough sources. Also prose is not the best. Suggest this be a good article... JB50000 (talk) 03:48, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment After skimming quickly through the article, I'm inclined to dismiss the FAR as frivolous. First of all, please explain why the "over-reliance on one single book" is bad (perhaps the author is the most respected biographer of Adams); moreover, the article hardly depends solely on Alexander. Sure, it uses it more than the other sources, but that is not equivalent to "over-reliance". "Not enough sources" means nothing if you don't specify what needs sourcing, and even then I think the article is very well sourced. "prose is not the best": examples? JB50000, I think you need to familiarize yourself with the FA criteria more, as none of these "issues" can be found in the article. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:20, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
With most of the FA's, if you strip out one reference, the article is still an FA with the remaining ones. With this article, if you strip out the Alexander book, only a skeleton remains. But I have other concerns, mainly that I just discovered that the main editor is a very important person in Wikipedia, associated with ArbCom, an admin, etc. So that type of person is entitled to a lot of leeway and their articles given deference and respect. I am willing to withdraw the nomination for that very reason. It's like if the President of the United States or Secretary General of the United Nations asked to borrow a quarter for the parking meter. You would say, "no need to borrow, here's a quarter to keep, and here's 10 other quarters" and shower them with complements. I am not kidding. You don't heckle the President or Secretary General. JB50000 (talk) 04:28, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You still haven't explained why the "over-reliance" (of which I am still convinced there is none) is bad. However, I am more disturbed by the mentality that because the primary editor is "important", his articles are somehow inherently better and more important. This is simply not true. Anyway, you still haven't given examples of subpar prose or statements needing sources. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:39, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) First and foremost, I am an editor, like anyone else on Wikipedia. My position in the community shouldn't affect your judgment of the articles I have worked on. Quite simply, if the article doesn't meet the criteria, then it isn't worthy of FA status. That being said, I do believe you have brought up a legitimate concern with regards to referencing. When I originally worked on the article, I relied pretty exclusively on Puls (2006). After the article was promoted, someone raised a point that Puls wasn't the most authoritative source on Adams (which I agree with in retrospect) and then proceeded to re-reference and rewrite (some parts) of the article. The article clearly benefited from the rewrite and re-reference, but there still appears to be a slight issue with the over-reliance of a single source. I don't believe this issue warrants an entire FA review, but I believe it's something that should be looked into, for the betterment of the encyclopedia. I would like to help address this matter, but I honestly cannot foresee myself being able to undertake such a project in the near future. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 04:50, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I briefly looked at the article and agree that, while the overreliance on Alexander's book is a problem that should be fixed, that problem alone is not enough to justify a FAR. I suggest that this matter be moved to the article's talk page. (And while you're add it, please add alt text to the article's images; see WP:ALT.) Eubulides (talk) 05:00, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dabomb87 nailed it: this is a frivolous FAR. (Full disclosure: I'm a major contributor to the article.) There are plenty of sources used—indeed, all of the major biographies have been cited, not to mention a few scholarly articles—and the prose is fine. The Alexander biography should be the one we rely upon for the basic "nuts and bolts" of the article: he's the primary modern scholarly biographer of Adams. He's cited more than 100 times because nearly every sentence of the article is footnoted; he's frequently cited in tandem with other historians, and is never cited alone on any matter that is disputed by historians. Another Adams scholar, William Fowler, is cited 44 times in the article; Maier, one of most important scholars of the era, is cited 35 times; it would be more had she written a biography of Adams. Other recent Adams biographers, like Puls and Stoll, are journalists who wrote books for general audiences; they are not experts in the field, and their books are generally tertiary sources, like all popular biographies.

All sources are not created equal; we can consult the popular works, especially to see it they offer anything other than a recapitulation of the scholarly works, but we should rely on the scholars for most of the meat. In doing so, this article rigorously adheres to Wikipedia:Reliable sources. In all the important controversies in Adams's career, the article cites and compares the major interpretations. The "Legacy" section is quite good in this regard, if I do say so myself. Any person who reads this article completely will come away with a good basic knowledge of how historians have written about Adams over the last 200 years, and where they have disagreed. Wikipedia would be better if more featured articles attempted to summarize the historiography in this way. —Kevin Myers 10:12, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not get angry. Simply find a second source for a number of Alexander only citations and a big problem is solved. JB50000 (talk) 06:00, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not angry, because there is no big problem. The article is fully cited from all of the relevant reliable sources, and easily meets the featured article criterion 1c ("well-researched"). Every statement in the article is cited to at least one reliable source; all potentially contentious points are cited to multiple reliable sources. There are no referencing issues that require attention at FAR. Any specific concerns should be raised on the talk page, as Eubulides suggested.
As Dabomb87 aptly said, this is a frivolous nomination, but I hope it can still be a teachable moment. Comments like "Not enough sources" reveal a decided naïveté about serious history writing, as if adding sources to articles is like adding salt to food. An intelligent assessment of an exhaustively footnoted article like this one requires an examination of the subject and its historiography. A useful critique would be something like: "This article needs citations from Professor Jones, who has written scholarly work on the topic." Another good objection usually comes in the following form: "The claim in paragraph 3 is debatable, and is cited to just one source; what do the other reliable sources say on this point?" Those kinds of specific critiques may indicate that an article falls short of criterion 1c; "Not enough sources" does not. —Kevin Myers 08:32, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Image review

Dare I say it? Yeah, go on I will -- the ndashes in the infobox should be unspaced. The "problem" isn't in the article it's in the infobox template. DrKiernan (talk) 11:13, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I added a new caption and reference for the image. (And indeed, a new version of the image.) Yeah, the inbobox template doesn't like our MOS regarding endashes; it apparently adds the spaces by default, presuming that each field will be a full date rather than just a range of years. —Kevin Myers 16:10, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Great, the color version looks much better. DrKiernan (talk) 19:53, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's clearly a bug in the template, and I have coded up a fix and proposed it at Template talk:Infobox officeholder #Spaced endashes in date ranges. Eubulides (talk) 20:36, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alt text done; thanks. I've fixed some of the easier alt-text problems but many images still lack alt text. Eubulides (talk) 20:36, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the alt text is okay now. —Kevin Myers 16:32, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, the new alt text is very nice. Eubulides (talk) 20:57, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

[edit]
Featured article criterion of concern are prose and depth of research YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 00:33, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. All substantive comments were addressed. The alt text is good, and the Alexander citations were justified. Eubulides (talk) 00:45, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Looked at the article and read the above discussion, I believe the Alexander source is being used appropriately. Also, just FYI, the editor who initiated this FAR is blocked until March 9 (for unrelated issues) so won't be able to comment until then. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 03:39, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • And it appears that the nominating editor has been blocked indefinitely as a sock, so he will not be commenting further here. I will be making further comments on the article itself in a while. Dana boomer (talk) 01:02, 15 March 2010 (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 YellowAssessmentMonkey 23:34, 16 March 2010 [10].

John Calvin

[edit]
Notified: Example user, ... Example WikiProject, ...

I am nominating this featured article for review because...

The inclusion of the statement that John Calvin was at all influential in the development of capitalism, democracy or individualism violates the Neutrality of the article and exposes it to abuse for the following multiple reasons:

(1) He lived almost 200 years before Adam Smith, who is considered to be the "father" of modern capitlism, which is itself a bit of a misnomer, since he did not use that word at all. And in fact, the idea of "capitalism" is considered to be much more of a post-Industrial Revolution concept, coming to prominence more as a result of worldwide industrialization in the latter half of the 19th century. That is almost 300 years after the death of John Calvin.

(2) John Calvin had about as much influence on Democracy and Capitalism as Martin Luther, John Knox, John Wesley, and Henry VIII. My point is that he was no more influential than thousands of other religious reformers of the 16th century. Why would he be given such credit where others are not?

(3) There is not even a citation to footnote this assertion that "some historians" make this claim.

(4) There is no opportunity for others, such as myself, to dispute the validity of that claim, or to posit how he may have even been opposed to "Individualism" in a political context. Remember, he was a theologican, not a politician. Yet, this sentence describes an economic and political theory, not a religious one.

(5) There is a current impetus in the United States among some political groups to overly politicize the education process, to rewrite American history, to emphasize that the USA was founded as a "Christian" nation. Texas State Board of Education has already required the removal of Thomas Jefferson from World History standards and required the inclusion of John Calvin, specifically, in his place. They are attempting to claim that John Calvin had a greater impact on the American and French Revolutions than did Thomas Jefferson. Yet, Thomas Jefferson lived DURING the time of both revolutions, whereas John Calvin lived 250 years prior. It would be akin to saying that Brigham Young was more influential on the defeat of the Soviet Union than was Ronald Reagan. The absurdity of this revisionist history then becomes more tolerable when a respected site such as Wikipedia makes a similar assertion (sans the Thomas Jefferson deemphasis). It then lends credence to the agenda pursued by the Texas SBOE to diminish the role of separation of church and state, the impact of Deists, and the role of Enlightenment Thinkers and instead substitute them with religious figures of prior centuries.

(6) John Calvin supported the idea of Predestination. This is not consistent with a view of a meritocracy, where one can improve their station in life. According to Calvin, one was resigned to the preordained destiny of the Supreme Being. This is what Calvin was known for. To put an unsubstantiated claim about his alleged impact on democracy, capitalism and individualism into the INTRODUCTORY text of this entry is itself being dishonest about the man's own impact on history. If even one historian makes this assertion, another sentence should be included to state that "Although, the vast majority of political and religious historians do not share this view." That way, people can at least not be misled by Wikipedia into believing the matter is settled. Oghmatist (talk) 20:48, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I would like to request a speedy removal of this FAR for the following reasons:
  1. The nominator is taking issue with only single clause in a rather long article. This minor issue should be discussed on the article talk page. In fact, it is already being discussed.
  2. The nominator has not indicated which FA criteria are violated. Hence it is impossible to take any action involving the criteria.
--RelHistBuff (talk) 08:17, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Concur with FAR removal; FAR is not dispute resolution, and a FAR should not be started over one sentence, particularly without having first raised it on talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:07, 16 March 2010 (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 YellowAssessmentMonkey 23:34, 16 March 2010 [11].

Barack Obama

[edit]
Notified: Meelar, Wikipedia:WikiProject Politics

This article was made a FA 5 years ago when the standards were more lax. It doesn’t meet the standards anymore and needs work.

The prose is not engaging nor of a professional standard. I see that there have been attempts to cut out verbose language but this results in edit wars and no improvement in prose. Attempts to remove repetitive phrases, which is routinely done in other articles, has been unsuccessful. Maybe a FA review will encourage prose improvement instead of resistance to improvement.

The article is not comprehensive. There are major issues that are not covered and minor issues that are covered. Attempts to prioritize issues, which would result in all the major issues covered, just results in edit wars with the loudest side resistant to any article improvement. I see that this was suggested in the talk page but no action taken.

Another suggestion was made, yet an editor said it was suggested a long time. With no improvement, it looks like the article has been lax to fix problems. For example,

I'm actually pretty neutral about whether it should be there or not. It seems the old 12-member wording was there forever, until someone placed a [citation needed] tag on it, so that might mean a long-standing consensus of relevance. Or long-standing apathy. I think some indication of the type of firm he chose adds to the article, and my main goal here was to maintain existing content while adding verifiability. Fat&Happy (talk) 17:16, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Shows that there is neglect of article after 4 years.

It is well researched in part but poorly researched in other parts. His Illinois Senate career is described as “bi-partisan” but this sounds like campaign literature. A well researched effort could describe his tenure in a neutral fashion. There are also other un-referenced sections and some references are not reliable sources, according to the WP:Reliable Sources Noticeboard comments.

It is not neutral. There are edit wars even for neutral issues with more editors supporting edits that are favorable to the article’s subject.

It is not stable because it is constantly under edit wars. Many are not civil, both editors advocating edits favorable to Obama and negative to Obama.

There is material that is unrelated to Obama’s biography. Some of it is about U.S. history but there already exists an article about the United States.

Lead skips around chronologically.

Sentences like “He returned in August 2006 in a visit to his father's birthplace, a village near Kisumu in rural western Kenya” serve no purpose, at least in the context they are presented. Again, technical requirements fulfilled (reference) but lousy prose.

Some facts are have no citation. The sentence might have a citation but some facts within the sentence are unverified.

Some phrases are redundant, like unanimous bipartisan. Is there unanimous non-bipartisanship? No, only if it is a one party state.

Outdated facts, such as $787 billion stimulus package (it is in the mid $800 billions). Factual errors like this shouldn’t remain uncorrected in this article which has so many editors contributing. Part of the problem is that some editors are extremely resistant to article improvement and tag-team revertion has been suggested to happen. There is a lack of constructive discussion or something that results in bad writing.

Questionable inclusion of sentences like “Various economists have credited the stimulus package with helping to create economic growth.” When various economists have faulted the stimulus package. There doesn’t have to be a debate about the stimulus package but unobjective, one sided reporting does the article a disservice.

Many sentences are tacked on. “On September 24, 2009, Obama became the first sitting U.S. President to preside over a meeting of the United Nations Security Council.” has little to do with the topic of the section, foreign policy. A good summary of Obama’s foreign policy is lacking.

Some paragraphs are a collection of poorly related sentences. One paragraph is simply two sentences stating “Obama is frequently referred to as an exceptional orator. During his pre-inauguration transition period and continuing into his presidency, Obama has delivered a series of weekly Internet video addresses.” This is simply bad prose because the second sentence has little to do with the first sentence. There are many ideas to expand on the orator. His use of the teleprompter. Other politicians’ gaffes when they tried to say that he’s a good orator (like Biden saying he’s articular and good looking or Reid saying he doesn’t talk with a Negro dialect). Or op-ed pieces saying he is a good speaker but lack’s memorable phrases like JFK. One can dislike one or two suggestions but the current paragraph is simply bad prose.

Some text is miscategorized, like an award (Nobel Prize) put in an image section.

In short, part of the article is good. But there are too many areas of poor prose and sloppiness. Was it needed is a professional writer who can work without editors with strong opinions stepping in and challenging every change. Some other presidential articles don’t have the traffic as this one so really good writers can work on it. Unfortunately, this article is not very good, just a hodgepodge of sentences linked together. When I look at the article, I see 10% written in an anti-Obama fashion, 40% written in a pro-Obama fashion, 25% written including undue weight details, and some important missing facts. I do not intend to keep criticizing the article, just ask that people improve the article so that it is to FA standards. It will be very hard because even some minor statements have resulted in huge fights, just look at the talk page. I am not going to be drawn into such fight. Maybe those who have edited the article should step back for 60 days and there be a call for new editors to fix this to FA first. I don't know any other way to fix the article without having a huge fight. A UT professor (talk) 01:10, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Despite the "explanation" on the user page, a new user 2 minutes into existence is here calling for a featured article review? Sorry, but this isn't passing the smell test, as we have seen this type of "I'm new here" approach by socks many, many, many times in the past on this article. Tarc (talk) 01:23, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, so I have added my name and your name to a checkuser request. This is a common tactic. When you have nothing logical to say, accuse someone of being a sock. The netural and better way would be to think of ways to improve the article, like those listed above. A UT professor (talk) 01:27, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But your argument is still wrong; the article has had six reviews since it was promoted. I suggest you read them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:31, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is obviously edit warring. This means that one requirement is not satisfied. There are many suggestions in the archives of that article and some logical ones are shouted down. I do realize that you, SandyGeorgia, have the power to call any article a FA. However, it is a shame that it is in the current state. Some new editors who are truly netural could vastly improve it. I will recuse myself from that task. Just because it had six reviews doesn't mean that every improvement or shortcoming has been discussed. A UT professor (talk) 01:37, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just pointing out that you don't appear to have read the previous FARs, and it would be helpful if you would redact and shorten your nominating statement, since the article clearly has been reviewed multiple times since it passed FAC five years ago. See WP:TLDR and focus on what issues you want addressed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:38, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The necessity of reverting vandals, socks, and other assorted WP:NPOV violators does not automatically destabilize a featured article. There is no altercation going on in the Obama article on the scale of, say Climatic Research Unit hacking incident; that is what is meant by "unstable". Tarc (talk) 01:42, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The most constructive response would be to try to improve it, not make accusations about others.A UT professor (talk) 01:47, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Main points: edit warring even for the most innoculous of suggestions - no is the usual response; poor choice of inclusion topics (major topics omitted, minor/undue weight stuff included; some references are flawed and unreliable (just a few, like Who's Who), miscategorized stuff (like the Nobel Prize under image), biased phrasing (like taking Obama's side in calling him professor rather than a neutral side of just saying he is Senior Lecturer, which is quite an honor); some wrong facts (like wrong numbers, close, but not correct); not very good prose (look at time honored presidents, like Jefferson and Washington); use of weasel words like "bipartisan" (just proves the editor can read a reference but selection of the word must under rigorous review to insure neutrality - in this article, just some carefully selected references are pieced together, which is not good prose). There is certainly enough interest and enough editors to do it right, so we should. This is NOT an anti-Obama rant - I voted for the man, but not this article. I already see there is fighting and I will not fight anymore. If you want grade inflation, let it be. Give this the title of "Best of the best FA"? That's like telling poorly performing students "have self esteem, hold your head high, you are the best." Let's work together for article improvement. A UT professor (talk) 01:47, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This summary is just a summary. How about putting things in chronological order (one of the suggestions in the long version, above). The constructive editor says "let's do it". The edit warrior keeps arguing. When the history of the U.S. is written, you don't write about the Vietnam War, then the War of 1812, then the construction of the Panama Canal, then Watergate, in that order. A UT professor (talk) 01:49, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're off on the wrong foot, and you're going to have a month or three of a stalled FAR. Stop typing, read the old FAR, read some other FARs on the page, understand the criteria, and then please try to re-write the long mess above to something organized and digestible. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:52, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Avi's #6 is the best written one. There were several opposes to FA. Some of the people opposed to improvement are biased editors. The faults of the article are many. Even though the nomination is long, someone who really wants improvement just has to go down the list and improve each point. I do not intend to fight so I think the conclusion will be that the edit warriors will insist on their FA and they will retain it. This is really too bad. A UT professor (talk) 02:06, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

None of the comments in this thread come close to justifying a FAR. The article itself, though obviously not perfect, is in pretty good shape, better than most featured articles. I suggest a speedy close. Eubulides (talk) 21:33, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Close this FAR ASAP. --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs/PRs) 01:44, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing note: This removal candidate has been kept, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.
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 YellowAssessmentMonkey 00:04, 9 March 2010 [12].

Colley Cibber

[edit]

Review commentary

[edit]
Notified: Geogre, Bishonen WikiProject Biography, Wikiproject Theatre

I am nominating this featured article for review because of its lack of in-line citations: Life has only one reference (about his father), Autobiography has only one (for a quote), Cibber as actor has no references, etc. There are many more books in References than are cited in-line. Additionally, weasels are used quite prominently: "colourful", "distinctive British tradition of chatty, meandering, anecdotal memoirs". Most images need sources (I think) and ALT text. Mm40 (talk) 03:01, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with nomination. I think all the adjectives should be removed, they are all sort of descriptive. Adjectives are unecessary and just make the page too long and hard to read. I would like to see more big pictures and less text, then I could just sort of look at them and guess what it's all about, like I do when I read my comics. Any facts that are worth keeping could be summarised in a neat info-box for anyone, like a teacher or somebody, interested because there won't be many people interested in a dead guy. Who was this guy anyway, he's been dead for so long, it's gruesome so there won't be references to find becuase his kids will all be dead too. - it's not like he's cool or his stuffs on TV, DVD or made into a computer game. Giano  08:27, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll see if I can fix the referencing at least over the next few days - I've formatted the ref lists and started converting to Harvnb, although annoyingly this is the first time I've found out that Harvnb has been deliberately broken. Oh well. - Bilby (talk) 10:22, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with maximum prejudice - no disinfobox at all, unlike many far more important articles (such as A. E. J. Collins‎). And imagine, someone refusing to force their article on to the Procrustean bed of footnotes (which remain optional), but using instead elegant Harvard citations. And using adjectives like "colourful"? O tempora o mores! More seriously, either we have Cibber's dates of birth and death wrong (11 June 1671 - 12 November 1757) or the ODNB does (6 November 1671 - 12 December 1757) or we both do (11 December, perhaps?). And is Virtue Rewarded the subtitle of his play Love's Last Shift, or is it The Fool in Fashion?[13] But anyway, per my prediction, who will be the first to launch a torpedo towards Ormulum or Jonathan Wild? Don't be shy. -- Disinfoboxman (talk) 11:26, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You want to delete a Featured article? Cirt (talk) 11:44, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm sure there is a word for it. Delete - remove, expunge, erase, efface, cancel, wipe out, excise, eradicate, obliterate. Surely we can't keep featured articles by a notoriously "abusive sockpuppet", can we? Particularly if they don't have the requisite density of footnotes, or have too many adjectives. -- Disinfoboxman (talk) 19:29, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem isn't so much the use of Harvard in-line cites rather than footnotes, although the footnotes tend to be preferred, but that the citations are incorrect, often with full author name, no year and no page. - Bilby (talk) 12:21, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "footnotes [are] preferred"? Who, one might ask, is passively expressing this preference? Notwithstanding, I have added some footnotes to the ODNB.
  • I would note that significant portions of this article are cited inline: there is a covering footnote ("Except where otherwise indicated, all details of Cibber's private life, as well as all role information, performance dates, and quotations from contemporary reviews come from "Cibber, Colley" in the authoritative Highfill et al., Biographical Dictionary of Actors, and have where relevant been double-checked against the calendar The London Stage.") and many quotes, etc, state the source specifically inline (e.g. in the lead, 'frequent criticism for his "miserable mutilation" (Robert Lowe) of "hapless Shakespeare, and crucify'd Molière" (Alexander Pope).'; or in the section on The Careless Husband, "As late as 1929, the well-known critic F. W. Bateson described the play's psychology as "mature", "plausible", "subtle", "natural", and "affecting".") No doubt these can be converted to footnotes, if desired, but the current formulation is more elegant.
  • Anyway, enough from this "sarcastic joke account". (Ad hominem for free these days. Better a sarcastic joke than [ ... ] ) -- Disinfoboxman (talk) 19:29, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm just commenting on what I've seen before, and I would love to be wrong as I prefer - and originally wanted to do - inline refs in articles. But I've seen a number of editors get upset over inline refs, as they argued heatedly that they were distracting to the reader. My guess, and it is only a guess, is that (some) people like me are willing to accept footnotes, even if we don't like them as much as inline, and others hate inline, so the result has been to use footnotes. But if I'm wrong on this, or if we're simply happy to use inline anyway, then I will joyfully help use them. Other comments re citations are below. - Bilby (talk) 21:17, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interminable response. Hi, people. I'm the main author of the article. I'm sorry people are aggravated by the referencing system I used. It's not wrong, though, and does not require being "converted over" to the "ref" system or to any kind of templates.The reason I kept it simple and non-technical is that it's a lot easier for users to add stuff if they don't have to f around with citation templates (I find them pretty unmanagable myself, and they must be a lot worse for newish users). It's not the case that footnotes "tend to be preferred"; please see SandyGeorgia's recent explanation at WT:FAC of the referencing required of a Featured article:

Recently, specific citation style requests are appearing at FAC: neither WP:WIAFA nor WP:CITE require or prescribe a specific citation style, so I hope reviewers and nominators alike will understand 2(c) of WIAFA.
It's not necessary for nominators to jump through hoops to write citations in a style preferred by an individual reviewer: it is necessary for the citation style to be consistent and for all relevant information to be provided."[14]

Read the whole, if you will. I ask the editors who are undertaking, above, with sighs, to convert the referencing in various ways, to refrain. You obviously don't want to do it, but think it's needed; I don't want you to do it, either, and will argue that it's not needed.

I'll go through those claims which I take issue with from the top and work downwards. First Mm40:

  • ""Life" has only one reference (about his father), "Autobiography" has only one (for a quote), "Cibber as actor" has no references, etc." No, you misunderstand the system, and don't seem to have read the footnotes themselves. "Life" has only one footnote; that's not the same as having only one reference. The one footnote explains: "Except where otherwise indicated, all details of Cibber's private life, as well as all role information, performance dates, and quotations from contemporary reviews come from "Cibber, Colley" in the authoritative Highfill et al., Biographical Dictionary of Actors, and have where relevant been double-checked against the calendar The London Stage. In other words, the footnote isn't merely "about his father", but is many references, as Ottava Rima points out (I think; he's not necessarily referring specifically to that one), and covers all the information in "Life" (as well as lots of information in the rest of the article). Merely counting the little superscript figures in the text won't tell you what information the footnotes cover.
  • "Autobiography" has two specific references, namely (see Barker) and footnote 2 (for a quote, as you say). The rest of the information in "Autobiography" is covered by footnote 1, the one you say is about his father.
  • "Cibber as Actor" is again mostly covered by footnote 1, but there are also quotations in it: from Cibber's Autobiography and from the Biographical Dictionary of actors. Shouldn't they have footnotes of their own, then? That's a matter of taste; I preferred to do without, since the text combined with the list of references at the bottom of the page, contains all information that a footnote would.

Etc.

  • There are many more books in References than are cited in-line.*

Do you mean that there are many more books in References than have footnotes (superscript numbers) inline? There's nothing wrong with that, you know. All the books in References are cited—as in used, mentioned, supplying information to the text—inline.

Bilby, I'm sorry my references annoyed you. I don't understand your objection that "the citations are incorrect, often with full author name, no year and no page." (Do you mean without full author name..?) I merely identify the work in the text, in parenthesis, like, say "(Barker)", and give full bibliographical information in an alphabetical list at the end, as I expect you've noticed. This is one of the standard systems in my research field; if the "Harvard system" requires years given in the "short notes" at all times, then this is not precisely the Harvard system, though very close. Anyway, it's academic and consistent. Are you discussing supposed shortcomings of the "short notes" in the text (which indeed don't have any full names or years, and aren't supposed to), or in the list of references which supplement them, which I believe have full names, years, and pages (except that web versions don't always have any pagination)? The entire list may not be perfect—I'll check later—since some books have been added later by other people—for instance, one unpublished one, which is always a bit of a nightmare to refer to. But I certainly disagree that "the citations are incorrect".

One more point before I'm out of time: alt text. Are we insisting on going through all old FACs, such as this one, and adding alt text? In that case, perhaps somebody would do it? I just don't have the time, and it would be a lot more useful, frankly, than messing with my purportedly annoying and incorrect references (which I have tried to show are all right as they are).

OMG, I hope that wasn't as boring to read as it's been to write. I'll have to come back another time and reply to some other points.

I remind everybody that, as Sandy also points out, CITE is a guideline that states that established citation style should not be changed without consensus. If somebody nevertheless insists on changing my references to, for example, footnote templates, go ahead, but I hope you'll be watching the article and fixing any mistakes which arise when new users try to adapt to that rebarbative system. Bishonen | talk 19:25, 19 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Personally, I prefer traditional Harvard inline to footnotes, if only on the grounds that I could never publish with citations in footnotes in my field and inline cites work well in print, so I have a lot of experience using the style. Thus generally I like the (Smith 2009, p12) approach. (I also don't mind MLA, but I have less experience with it). If it is ok for Harvard or MLA to be used on a FAC then I'm happy. The main limitations with Harvard inline (only useful for an educated audience, gets long with multiple cites, and doesn't work well where the author is unknown) are not really applicable for academic audiences, but may come into play with Wikipedia generally.
At the moment, though, the article uses a mixture - footnotes with Harvard inline, footnotes with full citations (only one left, though), inline in Harvard (occasionally), and inline that isn't Harvard or MLA in two styles (full author name or author's family name). I presume this is the effect of multiple authors. The last - inline that isn't Harvard or MLA - is what you refer to with (Alexander Pope) and (Barker). While I can understand a desire to leave out the year, (which happens using the MLA author-title-page format, or the occasional MLA author-page) we end up without page numbers, and generally this isn't a typical academic style. (As an aside, the year becomes valuable if the one author is cited for multiple works, but that hasn't happened here yet). At this stage my focus is to see it get a consistent referencing system, but I'm happy with anything that's acceptable here.
On an unrelated note, this is one of the few featured articles on Wikipedia that I genuinely enjoyed reading because of the writing style. I generally enjoy the content of featured articles, but this time I liked both. :) - Bilby (talk) 20:18, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I forgot to mention: my concern about incorrect citations was the lack of page numbers. I'm not aware of an academic format that leaves them out, although I guess technically they're just present to make verification easier - having the author is sufficient to avoid other problems. I prefer years to be included, simply because I prefer Harvard, but year isn't essential. Normally as part of making the citations consistent (to whatever format we want) I'd dig up the sources and add the page numbers where required. - Bilby (talk) 21:29, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image check OK. Perhaps they could be arranged prettier so that text isn't sandwiched between Foppington and Garrick? DrKiernan (talk) 19:50, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did a bit of ALT text too. Perhaps someone can review it before I do some more. -- Disinfoboxman (talk) 19:51, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I found it both amusing and accurate, which is an ideal combination. DrKiernan (talk) 20:04, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My pleasure. I have done the other ones, but was lacking inspiration. -- Disinfoboxman (talk) 21:38, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why is the account Disinfoboxman (talk · contribs) still on this page, when it said above its intention is that it wants to delete this article? Cirt (talk) 22:16, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There were typos in the formatting. Corrected now. DrKiernan (talk) 13:39, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, the alt text looks good now. Eubulides (talk) 18:28, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

[edit]
Suggested FA criteria concern are citations, NPOV (weasel words). Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (Invincibles Featured topic drive:one left) 00:17, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • So... has this article been moved to the FARC section, and is about to be defeatured, because of Disinfoboxman's and Giano's joke votes...? It looked to me like people were fixing the citations (insofar as there was ever anything wrong with them). Oh well. Bishonen | talk 00:39, 4 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • WP:WIAFA: Criterion 1c requires "high-quality reliable sources in a references section": Yes? What? Those are high-quality reliable sources in a references section. What's supposed to be wrong with them? Bishonen | talk 11:16, 4 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]
This is an excellent article, and it would be a great pity to see it defeatured. Can we have a clear list, from the nominator of this FAR, of the things that need to be done? I glazed over when I read the technical stuff above about the citations, but I'm sure they can be fixed. Tony (talk) 13:41, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure, the article is better now. My biggest issue at this point is possible original research. Reference two says "all details of Cibber's private life, as well as all role information, performance dates, and quotations from contemporary reviews", but there is information with no inline cite that isn't his private life, role info, etc. The second sentence of Autobiography is an example. The rest, I believe, is fine-tuning. For example, here's some issues in As an actor:
  • Which two theatre companies merged into a monopoly? They're not named
  • "He had still after five years" sounds a bit awkward; I suggest "After five years he had still"
  • "The Relapse" should be italicized at the end of the fourth paragraph.
  • "Papal Tyranny in the Reign of King John" has a stray apostrophe, I believe.
  • The three right-aligned images cause a large whitespace at the end of the section.
Well, it's not sacred or untouchable. If you see something like a title that needs italicising, or an apostrophe on the loose, might it perhaps be simpler to fix it than to list it? Things like whitespace are a problem, though; I think it varies according to which browser you view the page in. I can't fix the one you mention, because it looks good in my browser (SeaMonkey). Or is the {{clear}} template perhaps newly introduced, so that it now looks good for everybody? Bishonen | talk 19:35, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Mix of citation styles between inline Harvard and cite-ref. Choose one and make article consistent. Looks like there are still a few too many weasel words (great, best, etc) but I think this is not such a huge issue since we are sourcing from critics. Other than that, I think this article is close to being kept. --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs) 02:01, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • DelistHold Given the graciousness of Bish's response below I will try to find time to rethink this. DrKiernan (talk) 08:46, 1 February 2010 (UTC) The switch between citation styles is certainly distracting and weakens the article, but I'm afraid I just don't like the prose. The lead should state the years he was Poet Laureate. The third sentence says "plays for performance by his own company"; why not the less cumbersome "plays for his own company"? The lead is for the most important points; there shouldn't be a need for parenthetical statements. It's bad practice to use phrases in the lead which require clicking on a blue link to understand what they mean. The word "ridiculed" is repeated twice. Words like "mutating" are charged with deeper meaning, usually negative, while the alternative "changing" is not. In the first paragraph of the first section, we have "more insecure"; surely "less secure" is easier? "death in 1734, the, and..." should read "death in 1734, she...", but no-one's noticed because the sentence construction is awkward. These are just some examples from the start of the article, but the rest of it has similar problems of redundancy and awkward phrasing. The text is peppered with weasel words, which wouldn't be a problem if they were attributed, but it is a problem when their provenance is unclear. Of course, yes, I could have worked on the article, but as this is an unfamiliar subject matter for me, I'm not keen on making prose changes without first reading up on the topic, and I'm not interested in trying to work on an article when faced with obvious hostility. I also appreciate that there is plenty of material in my comments for the jokers to work with (Oooh, look, I've repeated the word "awkward", and there must be mileage in "ridiculed" and "unfamiliar subject matter for me"), but I'm just the messenger. The article doesn't meet the current FA standard. Of course, you can argue that the standard is intellectually bankrupt and treats the contributions of experts on the same level as popular culture dross, but it is the currently applied standard and, in my opinion, this article doesn't meet it. DrKiernan (talk) 20:23, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • If the prose is that bad, I don't think the article should be kept, so that's fine. I don't have any WP:OWN issues with this old piece, or any of my old work. However, about the two different kinds of citations, which are mentioned by several people: that's not a problem in my academic field, but since it appears to be one on Wikipedia, I've been meaning to change them. RL gets in the way, though. Confession: I always have a lot of trouble getting up any enthusiasm for working on articles I wrote long ago. I was hoping somebody would be interested enough to fix the citations the way they want them, but I certainly can't blame people for not wanting to do a job I don't much feel like doing myself.
    • If the "obvious hostility" refers to me, I'm sorry you think so, and I don't understand it. I've tried to respond to comments in a complaisant way. Bishonen | talk 09:08, 31 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]
  • I've gone through the rest. What a nasty, gossipy, two-faced, double-dealing ... The article is a really good read, and is nicely humorous in a few places. Well done. (One edit-summary query to check, please.) Tony (talk) 05:04, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the section "Other plays", there's a reference "Abel, p. 242". Do we know who Abel is? DrKiernan (talk) 14:20, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Abel..? So there is. No idea. None of the American stuff was added by me. I thought I'd mostly checked it out, but this is obviously something I missed. It looks like the editor didn't altogether grasp the "short notes, full references" system. Bishonen | talk 15:44, 3 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment, leaning toward keep Keep - Image copyright looks good, all images have alt text, although I'm not sure how useful it is to blind readers to name colors. Inline referencing is much improved, but some of those have jump links to the ==References== sections while most do not. Please pick a style and make it consistent. The original issue of listing many more references than are cited in-line is still a problem. I suggest creating a ==Further reading== section and move things as needed. --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs/PRs) 14:43, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    My comment has been addressed. Let's close this sucker as a save! --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs/PRs) 02:51, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I agree with Mav (talk · contribs). Indeed, I see much improvement with the in-line referencing - editors are to be commended for that. However, Mav is right that it would be a good idea and a further improvement to have consistency in the in-line referencing. Cirt (talk) 16:27, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the Harvard templates, and removed some of the sources from the references section. DrKiernan (talk) 17:21, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it might be useful to have a few more cites in the "King of Dunces" section and to name examples of contemporaries for the sentence "Some contemporaries regarded it as moving and amusing, others as a sentimental tear-jerker..." However, at this stage, I'd be inclined to keep it as it meets all the other criteria and these sections/sentences reflect the sources I have read. I also note that the FARC has been open for three months with no delists (apart from my own, which is struck). DrKiernan (talk) 09:53, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We're all done here, no? Reads fine. Personally I'd like a little more Popeian abuse quoted. Johnbod (talk) 03:06, 9 March 2010 (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 YellowAssessmentMonkey 23:46, 1 March 2010 [15].

Flag of India

[edit]

Review commentary

[edit]
Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology, Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics, User talk:Nichalp.

FA from 2005, 1c issues throughout. Could use an image review of the 22 images used in the article. Some entirely too-short subsections and even one-sentence subsections and one-sentence paragraphs and short paragraphs. Cirt (talk) 03:19, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments I just fixed the dab links, and added some alt, but came to the point where some flags in the article just didn't make sense. There are some significant changes in content (unsourced/undue) since the FA, mostly over the past year that need some closer inspection. Will get some kind of a look-in over the next couple of days. -SpacemanSpiff 05:25, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alt text done; thanks. Thanks for starting on the alt text. It doesn't have to be quite that long. I tried to improve it, based on WP:ALT#Brevity, WP:ALT#Context, and WP:ALT#Text. I hope this helps save you some work when writing the other alt text that's needed. Eubulides (talk) 06:27, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it will. I've only written alt for one featured bit before, and in that brevity didn't appear to be a concern :) -SpacemanSpiff 06:36, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just now came back and checked the alt text. After a couple of tweaks to templates (1 2) it looks fine. Thanks for writing it. Eubulides (talk) 04:13, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments The article is in need of a significant overhaul and isn't exactly of the "fix some issues and it'll get there" variety. A couple of us are attempting to make some significant changes, also discussed at Talk:Flag of India, so I'd request a week's time before the article is evaluated by reviewers. cheers. -SpacemanSpiff 18:23, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If work is ongoing, then it stays open, sometimes for ages like Wikipedia:Featured article review/Cane toad/archive1 and Wikipedia:Featured article review/Lake Burley Griffin/archive1, which were all effectively done anew YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (Invincibles Featured topic drive:one left) 23:32, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

[edit]
Suggested FA criteria concern are citations, quality of research, comprehensiveness (incomplete sections). Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. FAQ? YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (Invincibles Featured topic drive:one left) 23:23, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cirt, that is not a valid delist declaration. Work has been ongoing on this article, and the FARC period lasts at least two weeks. What are your reasons for a Delist, so the editors working on the article can try to improve the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:34, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with all of the FA criteria concerns stated in this subsection by YellowMonkey (talk · contribs). I am, of course, always happy to revisit when the article is improved to a satisfactory level of quality. Cirt (talk) 23:35, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is still an invalid and non-specific declaration. When moving from FAR to FARC, the delegate mentions concerns that have been raised during the FAR. That doesn't mean they are still valid, or that an autoDelist should be entered without identifying current issues when work is ongoing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:55, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just so you're aware, the search for decent quality sources took a lot longer than I expected. I've listed out six sources (on the article talk page) that should pass muster (let me know if you think any of them are not good). As far as the comprehensiveness and quality of research aspects, I just split out a lot of content that didn't belong in the article and we're just starting the rewrite, so these two issues will take a few days to address. cheers. -SpacemanSpiff 23:48, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

History section looks excellent. Incredible job by SpacemanSpiff (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 04:05, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Keep as a FA. Seems overly bureaucratic, specifying thread count, etc. But that is the government's problem, not the article's problem. Suggest finding a reference to the manufacturing process section where it states that 40 million flags made per year. After that is done, keep it as a FA. JB50000 (talk) 04:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - Inline cites throughout article and quality of references looks good. AFAICT, looks comprehensive as well. Copyright on all images except for File:Sarnath Lion Capital of Ashoka.jpg looks good. I question the non-free rationale used since the photo is of an object that still exists and could potentially be photographed. If this image is replaced or removed, I will change my vote to just 'keep'. --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs/PRs) 02:13, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've searched all over for a free image and haven't been able to find any. If the non-free rationale is shaky, then I can remove the image in favor of adding one in when we get a free image. —SpacemanSpiff 04:49, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I see some good improvements. Cirt (talk) 06:31, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A few quick notes:
    • Sourcing: the main sources used in the article are quite good and really the best available (I had checked sometime back). I am less gung-ho about some of the news sources used for some peripheral statements, some of which I find dubious.
    • Writing: fine overall, although it can use a third-party copyedit; in particular, the language can get a bit colloquial in the History section (which also perhaps overuses passive voice), and the Protocol section, perhaps unavoidably, can read like bureaucratese.
    • Comprehensiveness The history and symbolism section are particularly informative and well-balanced. The manufacturing and protocol sections get into the weeds a bit, but given that this is a short article I can accept that the additional details are okay to retain.
    • Images: Well illustrated and no licensing issues (other that the Sarnath capitol image pointed above)
    • Misc:
      • The Reference section needs an update since I don't think it reflects the current version of the article (and some refs. have incomplete information). Also some of the links are dead.
      • The article should mention that the flag is rectangular (!) and top-to-side edge length ratio. The latter is only ascertainable from a table; not sure what that table means anyway (what are flag sizes 1,2,..., 9?)
      • The infobox needs to be fixed to reflect that the flag was based on a design by Pingali Venkayya, and not designed by him per se.
Most of these issues should be easy to fix, and I'd be happy to support a keep at FARC even if the copyediting is to be undertaken later. Abecedare (talk) 17:26, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mostly fixed by SS and myself - BTW, could you please clarify what you mean by an 'update' to the Reference section? Does the page cache have to be purged or some such? Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 10:04, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am starting to copyedit this, so please bear with me. It's going to need a fair amount of work. Is everyone satisfied it's been fact-checked sufficiently? I ask because I found the text description of the Calcutta flag to be different from the accompanying image. --Andy Walsh (talk) 03:32, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I hadn't noticed the anomaly earlier, the flag image was carried over from an earlier version, but the text is new and the source I have says:
"The flag - red, green and yellow - bore on its red band eight white lotuses symbolizing the eight British Indian provinces; on the yellow band it carried a sun and a crescent moon to symbolize Hindus and Muslims; in the middle was the slogan 'Bande Mataram' in Devanagri (a Hindi script derived from Sanskrit)."
  • Agreed. We'll need to check the text too because I reversed the colors in the description to match our image. If that wasn't correct, we'll need to switch it back. I don't have access to the source. --Andy Walsh (talk) 14:58, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Queries - I've gone through the whole thing now. I was left with a few matters I couldn't resolve. Maybe someone can help?
  • "The Swaraj flag designed in 1921 by Pingali Venkayya, an agriculturist from Machilipatnam, was proposed as the flag the Congress by Gandhi." I cannot sort this sentence—words seem to be missing.
  • The article uses the term "khadi" irregularly. In the lead, "khadi"; in History, "Khadi-cotton"; in Manufacturing process, "khadi cloth". What's proper?
  • "The BIS then checks for the colours and only then can the flag be sold." Unclear.. checks for the colours, or checks the colours? What are they checking for?
  • "Officers of Flag-rank of the army, navy and air force." Since these are linked and referring to the actual Indian Army, Navy, and Air Force, should they be capitalized?
--Andy Walsh (talk) 19:38, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've split the opening statement to two sentences, I think it has better flow now, feel free to modify it or let me know if there's something missing.
  • Khadi-cotton and Khadi-silk are used to specify the type of fabric. "Khadi cloth", purely because it's difficult for a lay-reader to figure out what Khadi is (it's wikilinked in the lead, so I didn't add the cloth bit there)
  • I capitalized Army/Navy/Air Force
  • Let me know if you have any other questions/comments. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 19:40, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it's looking much better now. It still could use some more wrenching on the prose, but it's nothing I would delist over. Thanks to SpacemanSpiff and everyone who put in so much hard work to save this. --Andy Walsh (talk) 20:23, 26 February 2010 (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 YellowAssessmentMonkey 23:46, 1 March 2010 [16].

Darjeeling

[edit]

Review commentary

[edit]
Notified: Dwaipayanc, WikiProject India

I am nominating this featured article for review because it has multiple issues. There is a severe lack of sourcing for a start. I question the reliability of sources such as Darjnet and Zubin. The article is similar in length to Gangtok but much worse in standard. I'm sure there are a few cases of bad prose too. Also see the discussion that led to this FAR. Spiderone 08:19, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

done SBC-YPR (talk) 17:23, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for adding all that alt text. What you've added is almost all good. However, the alt text for File:India West Bengal locator map.svg is "Map of India showing location of West Bengal", which isn't helpful to the typical reader who may know where India is but not where West Bengal is; can you please improve that? (Please see WP:ALT#Maps for guidance.) Also, three one of the files still lack alt text: File:Darjeeling.jpg, File:West Bengal locator map.svg, File:Darjeeling.ogg; can you please fix that? Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 00:38, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've added alt text for File:Darjeeling.jpg. File:Darjeeling.ogg is an audio file and does not require alt text. As to the other two, they are not directly linked from the infobox, and I'm still not very clear as to how to write alt text for a locator map. Could you please help out? Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 17:55, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for doing that. The alt text for File:Darjeeling.ogg turns out to be a template issue; I've suggested a fix at Template talk:Audio #Minor accessibility improvement so we needn't worry about it here. To specify alt text for those two maps, please use the |base_map_alt= and |inset_map_alt= parameters of {{Infobox Indian jurisdiction}}; I just now updated that template and its documentation. Eubulides (talk) 19:36, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
done All images now possess alt text. Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 16:30, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for doing all that. Eubulides (talk) 18:40, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll basically copy my post from the talk page: What makes these sources reliable? Most of them look rather questionable: no author credits, no proof of reputability, et cetera.
done. All the above references have been either replaced with more reliable ones or deleted altogether. Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 17:00, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also:

  • Unsourced sentences in the "Economy," "Culture" and "Demographics" subesections (most which I slapped with {{fact}} tags).
  • Unqualified "and so on" in the economy section. I think that resorting to "and so on" is sloppy writing. It would be better to say "including" or "such as."
  • "Media" section is entirely unsourced.
  • "Culture" section has an undue weight on foods, mostly unsourced.
  • Plenty more I'm sure I missed.

Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 19:19, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I have either sourced or deleted most of the unsourced sentences. The prose has been copyedited and upgraded in many places. As regards media, I could find no references - must the entire section be done away with? Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 17:00, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good work all around. If you can't source the media section, I would say delete it. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 04:48, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

[edit]
FA criteria concerns are sourcing. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (Invincibles Featured topic drive:one left) 04:11, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: someone has been working on this article, yet we have three immediate and vague delists which don't specify one singlething about what text is lacking sources or what are consider poor sources. This is poor use of FAR, and this trend should stop. The FARC period lasts at least two weeks, and as long as editors are working on the article, reviewers who enter an early Delist should be prepared to say why, so work can continue, and should be prepared to strike the delist if issues are addressed. I don't see valid reasoning in either of the three delists above. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Stricken. Cirt (talk) 02:34, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of fixin' needed still; there are numerous MoS errors and faulty citations; I left sample edits. WP:ITALICS are only used on journals, periodicals and newspapers, not websites. Author formatting is inconsistent. Page numbers and publishers are missing and some info is outdated (I tagged one sample). In one section I read, I found a grammatical error. I fixed several WP:DASHes, but the rest should be checked. There is WP:OVERLINKing. There were WP:ACCESS and WP:MOS#Images breaches. Conversions are missing on some numbers. That's my first pass; I'll check back after more work is done. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:12, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done, mostly. Thanks for the sample edits - based on them, further corrections have been made, and all citations are now uniformly formatted. Outdated information has been brought up to date. Dashes, access breaches, conversions and overlinking have largely been addressed. Please comment if any further changes have to be made. Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 15:24, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why is there a hanging citation at the end of the "Notes" section? Did you check the rest of the text for outdated info (I haven't read the full article)? There are still missing page nos (Lee 1971) and publishers (^ "Constitution of Gorkha Janmukti Morcha". http://www.gorkhajanmuktimorcha.org/constitution.php. Retrieved 2009-05-18.) Newspapers that are available in hard print should be in WP:ITALICS. Website should not be in italics, and accessdates are missing (^ "Darjeeling Toy Train". Theme India: Train Tourism in India. IndiaLine. http://www.indialine.com/travel/trains/darjeeling-toy-train.html.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:05, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
References formatted, hanging citation and book without page number moved to Further Reading section. Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 18:23, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What is the Falling Rain Map citing, and why isn't it attached to that text as a footnote? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:47, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Falling Rain Map didn't specifically cite anything, but was merely a general reference for the climate of Darjeeling. That's why it wasn't tagged with a footnote. Another editor has since removed the reference, and I'm not sure as to whether to restore it. Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 14:17, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, in that case then, it should have been listed as "Further reading" or an "External link", but I'm not sure it's needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:20, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification. In that case, would it be a good idea to restore it, out of abundant caution? This would involve reverting a previous edit. Also, are there any other outstanding issues with the article that need resolving? Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 14:27, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Featured articles are supposed to be comprehensive, meaning that theoretically, that link shouldn't be needed-- anything useful in the link should already be covered in the article. I will look at the article in more detail as soon as I have time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:36, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I took a quick look at the article at User:YellowMonkey's suggestion and I think, while the article is well-written and formatted, there are concerns with 1b (comprehensiveness) and significant issues with 1c (sourcing) clauses of the FA criterion.
  • Sourcing issues:
    • Most of the article is sourced to news reports, and government/non-government websites. While news reports may be acceptable for recent (say post 2000) developments, and government websites for basic statistical (eg, census data) and organizational information (eg, about civic administration and infrastructure), the article over-relies on such sources in almost all sections.
    • Why is Urban Management in Darjeeling Himalaya a reliable, let alone authoritative, source ? It seems to be a web article published on an online forum, and IMO should be used only as wikipedia articles are supposed to be used - to understand the background, and to locate better sources and information; not as a source itself. (By the way, the reference doesn't support the statement: "...Darjeeling was ruled intermittently by the kingdoms of Bengal, Nepal and Sikkim")
    • The Further Reading section lists several books, but only 1 of them seems to have been used a reference.
  • Comprehensiveness issues:
    • No map of the town (with or without the surroundings) ?
    • How big is the town (area) ? Any information on the GDP; contribution of tea industry and tourism ? Languages spoken ? Local flora and fauna (if notable) ?
    • The article tells us that Darjeeling is famous for the Darjeeling Himalayan Railway, but never explains what is special about the railway.
    • The article says, "Darjeeling is regarded as a centre of music and a niche for musicians and music admirers. Singing and playing musical instruments is a common pastime among the resident population, who take pride in the traditions and role of music in cultural life." These are quite generic statements (incidentally, not supported by the cited reference, [17]), and don't even tell the reader what kind of music is being talked about (folk, religious, Hindi film, Western ? )
    • The article says that Darjeeling is a "popular filming destination". Then it specifically lists a song from Aradhana that was filmed there; why ? If there is something special about the filming of this song (did it start a trend of filming in Darjeeling ?), the article should say so; else it should not single out 1 of supposedly many movies that have been filmed there.
    • It would be good to have some more content on how the British, Nepali and Bengali cultures have shaped the town (assuming sources can be found). There is some mention of this in the Culture and Education sections, but I wonder if someone has looked at it at more depth.
  • Miscellaneous (these are not determinative concerns at FAR; I just happened to spot them)
    • Use {{Harvnb}} instead of {{Harv}} for references that don't appear within the body of the text.
    • Why is "The region is relatively new in geological terms and unstable in nature, suffering from a host of environmental problems.[2] Environmental degradation, including denudation of the surrounding hills has adversely affected Darjeeling's appeal as a tourist destination." in the Demographics section ?
    • "Darjeeling town comes under the jurisdiction of the district police ..." Surely not (unless we are talking about a police state!). Rephrase to clarify that policing in Darjeeling ...
    • Gorkha leads to a disambiguation page.
    • "... only location in eastern India that witnesses high footfalls of foreign tourists." Not familiar with the underlined term in this context. By the way, the sentence is a direct quote from the source and should either be paraphrased, or be in quotes. (also keep in mind the 1c concerns and consider if this is the best available source on tourism in Darjeeling)
I can help with accessing journal articles if you need particular references; per this brief discussion at INB, there are surely better sources available than the ones currently used in the article. I have not commented on writing and formatting issues, since these are very minor in the article, and are not worth bothering with until sourcng and content issues are resolved. Let me know if you need me to explain or expand on any particular comments. Abecedare (talk) 05:42, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Replies and some queries, in response to each point above:
  • Sourcing issues:
    • Most of the information sourced from websites consists of post-2000 info and basic data. Could you please point out specific instances of over-reliance on these sources?
    • Agreed, will replace it with a better source over the weekend.
    • There were separate sections earlier for References and Further Reading, but since the former contained only one book it was merged with the latter. Should they be split again?
  • Comprehensiveness issues:
    • Is a map essential? None of Ahmedabad, Belgrade, Canberra or Washington, D.C., to cite a few FAs, has a map of the city: like the present article, they all contain locator maps in the infobox.
    • The municipal area is mentioned under Civic Administration as well as in the infobox. GDP information doesn't see to be available, will keep looking though. The significance of tea and tourism is generically mentioned; if GDP figures are found they will be incorporated. Languages spoken are mentioned in the Demographics section, while flora and fauna recieve a brief mention in the Geography section.
    • The significance of the DHR is that it is a UNESCO World Heritage site, and only the second railway line in the world to receive the recognition. The first is mentioned in the lead, and the second in the Transport section.
    • Work in progress, will be clarified.
    • Done.
    • Sources are being searched for. There is also a mention of this in the History section.
  • Miscellaneous
    • Done.
    • The first statement is not really relevant and has been deleted. The second statement, and the one now before it, refer to the detrimental effects of population growth on the environent and the town in general, and are therefore located in the Demographics section.
    • Done.
    • Done.
    • Done.
Also, the search for sources is still in progress, and I should be able to finalise a list by this weekend, after which I'll contact you for a quick review of the sources before beginning substantive edits to the article. In the meantime, please clarify the queries above. Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 13:20, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the responses SBC. here are brief replies to the main points:
Sourcing
  • Here are some examples of news, government, or generic website sources used in the article that should be replaced by more authoritative sources (the quoted citation number corresponds to this version of the article): 1, 3, 4, 5, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14c, ... In contrast the use of 15, 22, 23, 24 is fine in my opinion, while 18, 21 can be argued either way. The problem with relying on non-authoritative sources is that even though the individual facts may be verifiable, the article is likely to miss out on important details and context, and may get due weight wrong.
  • The issue is not with the merging or splitting of References and Further Reading sections. I was simply pointing out that better sources on the subject of the article do exist, but have not been used.
Comprehensiveness'
  • I think a map is highly desirable for completeness, and ideally for a hilly place like Darjeeling, the article should have a topographic map. But I am going to defer to other reviewers opinion on this point.
  • You are right that the area and languages are indeed mentioned in the article (sorry, I missed them somehow!). The article includes some mention of the flora (though the sentences are unsourced), but are there any facts about the fauna that is worth mentioning ? (The writings of naturalist Brian Houghton Hodgson, or books on him, may be a useful source).
  • DHR is not notable because it received a World Heritage site listing; it received the listing because it is notable, and the reader should be told what makes it distinctive enough to belong to that category.
Let me know if you want me to expand upon any of the above or previous comments. I am not certain of the FAR protocols, but I guess, it would be better to have any detailed discussion on the article talk page. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 17:02, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - FAR concerns have been addressed to my satisfaction. I don't think that the remaining issues described above are serious enough to warrant de-listing. A map especially is not needed since few other city FAs have or need them. -- mav (Urgent FACs/FARs) 01:39, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article has been thoroughly revised while at FARC, and the sourcing standards especially have been improved. While there are a few further improvements I would suggest (expanding the lede a bit for example; also not a big fan of the subsections in the History section; the Further reading section can be trimmed; and one or more maps added) - as it stands, I think, the article is worthy of being an FA. Kudos to SBC-YPR for the work he put in and the other editors who chipped in. Abecedare (talk) 14:55, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note THere is one "clarification needed" tag that needs to be addressed. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:19, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have gone ahead and removed the {{clarify}} tag, that I had added and that SBC-YPR had commented upon on the article talkpage. I checked the source (Dasgupta 1999) and the article reflects what it says. I must admit that the source description is a bit translucent to me but my interpretation is that at the time of Indian independence there were fears that a segment of the population in and around Darjeeling would not accept Indian nationality and would demand that the region join Nepal, but eventually the Gorkhas opted to ask for greater autonomy instead. Anyway, under the circumstances, it is perhaps best to use the source language ("Nepali nationality") instead of attempting our own "clarification". Abecedare (talk) 05:26, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep now that everything's fixed. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 00:08, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional Keep. I've been through the prose and it seems to be acceptable quality. It suffers from overlinking, and I've delinked quite a few common terms and other bothersome items. My only remaining concern is the image captioned "The GNLF flag", which seems oddly placed since you don't even mention the GNLF until much later in the article. This could be fixed by moving the flag to the Civic administration section or mentioning the GNLF at the end of the History section. At any rate, we shouldn't force the reader to scroll way down to discover the meaning. --Andy Walsh (talk) 20:11, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Moved the image under "Civic administration". GNLF was mentioned in the last paragraph of "History" already, I wikilinked it.--Dwaipayan (talk) 23:55, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, looks good. I think it is ready. --Andy Walsh (talk) 05:08, 26 February 2010 (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 Dana boomer 21:04, 29 March 2010 [18].

€2 commemorative coins

[edit]

Review commentary

[edit]
Notified: author and listed WikiProjects

I am nominating this featured article for review because firstly, it is really a list with hardly any prose in it. Secondly, half the sources are to a ad hoc website with no information on the author or editorial process, or where their base is, so it is not a reliable source. The other sources are all EU press releases and newsletters. These are neither reliable nor indepedent. If there are no independent sources, then are their any scholarly outlets that even care about the topic?? Furhtermore comprehensiveness. Some of the newer entries have no prose attached to them, and there is nothing at all apart from stats and description. What has been the public reception to these coins as collector items etc? YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 04:08, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Regarding list vs article: We've had this discussion about three times so far. If you insist, we can have it a fourth time, but I expect the outcome will not be too different; a small majority agreeing it is an article, and minorities stating it is a list or not caring about the distinction. Secondly, how are official communications from the European Commission not reliable? And as the article is about a non-controversial, entirely factual topic, I really don't see how the independence of the sources enters into this. They're officially communicating what's meant to be on the coins and when the official release date was. I also don't see what kind of scholarly outlets you'd like to see cited about this. Neither do I see the fault in comprehensiveness – the newest coins are not out yet, so there is no official source with their description yet. Regarding public reception, I've been trying on and off over the past years to find sources on that, with no luck; up to now, this lack was seen as too minor to disturb the status of the article. —Nightstallion 14:49, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Alt text done; thanks. Please add alt text to images; see WP:ALT. Eubulides (talk) 05:07, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I assume you're only talking about the two images showing the former and current reverse side, the map, and the five alternatives which could be voted on for the 2009 common commemorative coin...? All the other images are described in detail in the tables. —Nightstallion 14:55, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Those are the main problems, yes. One other coin image that needs fixing is File:United States penny, obverse, 2002.png; that is a purely decorative image in the W3C sense, so please use the "|link=|alt=" parameters of {{portalpar}} as per WP:ALT #Purely decorative images. There are twenty or so flags that need to be fixed in a similar way; I suggest using {{flag}}, which does the right thing. For an image like File:€2 commemorative coin Greece 2004.png, where the adjacent text describes the image quite well, WP:ALT#Placeholders suggests using "See adjacent text" for the alt text. You can see which flags etc. need fixing by looking at the Altviewer output: click on the "alt text" button at the upper right of this review page. Eubulides (talk) 17:22, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think I've made the changes you requested now. —Nightstallion 17:50, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          Thanks, that solved most of the problems. A few remain:
          • For the very first image, File:EUR 2 (2007 issue).png, it's appropriate to describe it in more detail, such as the central gold area and surrounding silver, the huge "2" in the Atlantic and the smaller "EURO" over Europe, the placement of Spain and the British Isles in the center and the map stretching to approximately the Russian border in the east; the overlaid stars and lines. The existing alt text "The new reverse side shows all of Europe up to the Ural." doesn't do the image justice and is not all that accurate anyway, as the map doesn't get anywhere close to the Urals. The 2nd image's alt text need not give so much detail: it can mention only the differences from the 1st image.
          • The map's alt text doesn't give the gist of the map, which is that the member countries consist of Western Europe south of Denmark, Greece, and Finland (which have issued the coins), along with Ireland (which, along with the Netherlands, has not). Please see WP:ALT#Maps.
          • The phrase "; see adjacent text" is missing for File:€2 commemorative coin Finland 2004.png. Likewise for the four coin images in 2010 coinage. Two of the latter coins are missing the adjacent text as well.
          • Alt text is missing for File:Euro coin navbox crop.png and File:Trichet signature.svg. Please fix this by editing {{Euro topics}}.
          Eubulides (talk) 19:00, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • The last two were only decorative anyway; done. Added "see adjacent text" for the missing ones, but for the 2010 coins which are not yet out the lack of a description is intentional, as the images are not yet the official ones. I don't really see why we have to reiterate the same information which is already in the text in the map's alt text, but I added a bit of info. Tried to make the description of the two euro backside more detailed. —Nightstallion 20:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • Thanks , that just about does it. You're right about not repeating map info in the alt text (see WP:ALT#Repetition); if the adjacent text already contains the info, please just say "See adjacent text" (if this info is far away, though, we do need to duplicate it). We still have a problem for the two images that are not described, though. How about including that info in the article text but clearly marking the images as being unofficial? Alternatively, we could simply remove the images. But either way, if the two images conveys useful info to sighted readers they also need to be described to visually impaired readers. Eubulides (talk) 21:17, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

[edit]
Featured article criterion of concern are reliable/independent sources, whether the page is a list or an article, comprehensiveness YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 01:13, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist per self YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 06:43, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as FA. I've replied to your concerns, and you did not explain back; I really do not see how these constitute viable concerns. —Nightstallion 09:47, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Half the sources are not from an official outlet but a ibiblio.org. That website's about section doesn't explain who is responsible for it. What makes it a reliable source? YellowMonkey (Southern Stars photo poll) 06:40, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Other than the fact that this is such an uncontroversial topic that this site, although not official, is still very reliable, ibiblio references the dates, which are also referenced in the EU site. Heck, they could all be removed, as the EU journal still references everything, but ibiblio serves to back that up. Reywas92Talk 23:19, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist, per nom, per sourcing concerns, short lede per WP:LEAD, bits of unsourced material present as well in the article. Cirt (talk) 06:43, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as FA Sources are official and very reliable. Article is as comprehensive as possible. I have expanded the lead a little; it's hard to summarize when most of the article is coin descriptions. Compared with the five other languages in which the article is featured, this has more info or is about the same. Reywas92Talk 01:08, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; I don't think a compelling case has been made that the article is not comprehensive or that it relies on inappropriate sources. The EU sources do seem to verify all the information, making the reliability of ibiblio not a significant issue. I don't think the article/list issue is particularly resolvable nor do I believe that the distinction is particularly of importance in this case, so I don't see a good reason to rehash the judgment of the initial FAC discussion. Christopher Parham (talk) 18:51, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist Per YM and Cirt. Lack of independent sources is the biggest issue for me but the list-like structure of the article is also an issue. -- mav (Urgent FACs/FARs/PRs) 23:12, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sources are still very reliable and consistent. The list issue has been discussed already.

Delist—Odd tone; glitches in the writing; under-referenced.

  • "but are not to be confused with"—ordering our readers around is a breach of the MoS, I believe.
    • Changed
  • The basis derived from?
    • Changed
  • The prohibition of changing?
    • Changed
  • "Additionally"—an avoidable back-connector.
    • Changed
  • Under-referenced.

I'm not prompted to read further than the top. Tony (talk) 08:16, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've been asked to return to review my declaration. I took one humungous parenthetical text as a sample:

"(These provisions forced Belgium to change its design back to show the original portrait of its monarch, as the 2008 update to follow the recommendations also updated the portrait, which was against the rules; the Belgian coins from 2009 onwards show the original portrait of 1999, but the new 2008 coin design as far as the country identification and year mark are concerned. These provisions also prohibits further sede vacante sets of coins by the Vatican City, allowing only commemorative coins for such occasions.)"
  • First, the opening up to the semicolon is long and winding; I'm still not quite sure what the "as" means, and there's twisting and turning to make a long hike worse.
  • Second, the "sentence" after the semicolon is incomprehensible and ungrammatical. What does it mean?
  • "provisions also prohibits"? Get rid of "also" and correct the grammar, please.

I need to look no further to say that this piece needs to be put out of its misery forthwith. Just how Reyway, Christopher Parham and Nighstallion think this is FA material is very hard to fathom. Have they read the text, even superficially? Tony (talk) 00:49, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see what's so bad about this particular parenthesis. Fair enough, I've split it up from two main clauses conjoined by a semicolon to two separate main clauses, and fixed the minor grammar mistake in the last part, but apart from that, it's simply a longer sentence explaining a series of events: The provisions forced Belgium to change its design back. Why? Because (= as) the update of the design in 2008 not only changed the design to follow the new recommendations, but also updated the portrait, which was not allowed under the rules. Therefore, the coins now show the new design in general composition, but keep the old portrait. What's so difficult to understand about that sentence? —Nightstallion 14:41, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It was written poorly, but I don't think you could have put that much ruder, Tony. There are some of us who prefer to improve the encyclopedia and receive constructive criticism rather than be told an article is crap and that it should be put out of its misery. If you had thought about what you said, the only way to put it out of its misery, as the article will not be deleted, is to actually improve it, which you do not seem very receptive to doing. Maybe it's not FA worthy, but I'm sorry that it doesn't belong in your land of perfect writing. This is definitely not the first time I have seen you rudely criticizing an article - and its writers - and refusing to even consider the concept of improvement.Reywas92Talk 21:40, 29 March 2010 (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 23:35, 28 March 2010 [19].

Cool (Gwen Stefani song)

[edit]

Review commentary

[edit]
Notified: Eternal Equinox, Velten and WikiProject Songs.

The article contains many unsourced statements, two sections containing the tag {{Unreferenced section}} and awkwardly arranged sections. For instance, "Background and writing" contains six small paragraphs. The article should really be compared to the non-FA Bad Romance. Wonderful structure on that article. In my opinion, "Cool" shouldn't even be listed as B-class. –Scarce ✉ 04:33, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments
Well it's been an FA for almost 4.5 years it looks like, so I suppose it's really no surprise that as the standards have been raised, it has fallen into disrepair. In regards to the two unreferenced tags, most of the Charts section can probably be sourced from the actual table below; its just a matter of actually putting the cites in there. Likewise, the personnel section can probably be sourced through the liner notes of either the album or the single.

There are a lot of other concerns here though; none of the images presently contain alt text, and the toolbox shows that there are presently six dead links in the article (one of which has been dead since 2007!) There are duplicate references (for some reason they are in both the inline notes and a general references section at the bottom) as well. File:GwenStefaniCool.ogg needs a better fair-use rationale and should probably be shortened (my math skills aren't the greatest, but I'm pretty sure that 10% of 3:09 is something quite a bit less than 19 seconds); ditto File:CoolCap1.jpg on the need for a better rationale. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 05:10, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A small point in response: 3:09 is 189 seconds, and 10% of that is 18.9 seconds - not much less than 19. -- Avenue (talk) 06:24, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, you're right; my maths were off. So that point can be discarded then. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 16:10, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

[edit]
Featured article criterion of concern are referencing, structure, images YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 01:03, 15 March 2010 (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 23:35, 28 March 2010 [20].

Hurricane Katrina

[edit]

Review commentary

[edit]
Notified: Titoxd, Golbez, ... WikiProject Louisiana, WikiProject New Orleans, WikiProject Tropical cyclones, ...

Three year old FA. Article has had unsourced statements for eighteen months, and I have issues about the quality of sources; I just removed one sourced to a conspiracy theory website. Sceptre (talk) 00:28, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Images need alt text; please see WP:ALT. Eubulides (talk) 03:47, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

[edit]
Featured article criterion of concern are referencing, images. YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 01:01, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist no effort being put forth to address anything. Sources have many dead links, at least one missing page number. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 02:33, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist per above, no one's even trying. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 20:33, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist, mainly due to sourcing. Not only are there a few unsourced areas and a bunch of deadlinks, but I have concerns about the article meeting the requirement for high quality sources. Several book sources are provided in the Further reading section, but much of the article is instead sourced to contemporary popular press articles. Other concerns include See also and External links sections that need major trims, a lack of alt text, and a merge tag that needs to be dealt with. Dana boomer (talk) 01:23, 19 March 2010 (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 23:35, 28 March 2010 [21].

K-os

[edit]

Review commentary

[edit]
Notified: Blackjays1, WikiProject Biography, WikiProject Toronto, WikiProject Hip hop, Canadian Wikipedians' notice board

I am nominating the article because I was the one who wrote and nominated it back in 2006. Since then it has barely been updated and I'm shocked that no has caught this yet. I'm a retired wiki user so if anyone wants to notify someone or a project who is willing to get it back in shape be my guest. The article definitely fails at the very least 1a and b and probably 2 as well of the FA criteria. Tut 06:04, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also please add alt text to images; see WP:ALT. Eubulides (talk) 06:26, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Media review
  • The image licenses are fine, but the song samples are not the subject of critical commentary in the article. The article just says when they were released. There should be discussion of how these songs illustrate his musical style and influences or capture key elements of his performances. DrKiernan (talk) 10:11, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Needs a major shake up in the source department. Lots of [dead link] and [not in citation given]s, and a third-party link within the text itself. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 16:38, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


FARC commentary

[edit]
Featured article criterion of concern are referencing, comprehensiveness for recent developments, media copyright YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 00:57, 15 March 2010 (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 23:35, 28 March 2010 [22].

Mount Pinatubo

[edit]

Review commentary

[edit]
Notified:WikiProject Volcanoes

I am nominating this featured article for review because it is no more a FA per current criteria. Extensively uncited. A photo gallery at the end. External links not properly formatted etc. etc. As I saw, the user who nominate the article is no more active.Yannismarou (talk) 00:06, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Media review
  • File:Pinatubo_evacuation_areas.gif: it's best to give a link or publication details for the original source for the image. In this case, particularly because the evacuation zones may have been slightly more complicated than this. Specifically, the areas at greatest risk (because they were on particularly prone slopes of the volcano) may have been given greater priority, or areas that were sheltered (by intervening high ground for example) may have been given less priority. I'm not certain the evacuation zones were as clearcut as concentric circles.
  • File:VulcanoPinatuboJune1991.gif: source is a broken link (and not USGS). DrKiernan (talk) 09:42, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

[edit]
Featured article criterion of concern are referencing, MOS/linkfarm, images YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 00:55, 15 March 2010 (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 23:35, 28 March 2010 [23].

Iowa class battleship

[edit]

Review commentary

[edit]
Notified: MBK004, The ed17, Sturmvogel 66, Climie.ca, Cla68 ... Military history Wikiproject, Wikiproject Ships, Operation Majestic Titan

I am nominating this featured article for review because...its been about 18 months since the article has seen a formal review of any kind, and in that time the article has accumulated some dust, so to speak. This includes a number of citation needed tags, a couple of dead external links, and butload of images that need alt text attention. In summary, I have reason to believe that the article needs attention on FA points 1c and to a lesser extent 2c. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:49, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments This is still a good article, but it needs a comprehensive tune up to retain FA status. I've had a quick run through the article, and have the following comments:
    • Some material isn't cited
      • This should all be out of the article body now, save for two statements in the infobox.
    • Some of the article is written in the passive voice (eg, "primarily to provide anti-aircraft screening for U.S. aircraft carriers" could be changed to "provide anti-aircraft protection to aircraft carriers")
    • I spotted some typos through the article
    • The caption "A look from the waterline back at the ship. Note how fine the hull is; this was a central part of how the ships were able go 31+ knots, but it also made them very wet forward in rough seas" is confusingly written - which ship is it referring to, what's meant by saying that "this was a central part", "31+ knots" is informal and "very wet forward" won't mean much to people who are unfamiliar with naval terminology
    • Some paras in the history section are a bit short
      • Rewritten, please tell me if this is better.
    • It's unclear what relevance the material on the London naval treaty has to these ships - this needs to be made explicit if the material on it is retained
      • Attempted to clarify by using a version by The ed17 (talk · contribs), let me know if this requires further improvement.
        • Seems OK now
    • The article has way too many notes, many of which contain material of limited or no relevance to these ships. Moreover, some of the notes are unreferenced.
      • Reduced the number of notes and those left should have sources, more or less. Is this better?
        • Some still aren't cited and notes 7, 13 and 15 aren't needed (the purple prose in note 13 is also out of place)
    • Writing that New Jersey was reactivated to "delivering the ordnance necessary for the escalating war in Vietnam" makes it sound like she was used as a cargo ship. Moreover, it's both vague and factually incorrect: while the ship's firepower was very useful, it was hardly 'necessary'
    • The sub-sections on the ships repeat their names too often - for instance, Iowa is in almost every sentence in the para on that ship.
    • Some uses of the term "enemy" should be replaced with the names of the national forces in question ('enemy' isn't NPOV when referring to a specific country)
    • What's a "Montana-class type torpedo protection system"? (this could be replaced with something like "the torpedo protection system planned for the Montana-class battleships")
    • "The Iowa-class battleships were among the most heavily armed ships the United States ever put to sea" makes it sound like the US has stopped putting ships to sea. It's also factually questionable; many of the hundreds of ships which have embarked nuclear weapons since 1945 had a much heavier armament than these ships, and the SSBNs' firepower is vastly greater.
      • Removed altogather.
    • "When commissioned these battleships carried a wide array of 20 mm and 40 mm anti-aircraft guns, which were gradually replaced with Tomahawk and Harpoon missiles" isn't correct; the guns were replaced with missiles when the ships recommissioned in the 1980s, and not 'gradually' over time
      • Removed altogether.
    • 'broadsides' shouldn't be italicised in "When firing two broadsides per minute"
      • Unitalicized.
    • The section on the Pioneer UAV seems over-long compared to the coverage of the other aircraft which operated from the ships
      • Shortened it.
        • The aviation section works much better now
    • The 'Engineering plant' section is heavy going for people (like me) who are not familiar with mechanical terms (eg, text like "However, at full throttle more power is developed in the low pressure turbine by expanding the steam from 50 pounds per square inch (340 kPa) to 29 inches of vacuum than in the high pressure turbine which expands the steam from 540 pounds per square inch (3,700 kPa) to 50 pounds per square inch (340 kPa)" doesn't mean a great deal to me; can this please be translated? ;) )
      • Removed much of the material, attempted to simplify whats left. is this any batter?
        • Looks fine
    • The 'Radar' section doesn't identify or discuss the make of radar the ships used during World War II, and provides too much detail on the AN/SPS-49 system. Technical details such as "The transmitter/receiver is capable of operation in a long (1.0 msec), medium (0.25 msec), or short (0.10 msec) pulse mode to enhance radar performance for specific operational or tactical situations. Pulse repetition frequencies (PRF) of 750, 1,200, and 2,400 pulses/second are used for the long, medium, and short pulse modes, respectively" could also be omitted in the interests of readability.
      • Shortened the section, working on obtaining WWII specs, will advise.
    • The statement that the USN didn't think about ECM until 1967 is questionable; US warships were fitted with ECM systems from 1943 in response to German rocket bomb attacks. Moreover, the history of the ships' ECM system isn't really relevant.
      • Removed entire section from the article.
    • The 'Reactivation potential' section is much too detailed given that there's an article on this topic and now next to no prospect of them re-entering service. Moreover, statements such as "members of the United States Congress remain skeptical about the efficiency of the new destroyers" seem questionable when they're referenced to a 1999 publication - is this still the case 10 years later? The section also suffers from weasel words (eg, 'This move has drawn fire from a variety of sources familiar with the subject') and implies that Congress has been unanimously behind keeping the ships, which seems unlikely.
      • Removed much of the section.
        • I think that it's still too long
    • The 'popular culture' section should discuss how these ships are portrayed rather than recount some of their many representations. Stating that news coverage of Wisconsin during the Gulf War is 'popular culture' seems questionable (and omits the vast amounts of coverage the ships received throughout their careers). Nick-D (talk) 07:59, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Removed the entire section.
        • Are there no sources which discuss how the ships were popularly perceived? The fact that 3 of the 4 are now museum ships and the 4th will probably also become a museum ship suggests that they're well-known and popular (it's not cheap to put a battleship on display).
    • I just realised that I didn't summarise my comments against the FA criteria, as is common in FARs. In short, my comments relate to 1(a), 1(c) and 4. I don't see why they can't be addressed within the period of the review though, especially given the enthusiasm and experience of the OMT editors. Nick-D (talk) 09:50, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Don't worry about it, like I said above, I have a pretty good idea about what's wrong with the article. The question now is can the OMT team save the article before it loses its bronze star.
  • Brief comments
    • There're a lot of issues that need to be fixed, but I'll confine myself to those that stick out in my mind:
    • The design history is too long on stuff that doesn't matter and too short on stuff that does. I'd like to see a good discussion of the constraints, especially for time, under which the class was designed, to emphasize that these ships were flawed, especially in their anti-torpedo protection system, which, IIRC was going to be revised in the Kentucky and Illinois.
      • Its been rebuilt by The ed17 (talk · contribs), let me know what you think of the new section.
        • Better, I think, but still needs to emphasize that the design was a case of good enough, and that they didn't have the luxury of time to optimize everything, including the adoption of South Dakota's flawed torpedo protection system rather than that of North Carolina.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:29, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The armor section needs more detail to disabuse people of the common notion that the entire ship was armored and invulnerable. Serious students know better, but that is the common perception, in my exasperated experience.
    • There's too much detail in the propulsion and electronics section. Perhaps some of that can be dumped into articles on the relevant systems, but these are places where the article can profitably be shortened.
    • I see references to Davis, but no Davis listed in the bibliography.
    • A better sense is needed of the changes made to the ships as they were mothballed and reactivated.
    • A little more detail is needed on the armament, IMO. I know that the subarticle covers that in good detail, but there needs to be a bit more detail. Forex there's no textual reference to the armored box launchers for the Tomahawks. I'd prefer to see something on the order on the amount of detail provided for Parsecboy's ship class articles. Oh, and BTW, I'm fairly certain that there are retaining clips holding the turrets in place, though I'll have to hunt for the citation.
      • I actually elected to shrink the armament section down dramatically on grounds that the material there is covered in much greater detail on the sub page. To be fair, at 122,000+ bytes, this article was big enough that WP:SIZE did factor into this decision, but I can readd the material if you feel its warranted.
        • I think a bit too much has been chopped from this section, but the armament subpage does certainly confuse the issue. Lemme think a bit more on what to do here. I think that we may need to put capabilities and numbers here and leave the details to the armament article.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:29, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think that my stash of Warship Internationals has much on them, other than some gunnery results, but I ought to be able to replace the hyperbolic quote currently used with some real hit percentages made during gunnery exercises.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:48, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • I agree with everything mentioned above but must point out that using the Military Channel as a reference is ridiculous. The fact that the Military Channel considers anything worthwhile is a waste of time. It's references like these that lead to the general public's perception of WP as an enormous joke.
    • Its been removed.
  • Maintaining the article on a constant basis would help prevent the necessity of FAR's and the requirement that this article now has to undergo a large overhaul to keep it compliant. --Brad (talk) 22:30, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • To be fair to the last point I do move to keep the content stable and current whenever possible, but I like to have those FAs I worked on rotate through PR or FAR(C) since this allows for greater feedback and helps reinforce a non-ownership mentality. We are all in this together after all, and its not like the FAR(C) is bad for the project or Wikipedia. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:58, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • To point out the reason why you're mistaken we can use USS Kentucky (BB-66) as an example. It was found to be in serious error several months ago because the given references did not match the text. But nothing has been done to correct those errors. A look at a cleanup listing for ship articles reveals that there are 7 Iowa class related articles that have been tagged for various issues; some as far back as October 2008. Those have not been corrected either. Furthermore, the last FAR this article went through the suggestion I made about not using the Military Channel as a reference was ignored and it is still in the article! I'm beginning to see why Gene is fed up and angry.
You may believe this is a group effort but I see no evidence of any group maintaining articles. What I do see is a bunch of people jumping in at the last minute to save an article from demotion yet still leaving behind serious issues. It takes someone with a personal investment in the article to make things happen on a daily basis and not ignoring them only to squeak them past a FAR. --Brad (talk) 06:40, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've been in school, I've been the designated driver, I've been the psychiatrist, I've been the marriage councilor, I've been the voice of reason for my family and friends in their time of dire need, and on top of all of that I am a wikipedian. I admit that I have been doing a rather lousy job of maintaining the article as of late, but I point out that their is no reason why I alone must be expected to do all of the work. Its my name that's listed on the maintained template, but our wiki-wide policy is to be bold, and quite frankly I rely on other people to fork over their two cents on the article by suggesting things, adding cn tags, uploading pictures, and all that to help keep the article current. My investment in the article was making sure that for its time the major issues were addressed and that those coming after me would have sources to check the information; if I had known that one or two things that I thought relevant would result in a nuclear incident I would have refrained from the FAR altogether and just picked at it in my spare time. I'm sorry to see that my approach to the article has bothered you so, and will take greater care int eh future to move more rapidly on matters on great interest to the community members.
  • Comment on long-standing conversion error: "Tomahawk could hit targets 1,350 nautical miles (2,500 km) away, more than 55 times farther than the 16-inch (410 mm) guns' 24-mile (39 km) range.[A 26][57]"
  • Go read your own note at the A26 link about this range, and look at the above and figure out what is wrong with it.
  • or just look at the fact that 1,350/24 = 56¼ (i.e. more than 55 times), and 2,500/39 = 64+ times; you wouldn't say "more than 55 times" if it really were "64 times", would you?
  • This really gets me po'd because it is more than 4 years since I added a comment about this very same conversion in this edit. Since then it has already gone through another earlier Featured Article review, too, hasn't it? Why is it still wrong? Gene Nygaard (talk) 22:54, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Of course, my comment was actually addressed to the earlier occurrence of the same measurement. I've looked into it a little more, and find that:
      1. My comment was added before this article appeared on the main page as a featured article. About 31 minutes before, if my calculations of time differences are correct, and depending on how well they had their timing down on switching articles at that time.
        • Does this strike anybody else as a strange time for those who were taking the article through the first FA review to have fallen asleep on the job, and not to have noticed the addition of that comment?
      2. Anyway, here is how my comment appeared, in context, back in 2005: They fire projectiles weighing from 1,900 to 2,700 pounds (850 to 1,200 kg) at a maximum speed of 2,690 [[ft/s]] (820 [[m/s]]) up to 24 miles (39 km)<!--I find it unlikely that this range would be in statute miles. Source?-->. At maximum range the projectile spends almost 1½ minutes in flight.
      3. My comment and those two sentences in their entirety remained exactly that way for about a year and three months after the article appeared on the main page.
      4. Then, in another FA review (the second? third?), it was TomStar81 who identified the miles and removed my comment, in this edit with the edit summary "installing updated version". It now read: They fire projectiles weighing from 1,900 to 2,700 pounds (850 to 1,200 kg) at a maximum speed of 2,690 [[ft/s]] (820 [[m/s]]) up to 24 nautical miles (39 km). At maximum range the projectile spends almost 1½ minutes in flight.
        • However, though TomStar81 did identify the miles as nautical, he unexplicably left the "39 km" as it was.
          • Maybe he just figured that sea miles are the same thing as land miles, just measured over water? Can't figure out why he would identify them as nautical miles, and remove my comment that they weren't likely to be the statute miles implicit in the conersion, without fixing the conversion.
      5. So then TomStar81's mismatched, not-in-agreement units stayed in the article for another year and ten months until Jan 2009, when anonymous editor User:75.18.123.60 changed it,[24] with no discussion on the talk page and no edit summary other than an automatically generated section header:
        24 nautical miles (39 km) → 20 miles (32 km)
        • That's how it remains now.
        • Note that the numbers were not in agreement before this edit. If any editor can come in and try to make them agree, that's a good thing. Of course, those who are most interested in the article should be watching, and ask themselves if the change was made in the right direction, or if the correct number was thrown out and the wrong one retained.
        • But that isn't what happened here. We had an anonymous editor coming in, and at his/her whim, with no discussion on the talk page and no references added and no explanation in the edit summary, changing both numbers, and changing back from nautical miles to statute miles as well. That has to be part of the maintenance Brad talked about above: "Maintaining the article on a constant basis would help prevent the necessity of FAR's and the requirement that this article now has to undergo a large overhaul to keep it compliant." But once again, the main contributors to this article were asleep on the job, negligent in keeping track of what was being done to the article.
      6. Note, of course, that this is just the tip of the iceberg with respect to the problems with ambiguous units in this article. Generalize the lessons learned, and review all of the ambiguous units of measure carefully, making sure that each is properly identified. Gene Nygaard (talk) 04:28, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've solved the matter altogather by simply removing every instance of measurement. Now we do not have to worry about incorrect conversions in the article's weaponry sections becuase there are none.
      • You haven't solved anything at all. You removed them with an edit summary saying "Missiles: trim, removing material better presented in the armament article". But that at most only transfers the problem, to a page incorporated by reference here. And nothing has done to fix the same or worse problems on that subpage--Talk:Armament of the Iowa class battleship#Miles problems. And since the first thing people want to know about those big guns, the most significant feature of these battleships' armament, is how far they can shoot, that's the one thing that should be included in the main article, even if the details are on a subpage. Gene Nygaard (talk) 23:04, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I agree with Gene that the range figures, and probably shell/warhead weight, are the bare-bones figures needed to this article. Therefore I've deleted the stuff about the gun weight and re-added the range that I'd pulled from Navweps.com earlier. I've also added it to the armament article to replace the BS range figure there as well. Tom, don't be quite so enthusiastic when removing data from the article next time; I had a valid, properly converted range figure that I had to dig out of the history. Dunno when I'll get around to adding similar data for the other weapons so, Gene, if you want to help out here, I'd be grateful.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:03, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • References comments - this version
    • Ref 20 could do with a better source.
    • I don't think ref 39 and 60 is reliable.
    • Ref 51 (hazegray) is not reliable.
    • Ref 55 could do with a better source
    • Ref 69 is probably not reliable.
    • Ref 89 does not look reliable.
    • Is ref 90 linking to a copyvio?
    • Refs 93 and 94: the ship featured was USS Enterprise (CV-6), not the battleships.
    • It would also be very good to get rid of the Global Security refs. Tom, I'm trying to rewrite the Design section in my sandbox, but you need to go to your library and start re-sourcing/rewriting/reorganizing the other sections. We don't need background histories on the guns (statistics would be better, leave the rest to the actual articles), and there are too many section headers for too short of sections. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 00:17, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Gotcha. I'll start digging through the university library and see what I can do.
        • I've pulled a couple of these out of the article, though I do not remember which at the moment. I lost library privileges when I graduated and now I can not check anything out, so it may be slow going at the various city and university libraries as I try and find print sources to replace the flagged sources. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:55, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. What with four (or is it five?) featured article reviews, starting over four years ago (it appeared on the main page in 2005, accd to the talk page), this article now has to be as close to "Perfect" as we can get.
  • The fact that an article under active FA review could go 33⁄4 days (90 hours) without an edit of any sort, not even somebody coming by to fiddle with the interwiki links, must be pretty good evidence of that perfectness. Isn't it? It was starting to look like there was nothing left that could improve it, until Sturmvogel 66 stepped in now. Gene Nygaard (talk) 03:54, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is always one more thing that can be improved. At the moment, I've been working with Ed's sandbox version, located at User:The ed17/Sandbox/Iowa class battleship, which is where I've been doing my fiddling. I'm trying to track down some of the books I used to site information here, but so far that's been an exercise in futility. I did take a pretty big ax to the article, just to let you know. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:21, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Just a reminder that you haven't done anything to the article in the past four days, and that it isn't your private plaything to do with as you please. Make any changes in reasonable, digestable chunks on the actual page, so that what you are doing is apparent and reflected in the history of the edits to the article itself, capable of being easily reviewed by other editors. Don't just try to wash over intervening edits and throwing in as a fait accompli in one big mess something you have been tinkering with hidden from view of those watching the article itself. Gene Nygaard (talk) 18:53, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Just another note: I realize that's the way you've done it in the past. In fact, that's how you did it in the edit where you:
          1. Removed my comment about statute miles, and identified those miles as nautical miles
          2. But did not change in the then-wrong conversion to 39 km
          3. Did not provide any references for making the change, even though I had asked for sources in my comment
          4. Did not make the same change in the range of the same 16-inch guns when it was mentioned elsewhere in the same article
          5. Did not take the hint and generalize this even further, looking at the rest of the uses of miles in the article to see if they were appropriate
        • Had you made this change in its own edit, some other editor would have had a chance to pick up on the problem and correct it. So just take this as a warning to do your changes transparently this time. Use an appropriate edit summary for each change you make, so it can be easily reviewed by other editors. Gene Nygaard (talk) 19:27, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strange that you would choose to paint yourself with the same brush. I didn't "ask" because I didn't intend to imply that there are any options. Sure, he can choose to ignore me, but that's it.

Did I forget to mention that it is User:75.18.123.60 who has provided the most accurate numbers for the range those 16-inch/50 guns in this article? Much better numbers than those of TomStar81. Had everyone not been asleep on the job a year ago, somebody might has asked him/her to provide a reliable source for those numbers--or just have taken a minute or so to find one and help the newbie out.

But those 16-inch/50 guns are one of the most noticeable features of the Iowa-class battleships. And the first thing everybody wants to know is, "How far can those big mamas shoot?" How can something like that have unreliable numbers in this article, after all its reviews, and on top of that, different numbers in two different places?

Now the important stuff: Were everyone not still asleep at the helm in trying to guide this article through its current review, somebody would have fixed those numbers in the article, providing a reliable source for them, in the 65 hours since I raised the issue in this discussion. It's bad enough that they've remained a mess more more than four years after the issue was first raised; sure, three more days isn't an awful lot more--if it weren't for the fact that it is supposedly getting another serious review of its problems at this very time.

So now the question is, do you want to join Brad's Brigade, and help provide some of that "constant maintenance" he called for above? Or at least, if not providing it yourself, making sure that we have transparent, well-explained edits to help other editors carry on that constant maintenance? Or would you rather fritter away your time, trying to help TomStar81 establish clear title in fee simple absolute to this little bit of unreal estate, so that he can do with it as his whim takes him?

Keep in mind that this is a supposedly mature article, one which has already been featured on the main page over four years ago, one which has undergone a zillion featured article reviews since then. It is not some stub article undergoing its first major expansion. Nobody should be jumping in at this stage of the game and "installing updated version" out of the blue, as Tom has done in the past even after it had achieved featured-article status. Gene Nygaard (talk) 18:11, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I find all of this a lot of sound and fury that accomplishes nothing. Can we spend all of this energy on something a little more productive? I've cleaned up the main armament section using navweaps for the data, something that could have been done years ago if anyone had chosen to be bold. As for the units issue I find that almost purely an artifact of using manual conversions rather than the template, a practice I've never understood.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:54, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
None of the various templates tell you if the miles you are converting are nautical miles or statute miles. None of the various conversion templates tell you which of the dozen or so tons used on Wikipedia are being converted; you need to figure out that yourself before using the template. Templates don't keep you from converting to less-than-optimal units, and templates don't always give you an appropriate precision in the results. And the one that takes well over a thousand template pages to work is so overwhelmingly complex, with contradictory workings with different units and a steep learning curve, that there aren't but a handful of editors who are really capable of using {{convert}}. Worst of all, that monster has trapped the unwary and thrown British spellings into thousands of articles using American English, such as the Nimitz-class article. I find many more problems with conversions done using templates than I find in conversions done without them. Gene Nygaard (talk) 08:11, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll grant that the convert template isn't the easiest thing to work with. It was only after using it many, many times that I noticed that you can control degree of precision, spelling and adjectival vs. noun usage. It's all laid out in the documentation, but you actually have to read the damn stuff because it's really easy to over look. Forex, {{convert|305|mm|3|sp=us|adj=on|lk=on}} will render as 305-millimeter (12.008-in) with links to millimeter and inch. And some of what you bitch about is the problem with the source, not the template. I continually get mixed up if Conway's is using long tons or metric tons when I'm using it and I'm sure that I've confused the two when creating articles. In fact I have to go back and update my older, and not so old, articles with what I now understand about the template. So I see the template problem that you've identified as a user issue, not something intrinsic to the template itself. I find it far easier to use manual conversions that require me to use a calculator and add the stupid non-breaking space between the numbers and the units, but YMMV. I keep a text document filled with wiki code for terms that I use a lot and I've got most of the convert templates copied there so minimize any extra typing. One reason that I can be so productive and minimize the tedious parts of article creation.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:51, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Round 2 Getting better

  • The Naval Historical Center changed its name in December 2008 to Naval History & Heritage Command (just as I wrote it) so all of old naming needs to be updated.
  • I see at least two cites to veteran websites = Not reliable sources.
  • Citations are not consistent ie: periods or no periods Should be period (example) pp. 171–189.
  • What does pp. 108–23 mean? from page 108 back to page 23? Try pp. 108–123 instead.
  • Date of publication missing. Should be: Newhart (2007), pp. 90–101. etc.
  • Update the "retrieved on" dates. Retrieved in 2005 doesn't give me a lot of confidence that the article has been updated or paid attention to.
  • Conversions need work: Knots/nautical miles need the mph and mi conversions.
    • I thought I removed all instances of this, was this not the case?
  • Conversions are not consistent and or missing throughout the article.
  • The article is overlinked. Example: Okinawa is linked twice within two paragraphs. --Brad (talk) 22:25, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was expecting this, it is a consequence of the removal of material that terms once in thier own sections that have now been combined would be overlinked. I intended to make another pass to check for this the day I worked on the text removal, but thought it best to wait for updated comments so as to reduce the amount of go-back-and-fix-it work that needed to be done. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:25, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm finding far too many occurrences of citations not matching the text. In the Service history section alone I found 4 like that. Since these troubles have a tendency to get "forgotten" I'll just keep on looking and tagging after I find some Pepto. --Brad (talk) 00:57, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I did not honestly believe that so much would be wrong with this article and I wasn't even able to check the book references. The most disturbing issue is the close paraphrasing from the FAS article used repeatedly as a reference. The paraphrasing is most apparent in the "Ships" section where in describing Iowa we have: On 19 April 1989, an explosion of undetermined origin ripped through her No. 2 turret, killing 47 sailors. which is a direct lift of the passage. Other parts of the article read exactly the same with a few word changes to mix things up. The second most disturbing are the citations given that have absolutely no content to back up the passages they cite. It's almost like someone went around sticking cites on things to make it look good. This article has serious problems and they should not be hand waved away like they were in the last FAR from 2008. --Brad (talk) 06:02, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Brad, the stuff from Friedman should be alright (I just wrote it), but I can't vouch for the rest. @Tom, I can't stress how much we need that U.S. Battleships 1935–1992 book. I can source the ship service histories and designs from my book United States Battleships in World War II, but only from the 1940s to 1976. Anything after that isn't covered. @Everyone, I'm trying to get the time to start a more substantial rewrite, but being at home right now means I am away from my books, and when I get back to university I have a paper and three exams this upcoming week. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 20:25, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Interesting development here Ed. I happened across another Navy article on BB-61 where it appears that the FAS page has actually paraphrased (almost entirely copied) the Navy article without (plagiarism) proper attribution. I find it unlikely that the Navy article was based on the FAS article. Therefore I now call into question the reliability of FAS as a source. Regardless, Iowa class battleship paraphrases another source which it should not do. --Brad (talk) 00:34, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Not to introduce a red herring, and correct me if I am wrong, but it looks like the chinfo link you gave is a copy of Iowa's DANFS article? I have no opinion on how reliable FAS is, but I'm sure a better source can be used. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 01:46, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • Yes, the ships section is currently paraphrasing the FAS article which was apparently ripped from the DANFS article. Still, the Reactivation potential section paraphrases the FAS article heavily and I'm not aware of any PD source that FAS may have used for that information. And I'm still finding errors in the article but I've given up on listing them all. --Brad (talk) 18:13, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tom! In this difference you are citing to the NVR but you're linking to the DANFS article instead. In this difference you removed the maintenance tag saying "this is supposed to be here" but there is nothing in the DANFS article on New Jersey that backs up anything in the entire paragraph! The DANFS article history ends after the Vietnam era so why you would use it for anything past 1970 is beyond me. --Brad (talk) 00:34, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Citation #[28] is used 8 times and references page 68 of the act. Page 68 contains wording related to the Army; has nothing to do with ships. --Brad (talk) 03:25, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • If this is the citation I am thinking of then it was actaully dead but not picked up as such by the internet checker tool; and the only number I could get when I treid to determine what page the amterial was on was 3862. I am positive that even for a US federal document there are not 3,862 pages, so I left it for later. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:35, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments (criterion 1(c)): It has been stated here that the "USS" prefix is not applied to vessels under construction. As stated by the Navy Historical Center here:

    The prefix "USS," meaning "United States Ship," is used in official documents to identify a commissioned ship of the Navy. It applies to a ship while she is in commission. Before commissioning, or after decommissioning, she is referred to by name, with no prefix.

    That issue needs to be resolved, and appeals to a few years of Wikipedia practice should not trump what the Navy itself uses. We should get it right. On a related point, I suggest that the use of the female pronoun not be applied to hulls under construction, especially Illinois, which was scrapped on the shipway, unless the Navy itself applied it to a hull which never became a ship. The few references to the uncompleted hulls can be rephrased to do without pronouns entirely. Kablammo (talk) 15:09, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:MILMOS states that ships may use the female pronoun or it, but that the article must use the same format through the entire length of the text (full text here). We therefore can not remove she from the article without going against established guidelines. Also, the USS prefix debate has no formal guideline umph to back it up, so at the moment the policy we have concerning ship naming proactices takes precident, and that policy states that articles should be located at the most common name, which for now remains USS Illinois and USS Kentucky, despite the fact that niether ship was completed. In other words, the status quo of the information is being maintained in the absence of a compelling reason to change it, although I will take the suggestions you offer under advisement. TomStar81 (Talk) 20:38, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure the "USS [name]" construct is the most common, and Google results are useless given the number of sites relying on Wikipedia. Wikipedia guidelines and policies are not a substitute for reliable sources, and the US Navy source indicates these would not be classified as "USS". We can no more make them United States Ships than we can make all British liners Royal Mail Ships. And neither of these was ever a ship; Kentucky was a hull, and Illinois was not even that. To remove the "USS" from the names of these vessels would do no damage to a fine article. Kablammo (talk) 21:10, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see that DANFS does use the female pronoun for Kentucky. ("Her" hull actually got wet-- not sure that makes a difference.) Kablammo (talk) 21:58, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The revelvent guidelines for the presence of USS are found at Wikipedia:Naming conventions, which states in part that "Articles are normally titled using the most common English-language name of the subject of the article." More over, as noted on the same guideline page, the "...practice of using specialized names is often controversial, and should not be adopted unless it produces clear benefits outweighing the use of common names," and that "...the choice of title is not dependent on whether a name is 'right' in a moral or political sense." Lastly, as note at the page, "if an article name has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should not be changed." A discussion concerning this interesting nit pick is underway at WT:SHIPS, I suggest that the conversation be condense on thier talk page and kept off this page until such time as a clear consensus emerges for a change in the names, such as they were. Until that time, WP:NAME takes pressidence for both Illinois and Kentucky, unless a consensus of the majority of the editors at FAR feel that such a change is both necessary and warranted for the purpose of maintaining the article's featured status. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:00, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Where we disagree is the statement that the "USS" name is the most common-- I see no evidence of that. If anything, the "USS" is more specialized than the actual (state) name for the projected vessels. I have posted on the ship project page, but the issue is relevant to criterion 1(c) here as well. Kablammo (talk) 00:23, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question - what is the status of the rest of the article? I see many tags from Brad101 (talk · contribs) - are these being addressed, or is someone waiting for a source to come through inter-library loan so they can address these? —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 20:16, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've been addressing them on the weekends since milhist activity is usually low saturday and sunday, however the last time I went to work on the article you were editting it ed, and I did not want to cause an edit conflict, so I waited until today to do that. As for the other part of your question: I'm unable to check books out from the library, and I've lost my UTEP computer lab privelages, so I was going to use my laptop in the library to add information from some of the library books to help some parts of the article, but the week I went to do that my hard drive died. I should be getting the laptop back sometime this week, so you should see some level of additional material in the article then. I the mean time I am attempting to locate a book of mine that has class statistics for the article infobox material. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:15, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment isn't this practice that wp:ships has to put ALL of the older FA through FAR a bit excessive? There are hundreds of FAs that are in much poorer shape than a well-crafted 1.5 years old FA such as this. Putting every single FA such as this through FAR only takes time away from FARing those articles that do really need it. Nergaal (talk) 01:56, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conversion to BBG I consulted a Garzke and Dulin book printed 1976 which claims that the entire class was considered for conversion to guided missile battleships. This is only mentioned as applying to Illinois and Kentucky. This needs to be clarified. --Brad (talk) 22:47, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm going from memory here, but I recall that at the time of the reactivation of USS New Jersey for service in the 600-ship navy there were a number of ideas being floated around for conversions to the battleships; one of which involved the removal of a turret to allow for the installation of a 48-cell vls launcher for increased missile capability. I'll have a look at stillwell's New Jersey book on Monday, he covers the reactivation period so I ought to able to come up with something. For the hell of it, I'll check the naval publications of All Hands as well, maybe there's something in their about the proposal as well. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:52, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clarify tag The clarify tag that I placed in the article here was in reference to a conversation on the talk page that disputed the statement. If you can read the entire thread on the talk page without falling asleep or committing suicide there appears to have been some argument over the reliability of the source. With all of the argument and other comments made, maybe it would be best to just remove the statement about the ships moving sideways when firing a broadside. --Brad (talk) 08:17, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • I'm attempting find sources for the armor section, since mine have been called into question; however, I am displaced at the moment and as such am having a hard time locating info for this area. I think to think that I have been addressing the issues in the article, although I guess from your comment I am not doing a good job with that am I? TomStar81 (Talk) 01:27, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a major problem, the speed of the article as it's just cooking away, and it's not like it's taking up reviewing resources or anything YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 00:21, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well it's been around for a while and things have petered out and the few recent changes have mostly being deleting stuff that is unsourced, so I moved it down to refocus things, hopefully YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 00:51, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some final comments before I likely ask for a delist. Although there has been some good progress to repair the article it has in fact gone through several large "chop-outs" of information based on not having references for them. This isn't exactly the right way to go as now the article is not comprehensive enough. Overall I see a lack of initiative to gather reliable sources which have been pointed out as readily available. --Brad (talk) 22:28, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

[edit]
Featured article criterion of concern are referencing/quality of research/sources, citations, comprehensiveness, images, focus, MOS (mostly units/numbers) YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 00:51, 15 March 2010 (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 00:37, 26 March 2010 [25].

USS Bridgeport (AD-10)

[edit]

Review commentary

[edit]
Notified: WPSHIPS, MILHIST, WT:WIAFA, User:Bellhalla (notified by e-mail, user appears to be retired)

I am nominating this featured article for review because over 50% of it is copied word-for-word from DANFS. An extensive discussion on the issue of FAs that are copies of other sources reached no consensus about the issue in general, but in the case of this specific article it's pretty clear that this article is not among the best work in the encyclopedia. It needs a good deal of research and rewriting to be a decent article. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 23:25, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Motion to close Nominator cites no FAR grounds for initiating the review other than DANFS issues, which are not covered by the current featured article criteria. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:35, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:WIAFA starts "A featured article exemplifies our very best work" (emphasis mine). Ucucha 23:40, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • You obviously missed the line on the page that reads Nominators must specify the featured article criteria that are at issue and should propose remedies. The ideal review would address the issues raised and close with no change in status. From where I sit, this article meets criteria 1a, 1b, 1c, 1d, 1e, 2a, 2b, 2c, 3, and 4, with nothing left for want. List some criteria under which you claim the article's featured status must be reconsidered on this page and I'll strike my motion to close, but as it stands now this is nothing more that a bad faith nomination made with no effort to cite actual grounds for delisting. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:48, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Why do you believe the first sentence of WP:Featured article criteria is not part of the featured article criteria? (And note that I haven't actually expressed an opinion on this issue, or on this particular article.) Ucucha 23:53, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Elementary: Its subject to interpretation, and thus can never be expected to hold any substantial weight in an FAR. Cite grounds that can be addressed to run an FAR, that's the rule, and this FAR doesn't do that. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:58, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • Tom, did you even look at the extensive discussion? The grounds are that the article is crappy writing and crappy research, and does not exemplify good work. Saying "but it's not in the criteria :(" is missing the forest for the trees, it's looking at the letter of the law but not the spirit. The article is simply not a good article; if you want to defend an article that is a blatant copy of some other source, then explain why you think that is good writing, rather than wikilawyering. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 00:09, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • Anyway, since you apparently need things spelled out for you, I will say here that the reasons I am technically challenging the article are 1a and 1c. It is not good writing (copy-pasting is lazy writing, and plus the writing that was copied and pasted is archaic and stilted), and since it is just a copy of one source it is clearly not well-researched. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 00:14, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Although I strongly disagree with Rjanag on whether incorporation of PD/free text is "lazy", the incorporated writing really does suck by any modern standards of phrasing. And indeed there are few to absolutely no additional sources that corroborate what is in the copied text, so then either quote it or look it up somewhere else to be sure it's true. My big problem with the presentation though is that the footnotes don't say "copied exact text", thus they present the appearance that they are a further supporting source, rather than a verbatim copy of a synthesis work. I feel this can be misleading and thus not representative of "best work". The "copied from DANFS" ref should be merged with the "DANFS" note at the very least. Franamax (talk) 00:50, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The writing isn't anything which a copyedit couldn't fix, but the heavy reliance on DANFS as a source is a very big problem in my view. While DANFS entries are typically comprehensive, they're not neutral (they're written and published by the US Navy) and can omit or gloss over topics which are considered embarrassing to the USN or personnel involved with the ship. Nick-D (talk) 03:14, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - are we (the Ships project) going to be so protective of the FAs under our scope as to call for a procedural close? Yes, the prose needs work. I disagree with Rjanag that it isn't well-researched, but only because this particular ocean liner/destroyer tender is an obscure ship; if it is judged by the community in a FAR that using DANFS so heavily in this instance is not good research, then this article should lose its star. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 03:31, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment/Endorse views of Nick-D and Ed. DANFS entry-based articles need to be carefully checked to make sure that they don't gloss over important historical events. Endorse Ed's view re this particular article. 203.97.106.191 (talk) 20:25, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Plagiarism debate aside, it is not appropriate for over half of an entire article (let alone an FA) to be sourced solely to a single source. (Note that I supported the article's FAC back in early 2008, but I guess I didn't really consider it back then.) –Juliancolton | Talk 02:08, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not necessarily inappropriate to have an article heavily based on one source, if it's a good source and if the points it supports are not in dispute among reliable sources. This same topic came up quite recently at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Samuel Adams/archive1, with the main complaint being "over-reliance on one single book", and the consensus so far is that that is a frivolous nomination. Eubulides (talk) 03:24, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Numerous people have already commented above on why DANFS is not necessarily "a good source". Plus, the issue here is not just single-sourcing, it's also the blatant copy-pasting—if you want you can say "well there's no consensus that that's bad", but there's also no consensus that it's ok (if anything, the discussion that I linked at the top of this nom ended with no real conclusion), so this article should be judged on its own merits, which are quite poor. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 03:35, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • But what if there are no other sources? Looking at Google Books, I can't find anything that goes beyond DANFS. It may be a poor source, but in this case I think it's a little different. For one, this seems to be more detailed than many warships of much greater importance (not sure why; maybe the navy writer had an unhealthy interest/obsession with destroyer tenders?). Second, there seem to be no other sources. If there were, I'm sure Bellhalla would have found them (I mean, just look at the variety of sources in SS Kroonland, for example). —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 04:06, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments update I've added the alt text to the photos and removed one photo that added little value to the article. I've updated all of the "retrieved on" dates as well. There is one online reference used which results now in a deadlink and I've not been able to find suitable material to replace it. All four of the listed printed sources outside of the DANFS material are not available to me within my local library network so I cannot verify them. With all of that in mind no one has yet proven this article is not well researched. Simply claiming it isn't, doesn't make it so. I do personally feel that pasted PD text should not be part of a FA but the cry of "It's not a requirement!" used throughout the FA processes here seems to say that this article in it's current state is acceptable. --Brad (talk) 18:09, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

[edit]
Featured article criterion of concern are quality/depth of research, prose. YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 00:10, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist No substantive improvements to the article during FAR period, apparently no one has adopted it. Quality of research and writing is poor, and as I stated above I do not believe copy-paste jobs represent the encyclopedia's best content. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 00:33, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article needs rewriting but overall I do not see any outstanding problems that warrant a delisting. There are many other FA's that are in worse condition. --Brad (talk) 19:03, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • No offense intended, but have you read WP:OTHERSTUFF? And if there are FAs in worse condition, could you show me a few examples? rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 22:51, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Whether other FAs are better or worse doesn't matter - what matters is whether this article meets the criteria. Brad, by stating "the article needs rewriting" what are you saying? Does the prose need work? The references? Everyone here should state specifics for why the articles should be kept/delisted - specific references that are not included, specific sections of prose that need work, etc. Please remember that copy-paste of PD sources is not against FA criteria at this point and so is not by itself a valid reason to delist - poor prose and not being a thorough survey of the available literature are valid reasons. Dana boomer (talk) 23:27, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • About "needs rewriting", I totally agree; this is not AfD, and no FAC should "need rewriting". About whether something's being part of the FA criteria has a bearing the FAR process, I don't agree. Regardless of whether an issue is explicitly listed in the criteria, if a consensus among editors is that that issue makes the article fail to be representative of our best work then the article should be delisted. rʨanaɢ (talk) 23:50, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per my comment above at 04:06 on 5 March. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 20:12, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I've seen absolutely no evidence that this article was not properly researched. This is quite an obscure ship and the author managed to make good use of what is available information-wise. Also, copy-paste from PD sources is not an issue per WIAFA so I see no reason to delist. Acer (talk) 22:10, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Once again, the first sentence of WIAFA clearly says featured articles should be our "best work", and I have clearly stated and over again that this one is not. (I'm not the only one who pointed this out; see Ucucha's comment above, and the previous discussion that was linked.) If you think this article represents Wikipedia's best work, then say so, but repeatedly giving vague waves at "not in WIAFA" does nothing to foster a constructive discussion. If you're unable to think critically about the quality of articles and can't do anything but cite bullet points of WIAFA, I don't see why you even want to contribute here. rʨanaɢ (talk) 20:58, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to get alittle loud when things don't go your way. I'm not replying to you any further other than to say that unless you can show me that this article was not properly reaserched I'm not changing my vote. Acer (talk) 18:57, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very weak keep - I really dislike that half the article is sourced from just one source, but it appears that DANFS is the most comprehensive source on this topic. If anybody can show that that is not the case, I'd like to know so I can change my vote to delist. Oh, the issue of using PD text; its use here conforms to established policy so its presence is not a valid reason for de-listing. --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs/PRs) 02:28, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please point to the "established policy" that this conforms to. WP:PLAGIARISM is a guideline, not a policy, and it doesn't say anything about FAs (it says copy-paste may be acceptable from a copyright perspective, not that FAs should include copy-paste text). And if FAs are supposed to be the project's best work, why are you voting to keep an article that you clearly feel uncomfortable about? And why the need to feel so constrained by established practice? Established practice changes, and this is exactly how it does—by identifying cases where the established practice makes us feel uncomfortable, and working to correct them. (Remember IAR: if an "established practice" prevents you from improving the encyclopedia, in this case by not featuring junk, then it should be ignored; improving the encyclopedia is more important than following some arbitrary guidelines that are no more than means to an end.) rʨanaɢ (talk) 21:00, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Copyright policy on the inclusion of PD/free content text. Been established since the first year of the project. The big issue, as I see it here, is possible over-reliance on a single source. However, I can't prove that and my searches indicate that DANFS is likely the most substantial source for this topic. --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs/PRs) 22:51, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • My searching indicated the same. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 00:49, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • But as I already said, copyright policy is not the same as FA standards. Copyright policy establishes the bare minimum for acceptable practice, it absolutely does not establish FA standards. Saying "well, it's not quite copyvio" is far different from saying "it's some of the best work on Wikipedia". FA criteria are not bare-minimum criteria, so I don't see why people want to waste time saying "but it's not copyvio!". If you believe this is some of the best work on Wikipedia, say so, but don't keep bringing up completely irrelevant policies. If you actually read the nomination statement, you could see that I never said this article violates copyright; I said it's a crappy article. rʨanaɢ (talk) 16:04, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Rjanag, it might be better if you simply allow other editors who are commenting to make their comments. Others who would like to know your opinion can read the above discussions. Just because you believe that copy/paste jobs don't represent WPs best content doesn't mean that everyone agrees with you (obviously, since at the moment you are the sole delist vote). If you think the quality of research is poor, give examples - what other sources should be used instead? If you believe the quality of writing is poor, give examples - which areas, exactly? Drop the copy-vio/copy-paste issue, because it has nothing to do with this discussion, except possibly indirectly if sourcing or prose needs to be improved. If these last two are so, provide specific examples, rather than just harping on the copy-paste. Other editors only keep bringing it up and quoting policy at you because you are so focused on it... Dana boomer (talk) 22:00, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • I never said this was a "copy-vio" issue, so unless you're trying to misrepresent my position I don't see why you're telling me to "drop the copy-vio issue" that I never brought up. Please don't misrepresent my position. If you wanted to say that you think the article is good work, you should have just said that instead of making irrelevant comments about the copyright status. rʨanaɢ (talk) 02:46, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist. Plagiarism is unacceptable in any article, never mind an FA. As a result of the extensive copy and pasting the prose is archaic in places, such as "... Bridgeport sailed for the Azores as part of a goodly company of ships" or "... Bridgeport supported the destroyers' evolutions through mid-June". The article needs to be rewritten in a more contemporary style. --Malleus Fatuorum 13:59, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist - Apart from the wholesale use of PD text, which I think is quite dubious ethically, I don't think this article represents our best work. Poor, badly worded prose is my main reason for delisting, and I think the prose needs a complete rework; at the very least, for crying out loud, paraphrase the damn DANFS text! Skinny87 (talk) 20:39, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist on grounds of poor writing. The PD text is all cited as to its source, although it should have been enclosed in quotation marks or a block quote. But the text reads awkwardly and is full of extraneous details of no real interest to the reader. As an obscure ship the article's reliance on DANFS is only natural and cannot be held against it, no matter how much we may look for multiple sources.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:52, 25 March 2010 (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 00:37, 26 March 2010 [26].

Action potential

[edit]

Review commentary

[edit]
Notified: WillowW, 168..., Diberri, Synaptidude, Tryptofish, Tim Vickers, Outriggr, WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology, WikiProject Medicine, WikiProject Neuroscience

I am nominating this featured article for review because I believe it needs some major work done to meet the FA criteria. This version of the article was promoted to FA status in 2003, but since then the FA criteria has become more strict. I noticed some of the following issues:

  • The lead does not adequately summarize the whole article
  • There are at least 10 paragraphs that are, or are almost, completely uncited
  • Around 20 images lack ALT text
  • Ref 6 is a bare URL
  • Refs 113 and 119 are not formatted to consist with other citations
  • The external links checker brings back 3 dead links
  • The dab finder brings up several dabs. Pyrrhus16 18:44, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This version of the article, which was kept at FAR in 2008, could be a possible place to start work. I remember working on that FAR. It looks like the article has deterioriated some since then. Awadewit (talk) 19:02, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've been unhappy with this article for quite some time, but I don't think going back to the old version is the right thing to do. It really needs a thorough rewrite to be at FA level. I haven't been enthusiastic about taking that on, but maybe the time has come. I recently did a major expansion and rewrite of membrane potential, because a lot of the background material in this article properly belongs there, so it ought to be possible to do quite a bit of trimming at this point. The main need, though, is to get a more coherent structure, which neither the present version nor the version from April 2008 provides. Looie496 (talk) 20:21, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I have spent the evening compiling a sequence of reasonable diffs between April 2008 and now. Nothing much happened until August 2008, so that is a useful comparison point. However, after that there have been edits which clarified, edits which removed sourced content, edits which added sourced and unsourced content, and edits which corrected scientific errors. I will try to compile my diffs on the talk page of this FAR (if that is standard). I broadly agree with Looie that we cannot use the 2008 version in a straightforward way to fix the present article, although we may be able to use it to help make fixes. Geometry guy 23:32, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I've now done this: see the talk page of this review. Geometry guy 21:25, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Without wanting to state the obvious, the lead needs work. Ceoil sláinte 18:20, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    This is because most of the lead was moved to the overview section in July 2009: see the talk page of this review. Geometry guy 21:25, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A, missed that. I'll limit my input to the process by shrilly opining MOS and prose, seeing as it is a techinical article in which I have no grounding. Ceoil sláinte 22:09, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

[edit]
Featured article criterion of concern are citations, focus, structure, lead YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 00:09, 9 March 2010 (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 02:58, 24 March 2010 [27].

Puerto Ricans in World War II

[edit]

Review commentary

[edit]
Notified: Marine 69-71, WT:MILHIST, WT:WikiProject Caribbean, WT:PUR, WT:USMIL, WT:WWII

At the moment (permalink), this fails 1c. Also note the new-ish change to 1c requiring "high-quality" references. Second, I'm not sure this article should be an article; can anyone give me another example of an article about the citizens of a country in a war? I can't find any besides Hispanic Americans in World War II (also written by Tony); otherwise, the only ones I can find are about countries in wars, like Military history of Canada during the Second World War.

  • Further comments
    • While I don't agree with Ed's views on whether this is a suitable topic for an article, I do agree with the concerns he's raised over sourcing
    • The legal status of Puerto Rico and its population should be outlined in the 'Lead-up to World War II' section to help readers who know little about this topic (like me)
    • When did the near-invasion of Martinique take place?
    • Was the 65th Infantry Regiment assigned to a division in Italy, or did it serve as an independent regiment?
    • The 'Notable Puerto Rican combatants' section is probably unessessary, especially as its unclear why some of these men are notable - eg, Fernando Bernacett, Clement Resto and Santos Deliz seem to have not done anything particularly unusual
    • Why weren't Puerto Rican nurses allowed to join the Army or Navy even though Puerto Rican men were being drafted into these services? (racism, I assume)
    • I'm surprised that there's no coverage of the Puerto Rican 'home front' - I imagine that German submarine operations in the Caribbean would have caused some anxiety and that USAAF and US Navy units were based on the island to escort shipping. Also, did the war impact on Puerto Rico's economy? Nick-D (talk) 23:56, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

[edit]
Featured article criterion of concern are reliable sources, citations, comprehensiveness YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 05:59, 11 March 2010 (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 02:58, 24 March 2010 [28].

Jaws (film)

[edit]

Review commentary

[edit]
Notified: Dark Kubrick, Wikipedia:WikiProject Films, Wikipedia:WikiProject Horror Wikipedia:WikiProject Cape Cod and the Islands, Wikipedia:WikiProject Sharks

As the article about one of the most famous movies of all time and that basically placed Steven Spielberg on the map, this article hasn't aged well since recieving its FA status in 2006. At first glance, there are three Citations needed and some others places needing references. Upon closer examination, the external links section in the box to the right shows that the article has a dead link and two blacklisted references. And, while not completly certain, the prose ahould be re-worked. GamerPro64 (talk) 01:57, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment in addition to the issues noted, I'm not entirely sure the article is "comprehensive". The "critical reception" is rather insanely light, with only two short paragraphs of reception, and seems to suffer from a bit of OR and unsourced bits snuck in). The references are not using a consistent style, and there are only four book citations, further supporting the complete lack of comprehensiveness of this article. Some of the citations are of questionable quality, at best. At this time, this article does not meet the WP:FAC. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:49, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

[edit]
Featured article criterion of concern are prose, original research, MOS, citations YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 05:49, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist while improvements have been made to the article, including a much needed EL clean up, fixing some vandalism, and fixing of the bits tagged with citation needed, there are still unsourced parts of the article, the reception section is virtually unchanged other than the removal of some of the OR, and the ref citations are still inconsistent. As such, it still is not back to FA level yet. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:55, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'll give this article a shot after work tomorrow. It shouldn't be too difficult to expand the critical release section and grab a few more sources. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 07:30, 11 March 2010 (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 02:58, 24 March 2010 [29].

Himno Nacional Mexicano

[edit]

Review commentary

[edit]
Notified: Wikipedia:WikiProject Mexico, User:Zscout370. For once I've found a FA where the major contributor hasn't retired millennia ago.

I am nominating this featured article for review because I think this article fails three criteria of WP:WIAFA.

1c.

  • "National Regulations" has no sources whatsoever.
  • Not one source is formatted properly. None credits its author, nor are citation templates used.
  • Only 16 sources overall feels a bit thin for a national anthem.
  • Ref 1 doesn't load for me, but through a Google cache, it doesn't seem to be a reputable website.
  • Refs 3, 5, 10, 11 and 16 are all dead.
  • Refs 4 and 6 should indicate that they are a Wayback Machine archive.
  • Ref 12 is indeed an AP article, but it appears to be hosted on a personal website.
  • Ref 15 looks to be hosted on a personal website as well.

2b.

  • Bare URL to Spanish Wikipedia in the text.
  • Musical score is in a gallery at the bottom and would probably better suited inline.

2c.

  • Ref 1 doesn't have a date. As mentioned, most refs don't credit the author.

Overall, the article needs a major overhaul, especially in the referencing department. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 02:56, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I remember writing this years ago (2006, at least). Yeah, this really needs a lot of work and I know my Spanish has become a little rusty. I would not be surprised if some of the links are actually dead. We got more resources at our disposal now, so I will try and do what I can to make it back to a good and decent FA. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 03:37, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Media review
Deleted imaged 1, 4 and 5: I will be in the process of trying to confirm a few things. Bocanegra died in 1861 and Nuno died in 1908, so it should be PD-old anyways. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 17:47, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


FARC commentary

[edit]
Featured article criterion of concern are reliable sources, citations YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 05:54, 11 March 2010 (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 02:58, 24 March 2010 [30].

Frog

[edit]

Review commentary

[edit]
Notified: Samsara (hasn't been active since early 2009), LiquidGhoul (hasn't been active since late 2009), Joyous!, Amphibians and Reptiles

I am nominating this featured article for review because of a lack of in-line references (1c) and poorly formatted citations (2c). There have been fact tags present in the article since 2008. Images lack alt text (3) and the lead could stand to be expanded (2a). There are at least two dead links and multiple dabs (see toolbox for links). Dana boomer (talk) 12:40, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See also the discussion at WT:FAR that led up to this nomination. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:02, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
From Philcha
Some things...

Just bored and came by to see what's going on:

  • "Tyler's Tree Frog (Litoria tyleri) illustrates large toe pads and webbed feet." the frog itself doesn't illustrate anything...maybe say "Tyler's Tree Frog (Litoria tyleri) exemplifies the large toe pads and webbed feet common to frogs."
  • "There are tremendous differences between species in jumping capability, but within a species, jump distance increases with increasing size, but relative jumping distance (body-lengths jumped) decreases." Awk. wording
  • "Compared with the other two groups of amphibians..."-Don't you mean "classes"
  • "In some of these cases, the full leg grows anyway, and in other cases, it does not, although the frog may still live out its normal lifespan with only three legs. Other times..."-wording is a little diffuse
  • I assume the "citation needed" tags will be taken care of?
Overall, very good work (I mean, it's FA, it speaks for itself), just needs a few little edits.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 19:16, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Media review

FARC commentary

[edit]
Featured article criterion of concern are citations, lead, structure YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 00:06, 9 March 2010 (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 00:42, 19 March 2010 [31].

Indian Standard Time

[edit]

Review commentary

[edit]
Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Time, Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics, User talk:Nichalp, User talk:Ambuj.Saxena, User talk:Fowler&fowler.

FA from 2006, with a few 1c issues. Concerns about comprehensiveness of the article. Both the History and Time Zones subsections could be expanded upon significantly. Cirt (talk) 17:05, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The quality of the referencing is a bit worrisome. A few examples:
  1. "Taking a day to be 24 hours, the smallest time unit, prāṇa, or one respiratory cycle, equals 4 seconds, a value consistent with the normal breathing frequency of 15 breaths/min used in modern medical research." The only cited source for this statement is a journal article about sinus arrhythmia which mentions in passing a human breathing rate of 15 breaths per minute. The source states nothing about the unit prāṇa or any correspondence with Indian units of time measurement. Wouldn't it be more central to this Wikipedia article to cite a source for the duration of the prāṇa? And for the supplementary matter of the duration of a normal breathing cycle, wouldn't a medical textbook or a study of normal breathing cycles be preferable to a study of arrhythmias?
  2. "The Surya Siddhanta also described a method of converting local time to the standard time of Ujjain." Possibly okay, but Jstor returns a 404 error and the source is 150 years old.
  3. "Despite these early advances, standard time was not widely used outside astronomy." Uncited? See next item.
  4. "For most of India's history, ruling kingdoms kept their own local time, typically using the Hindu calendar in both lunar and solar units." Possibly okay, but multiple attempts at verification all gave timeout errors at the source side.
  5. "For example, the Jantar Mantar observatory built by Maharaja Sawai Jai Singh in Jaipur in 1733 contains large sundials, up to 90 ft (27 m) high, which were used to accurately determine the local time." Uncited; at end of paragraph where no later citation might apply.
  6. "British India did not officially adopt the standard time zones until 1905, when the meridian passing east of Allahabad at 82.5° E longitude was picked as the central meridian for India, corresponding to a single time zone for the country. This came into force on 1 January 1906, and also applied to Sri Lanka (then Ceylon). However, Calcutta time was officially maintained as a separate time zone until 1948." Two problems: the cited source is a fan club (reliability = ??) and a substantial part of the unquoted paragraph is nearly an exact cut and paste from the source: British India did not adopt the standard time zones, however, until 1905 when the meridian passing through Allahabad at 82.5 degrees east longitude was picked as the central meridian for India, corresponding to a single time zone for the country at 5 hours and 30 minutes in advance of GMT. This went into force on January 1, 1906. (Also for Sri Lanka, then Ceylon.) However, Calcutta time was officially maintained as a separate time zone until 1948.[32] Shouldn't this either be disallowed per WP:RS or handled with quotation marks and ellipses?
  7. "In 1925, time synchronisation began to be relayed through omnibus telephone systems and control circuits to organisations that needed to know the precise time. This continued until the 1940s, when time signals began to be broadcast using the radio by the government". Same fansite source and an inaccurate paraphrase. The source does not assert definitely that time synchronization began "in 1925"; it states "around 1925".
  8. "After independence in 1947, the Indian government established IST as the official time for the whole country, although Kolkata and Mumbai retained their own local time for a few more years." Same fansite reference, contradicted by source. British India did not adopt the standard time zones, however, until 1905 when the meridian passing through Allahabad at 82.5 degrees east longitude was picked as the central meridian for India, corresponding to a single time zone for the country at 5 hours and 30 minutes in advance of GMT. This went into force on January 1, 1906. (Also for Sri Lanka, then Ceylon.) However, Calcutta time was officially maintained as a separate time zone until 1948. Bombay time was maintained, but only informally (although used for some local railway purposes too), until about 1955.[33]
  9. "The Central observatory was moved from Chennai to a location near Mirzapur, so that it would be as close to UTC +5:30 as possible." Uncited; at end of paragraph where no later citation might apply.
It isn't often that a random sampling of four successive paragraphs from a featured article turns up so little that is actually verifiable to reliable sources. Durova412 20:47, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, it is! Several of Durova's points are easily verified as the article being in fault. There is no evidence, for example, that the prana (literally, a human breath or the breath of life) was ever used as a unit of time in India: there is however, much bovine excrement written about early Indian metrology. The article fails quickly on one very important point: what time did the railways keep under the British Raj? That is a fact which can be shown by contemporary sources that are still in existence, and yet the article hardly even addresses the question. Physchim62 (talk) 22:53, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The map needs alt text; please see WP:ALT#Maps. I checked just one fact, and found it wanting: "DST was used briefly during the Sino–Indian War of 1962 and the Indo–Pakistani Wars of 1965 and 1971". This cites "India Time Zones"., a website that (as far as I can make out) stole it from another website that borrowed this information from Wikipedia. Eubulides (talk) 23:48, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment in my view after a brief look this article is probably B class. There is no information on railway time in India for example. And I don't think the lead satisfies WP:LEAD -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:42, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PS Certainly the WP:GACR will need to be checked to make sure this article meets those criteria. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:51, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why would the article need to meet the good article criteria? What it needs to meet to be kept at FA are the featured article criteria. Dana boomer (talk) 23:25, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Because to be a featured article the article also has to meet every previous set of criteria including the Good Article criteria. Obviously if it fails the good article criteria its not going to meet the featured article criteria, and I think its pretty likely this article fails the Good Article criteria. I think it probably fails 2 and 3a (as there is no coverage of railway time) and possibly some of the Manual of Style criteria. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:29, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

[edit]
Featured article criterion of concern are lead, citations, depth of research, comprehensiveness. YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 00:43, 5 March 2010 (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 Raul654 00:09, 15 March 2010 [34].

Battle of Smolensk (1943)

[edit]

Review commentary

[edit]
Notified: WikiProjects and nominator/author.

The article lacks references in many places. Secondly, it needs to be checked for possible pro-USSR bias. The "liberate/liberation" is used everywhere to describe the Soviet victory, and maybe the sources are systematically responsible for this. More than half the citations are from a Mr Istomin who wrote the official USSR military's version of events of WWII "Operations of Soviet Armed Forces in the Great Patriotic War: 1941-1945" and others are from the USSR's military Journal from the height of the Cold War. Given this, I would question whether these sources could possibly be RS, or whether they should just be classified as a primary source. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 03:50, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Delist

Lots of uncited paragraphs, nothing on force ratios. I'm not too worried about the Soviets sources being RS or primary sources, as they simply don't meet the definition of the latter and are likely biased in terms of NPOV. But cross-checked against Western sources like Glantz's Forgotten Battles, Ziemke, Erickson, etc. they should be usable.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:32, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments' I agree with YellowMoney's comments in the nomination. In addition, I'd add:
    • The number of red links is excessive - it would appear that this article was edited by Mrg3105 (talk · contribs)
    • While most of Wikipedia's coverage of the Eastern Front is overly reliant on German sources and gives too much weight to the German side of the story, this article has the opposite problem and there's very little on the German experiences in the battle Nick-D (talk) 06:56, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delist

  • Comments
  • Sources/NPOV: the article has serious point of view issues. Yes, most of WP's coverage of the Eastern Front relies on German sources, this one relies too much on Russian sources. There are no evident German sources in this. There should be a campaign box, and the titles of the battles probably should not be "Liberation" of whatever, but Battle of whatever. I don't have as much problem with the redlinks, but possibly they are "red" because they are not linked to the proper article; this would take some time to fix.
  • Prose: it isn't particularly well written, certainly not to the standard the FA has become, although it may have been sufficient then.
  • Citations have ibid, which is a no-no for current standards
Do we have a project task force that can tackle this whole eastern front thing? Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:19, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

[edit]
Featured article criterion of concern are POV, citations, images YellowMonkey (Southern Stars photo poll) 06:08, 11 February 2010 (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 Raul654 00:09, 15 March 2010 [35].

Canadian federal election, 1993

[edit]

Review commentary

[edit]
Notified: WikiProjects and author

This article lacks citations in many sections, particuarly in attribution reasons and motives for actions by voters and politicians. Secondly some of these describe BLP politicians, often describing their actions negatively YellowMonkey (Southern Stars photo poll) 06:34, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Media review

FARC commentary

[edit]
Featured article criterion of concern are citations and images YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 00:26, 25 February 2010 (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 Raul654 00:09, 15 March 2010 [36].

Søren Kierkegaard

[edit]

Review commentary

[edit]
Notified: Poor Yorick, WikiProject Psychology, WikiProject Denmark, WikiProject Christianity, WikiProject Philosophy

I am nominating this featured article for review because it no longer meets the FA criteria. It has been three long years, and while FA has evolved, the article has not. The main issue is 2c), as parts of the article are entirely unreferenced, and most parts lack some referencing. Other issues include the lead not being too short, and even finishing off with a one-sentence paragraph (2a). The images lack alt-text, at one point the images sandwich the text and all the portraits have the eyes looking out of the article (they are wrongly aligned). Why there needs to be two shots of the same grave, I do not know, particularly when the one is of rather bad composition. The texts consist of eleven (unless i counted wrong) rather long quotes in two styles, most that add nothing to the understanding of the article, or merely seem to function as either decoration or an attempt to "educate" the reader through excessive use of primary sources. For instance the section "Kierkegaard and Christianity" consists almost entirely of a bulleted list of prose and quotes. There is a lot of overlinking, for instance Denmark is suddenly linked in the middle of the article, and Danish State Church is linked several times, even when they are very close. Concerning specific points in the text, I don't quite understand why I would confuse the two Schlegels. There is also incorrect use of italics in the "Kierkegaard and Christianity" section. The article seems to have an excessive number of external links, of varying quality. The four see-also links should be weaved into the article text, to provide context. The biography should be put in a table, and ref. 47 is incorrectly formatted. In the bibliography section, "P. Houe and Gordon D. Marino ed." is linked. Arsenikk (talk) 22:40, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 47 (Kierkegaard's Reception in Japan) Corrected
Merged one-sentence paragraph into larger paragraph
Bibliography "P. Houe and Gordon D. Marino ed." unlinked, made consistent
Pruned external links to 7, corrected links
See also links integrated into article
Added alt-text to images, except in infobox which already has a caption for alt images
removed duplicate image of grave
reduced number of quotation boxes and re-integrated into main text
expanded lead

Aside from referencing 2c and SK and Christianity part, which I will get to later, are there any other comments on the article? Poor Yorick (talk) 01:56, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Debulletized SK and Christianity.
Added references

-- Poor Yorick (talk) 11:06, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Please arrange the images so that the people look into the article. Just three comments on the images:

Issues addressed, Details filed in for images. Poor Yorick (talk) 11:06, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments, nice to see that there is enthusiasm to get the article up to standards, and that action was quickly taken to counter the comments. There are still many paragraphs and sentences without references, and these need to be filled in. I have gone slightly more viciously through the article and have some more comments:

  • The article says "Danish National Church", but the article refers to it as both the "Church of Denmark", the "Danish People's Church" and the "Danish State Church". Normally such institutions (particularly in Scandinavia) have an official translation of their name into English, and we should stick to it. Also, this institution is wikilinked several times.
-Will link to Danish National Church
-Done. Poor Yorick (talk) 06:28, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would have though that "Western Philosophers" (in the infobox) was not a proper noun and therefore should not be capitalized.
  • Under "early life", the article first talks about his father (in relation to his mother), but does not mention his father's name until the end of the paragraph.
  • Describing someone as a "fiercely intelligent man" sounds very subjective and I would like to have seen multiple sources support such a claim.
-It's the phrase used by Garff, but will look for other references that support the meaning of that claim
  • Ref 13 should be after the comma.
  • The sentence "Though five of his seven children died before he did, both Søren and his brother Peter Christian Kierkegaard, seven years his elder who later became bishop in Aalborg, outlived him." needs to be split up—there is too much to digest and it needs to be read twice to be understood.
  • I do not see the encyclopedic value of the quote about his father.
- One quote each for two of SK's most important influences, his father's death and the love for his ex-fiancee.
  • The article uses two different styles of blockquote—please stick to only one.
  • Copenhagen is suddenly linked in the section on Regine Olsen.
  • "Governor" in the way used here is not capitalized.
  • "On the Concept of Irony with Continual Reference to Socrates" is overlinked, as is "Johan Frederik Schlegel".
  • "Kierkegaard-Olsen relationship" should use an endash instead of a hyphen.
  • The quote about Regine seems a bit off topic. It seems unencyclopedic to use quotes in the life section.
- One quote each for two of SK's most important influences, his father and ex-fiancee.
  • I do not understand the capitalization in "The Rational is the Real and the Real is the Rational".
  • The image of Regine and the caricature should both be aligned to the right, so the faces and eyes look into the page.
  • In "On 22 December 1845, a young author of Kierkegaard's generation who studied at the University of Copenhagen at the same time as Kierkegaard", there should be a comma before "who".
-Rearranged noun location
  • I don't know if "ire" is a common enough term to be used on Wikipedia.
-It's still a valid English word
Perfectly good word in my opinion. I think it should stay. (Ice Explorer (talk) 17:36, 14 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]
  • In "In all, Kierkegaard wrote two small pieces in response to Møller", the "in all" should be redundant.
  • Are really the two responses worthy of an article? If they are, I would suggest creating at least a stub on them.
-Will do
  • The sentence "In a journal entry made on March 9, 1846, Kierkegaard makes a long, detailed explanation of his attack on Møller and The Corsair, and also explains that this attack made him rethink his strategy of indirect communication." should be in past tense, like the rest of the prose.
  • The sentence "It is important to realise that by Christendom Kierkegaard meant not Christianity itself, but rather the church and the applied religion of his society." need an extra comma. However, another issue is that it is not considered appropriate for us to say what is important and not, so try to use a more neutral phrase or just stating the fact.
  • The sentence "At Kierkegaard's funeral, his nephew Henrik Lund caused a disturbance by protesting that Kierkegaard was being buried by the official church, which he would never have approved, had he been alive, as he had broken from and denounced it." is a bit too long.

I've looked through the lead and "life", but lack of time at the moment forces me to return with feedback of the rest of the article later. Arsenikk (talk) 14:42, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for the specific list, Arsenikk. I've addressed about half of these, leaving the more substantive editorial decisions and the ones I was unsure of for Poor Yorick.  Skomorokh  20:17, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Will look into some more. Poor Yorick (talk) 22:03, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Red links

I created an article for Adolph Peter Adler and I'll work on some of the other red links. (Ice Explorer (talk) 17:14, 14 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Template:Infobox philosopher does not have alt text parameters, so we cannot add ALT for File:Kierkegaard.jpg and File:Kierkegaard sig.png. Corrected ALT-Text for the rest of the images. Poor Yorick (talk) 06:23, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for adding alt text. Template:Infobox philosopher does have alt text parameters now: I just added |signature_alt=, and it already had an (undocumented) |image_alt=, so you can add alt text for its two images now. The alt text for the other images is mostly good, but I'll comment on the problems I found:
  • For File:Manuscript philosophical fragments.png the alt text says "Philosophical Fragments" but the image says something else. Please transcribe what the image actually says ("Philosophiske Smuler ..."), rather than translating it into English; this is as per WP:ALT#Text and WP:ALT#Verifiability. (The translation is already in the caption anyway.) The alt text also says "No. 12" but the actual text is "Nr. 12 a"; please transcribe the original. I suggest transcribing the entire title rather than just some of it, and to spell out the mispelling and the correction.
  • For File:Søren Kierkegaard i Corsaren.jpg please remove the the word "Kierkegaard" from the alt text, as per WP:ALT#Verifiability and WP:ALT#Repetition.
  • For the alt text "Excerpt of three paragraphs of The Sickness Unto Death; written in Kierkegaard's handwriting." please keep the "three paragraphs" and "written" and "handwriting" but remove everything else, and replace it with a description of what's in the image (the removed stuff cannot be verified by a non-expert who is looking only at the image, as per WP:ALT#Verifiability).
  • Similarly, for File:Kierkegaard olavius.jpg please remove the phrases "Kierkegaard" (3 occurrences) and "by Christian Olavius", as per WP:ALT#Verifiability.
  • "Title Page" should be "Title page".
  • "Enten-Eller" should be "Enten – Eller" (spaced endash; I guess that's an endash, right?)
  • "SOREN KIERKEGAARD" should be "SØREN KIERKEGAARD" (two instances)
  • "the Danish National Church" should be removed as per WP:ALT#Verifiability.
Please let me strike my own comments after you've fixed the problem. And thanks again. Eubulides (talk) 06:54, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Poor Yorick (talk) 08:26, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I struck the above comments. Almost done. Now for the recently-added text:
  • The alt text for the lead image should say a bit about what Kierkegaard looked like, in particular that hair that rises straight up about 8 cm, and also that he's a young man, the high forehead, and the triangular face. It should also say it's just a head-and-shoulders portrait. Please see WP:ALT#Portraits for guidance.
  • "of Kierkegaard by Niels Christian Kierkegaard" needs to be removed, as per WP:ALT#Verifiability.
  • You can remove "Kierkegaard's signature, which reads:". Or at least please remove the initial "Kierkegaard's" there, as it's redundant.
  • "A Building" should be "A building", and "A Statue" "A statue".
Eubulides (talk) 09:23, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For the first point, I'm just using the template from Mary Bartelme in WP:ALT Portraits for the first image; probably shouldn't be estimating using precise measurements like 8 cm. Otherwise, Done. Poor Yorick (talk) 12:28, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What? we can't just say that his hair looks like Syndrome's? Anyway, thanks for doing all that; it looks good now. Eubulides (talk) 17:38, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

[edit]
Featured article criterion concerns are referencing, lead, MOS. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 03:06, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Referencing, Lead, and MOS addressed in specific points made above. Please list additional items if any below. If there are no additional items, please close FARC. Poor Yorick (talk) 03:59, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: there is far too much uncited text still. As but one example (there are many) of text that needs citing,
  • Kierkegaard's vision of the world was that it was composed of an endless variety of subjective alternate realities, forcing one to jump and proclaim one's choice of a direct and immediately accessible reality, rather than conflationary versions commonly tethered.

There are also citation cleanup needs, which can be worked on once the article is fully cited. Also, incorrect use of WP:ITALICS throughout. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:12, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would like assistance in determining which paragraphs need specific reference and are contentious sentences, otherwise as per WP:REF, we would be following General Reference, simplying "adding the citation at the end." Poor Yorick (talk) 09:19, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article is using author-date APA style referencing, it would help to know exactly which paragraphs do not conform to APA style. Poor Yorick (talk) 09:19, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's using inline footnotes/citations not parenthetical ones. I was asking why they just go to a book without specifiying which of hte possibly hundreds of pages it is. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 03:25, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In APA style inline referencing, you only need the author and date, not the page number, except when using direct quotations, which are already done in references such as #17, #43, and #44. I see #8 and #32 doesn't have any page numbers, I will fix those ones. Poor Yorick (talk) 06:33, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been brought up to current Featured article criteria since its nomination in December by Arsenikk.

  • 1c has been addressed: statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, including contentious material about living persons, and for all direct quotations have been referenced and cited. This article is not about a living person and the biographies of Kierkegaard already support significant amounts of the material, as per WP:REF#General reference. The article is not subject to ongoing edit wars regarding challenged statements as per 1e.
  • 2a has been addressed: a single sentence paragraph for the lead has been expanded
  • 2c has been addressed: the article uses citations, footnotes and references in author-date APA style.
  • 3 has been addressed: images now have alt-text tags. Copyright status for all images have been confirmed to be Public Domain or other acceptable licenses in the US and countries which use the life of the author + 50 years or less.

Cheers, Poor Yorick (talk) 06:35, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delist per verifiability concernsComments

  • The referencing style is still erratic. Some split references are used that give "Author Year: Page" in the notes and complete information in the references section. Others give full information in both notes and references, but they are in different formats. Others give full information in the notes with nothing in the references. And still others give full information in the references section but nothing in the notes section. They need to be standardized to use one format (I personally perfer the first, with short refs in the notes and full refs in the references, but it's up to you). Books that are not used for in-line citations should be moved to a "further reading" section.
I'll look into that ---Reformatted and standarized to (Author, Date), Done
  • Although I believe you are correct that true APA style referencing doesn't use page numbers, for an FA-status article on Wikipedia you need them. At least a page range (or sometimes a chapter, if it's short) is needed, so that readers know where to go in a book; this is especially true if it's a long book.
WP:FA? does not list the requirement that author-page must be used, not author-date as in APA style. APA is still an acceptable citation style as per WP:CITE. In APA style, page numbers are needed only for direct quotations.
APA style does not necessarily say that it is always author-date. Per WP:CITE, the same page you quote, "You should identify any part of a source that you quote, paraphrase or cite; in the case of a book, specify the page number(s)." and "comprising only the surname of the author(s) and the year of publication, and possibly page numbers (APA style)...Using author-date parenthetical references, the inline citation usually looks like: (Author 2006:28) or (Author 2006, p. 28)."
In that same page: "There are a number of citation styles. They all include the same information but vary in punctuation and the order of the author's name, publication date, title, and page numbers. Any of these styles is acceptable on Wikipedia so long as each article is internally consistent." I've just now made the article internally consistent in APA style, as per WP:FA? "In parenthetical citations, a short version of the citation is added in parentheses just after the point it is supporting, comprising only the surname of the author(s) and the year of publication, and possibly page numbers (APA style)" Page numbers are only needed in direct quotations. (APA Style#citation)
As for the first comment, yes, they vary in the order of these things, not whether or not they are included (and, please read "they all include the same information"). As for the second, please don't link to the wiki page about APA style to make your case, as citing mainspace wiki pages shows nothing. Instead, link to a internal Wikipedia guideline/policy that says APA style referencing doesn't have to include page numbers. Dana boomer (talk) 02:07, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Parenthetical referencing: "Under the author-date referencing system, a book is cited in the text in parentheses, after the section, sentence, or paragraph for which the book was used as a source, using the surname of the author and the year of publication only, with the parentheses closing before the period, as in (Author 2005). A complete citation is then placed at the end of the text in an alphabetized list of "References"."
Wikipedia:CITE: "Two forms of parenthetical referencing may also be used in Wikipedia: author-date referencing (APA style, Harvard style, or Chicago style); and author-title or author-page referencing (MLA style or Chicago style)." We are using author-date referencing (APA).
Wikipedia:Inline citation: "Harvard reference (also known as Parenthetical referencing), is the simplest way to cite sources not online. Such citations usually appear following punctuation. Various formats are seen, e.g. (author, date), author (date):page, etc. Such citations are often superscripted." This article is using the format example used in the former, NOT the latter.
Wikipedia:Inline_citation/examples#Simple parenthetical referencing: "(Smith 2000), or (Smith 2000), or (Smith 2000)" are acceptable.
Wikipedia:CITE: "You should follow the style already established in an article, if it has one; where there is disagreement, the style used by the first editor to use one should be respected." The article had no referencing style before 2006 (November 2005: [37])! I brought the article to FA status in 2006 using APA style, not MLA style. I'm so tired of having to keep reiterating this point regarding APA! Poor Yorick (talk) 02:13, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dana, if the Featured article criteria says we must use MLA, I will use it, but as long as we're free to use any citation as long as they are consistent, I will use APA. Poor Yorick (talk) 16:42, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The featured article criteria does not specify a reference formatting, as I'm sure you know. However, as I wasn't sure what the correct answer was on this, I asked a couple of the sourcing/MOS gurus from FAC, to see what their thoughts were. User:Ealdgyth said that "Everything needs page numbers, unless it's a journal article/pamplet.", while User:SandyGeorgia said "there are cases where we don't use page numbers, for example when citing journals in medical articles, but we generally do need them", but said she would stop by the review in the next few days to look more closely. Dana boomer (talk) 02:46, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The general rule is that page numbers are needed if the source is too long to expect a reader to scan through the whole thing to verify a claim that is supported by just a part of the work. "Long" is a relative term here, of course, but the usual rule is that journal articles and book chapters are "short", whereas journals and books themselves are "long". This isn't a matter of policy, but it is a good guideline; see, for example Wikipedia:Citing sources #Identifying parts of a source. Eubulides (talk) 19:28, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the input Dana and Eubuildes. As soon as Featured Article Criteria lists page numbers as a requirment for an article to be Featured, I'll make sure to add those page numbers in. Besides that, is there anything else with the article? Poor Yorick (talk) 21:53, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes ref #35 (Lowrie, Walter) a reliable reference? Also, Lowrie is not the author. They used his work, but I don't think he actually wrote the page.
Corrected Lowrie ref with source from his actual book. Lowrie is reliable as he was one of the first scholars on Kierkegaard. That webpage was not.
  • What makes ref #53 (Søren Kierkegaard's Journal Commentary) a reliable reference? The author admits on his "about us" page that he is an amateur who is mainly self-taught. Same for #27, 66.
D. Anthony Storm is a tertiary source, as Mr. Storm uses secondary sources as well. He is not a fork of Wikipedia or based on any forks of wiki related sites. As per WP:Reliable: "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable secondary sources. This means that while primary or tertiary sources can be used to support specific statements, the bulk of the article should rely on secondary sources." Mr. Storm is used three times only in this article and thus does not constitute the bulk of the article.
It doesn't matter whether he constitutes the bulk of the article if he's not reliable, which as an amateur, I don't believe he is. Tertiary sources cannot be included in a FA just because they are supposedly based on secondary information, just as primary sources cannot be included in an article without a mention that they are indeed primary sources (i.e. "Edith said xyz(primary reference)" in an article about Edith Roosevelt). To prove that Mr. Storm is a reliable source, you must show that he is an expert in his field, having been published in peer-reviewed journals, acting as a professor in the subject, having been mentioned as an expert by major news organizations, etc.
If there are reliable source replacements I'll look for them. ---Done
  • What makes ref #67 (Georg Brandes) a reliable reference?
Mr. Brandes is a well respected Danish scholar and one of the first scholars on Kierkegaard. The site is an acceptable tertiary source summarizing his life.
I'm not doubting that Brandes is a respected scholar. However, what makes the site a reliable reference on Brandes? What fact checking do they do? Who writes the articles? What expertise does the author have in writing articles/writing about Brandes?
If there are reliable source replacements I'll look for them. ---Done
  • Not necessary, but have you considered splitting the informational notes out from the referential notes? This may make both easier to read and navigate, but it's up to you.
I'll look into that --- Now that references are cleaner and standardized, informational and referential notes are easier to make out.
  • I've added several fact tags, each accompanied by a hidden comment that explains my rationale.
Referenced those facts.
  • There is still unneeded italicization in the article, for example "most trusted confidant" in the Journals section.
Got it, let me know of other unneeded italicization.
I think this is done, but Sandy is the MOS person, so I'll leave this out until she gives the all clear, especially considering she was the one that raised the concern in the first place.
  • I'm going to try to find some other philosphy/psychology type people to comment on this. I'm not a content expert, so I'm hoping to get someone in who really knows the subject to be able to pick out any problems that I don't find. I haven't done a check of the prose yet, so once the above are taken care of, that will still need to be done.
There are people checking prose and factual info such as Skomorokh and Laser Brain (Andy)
I see. I have already dropped a note to Skomorokh asking him to comment here. However, if they are not major contributors to the article, you may want to ask them to comment here when their concerns have been addressed. Without keep votes, the article will stay in limbo for quite some time. By asking content, prose and sourcing experts to comment here (neutrally, of course, to avoid any appearance of canvassing), the review can be closed faster and we can all go about our lives :)

Overall a nice article, and it looks like you've put a lot of work into it, but still some effort needed before it is back to FA status. Dana boomer (talk) 00:06, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is already FA status, it just needs a few minor corrections. Cheers, Poor Yorick (talk) 22:14, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
More replies above. Dana boomer (talk) 01:24, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Replied above. Poor Yorick (talk) 01:54, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies for having taken so long to get back to this review. As I have said above, SandyGeorgia has promised to stop by in the next few days to look over the article, and I have dropped another note to Skomorokh noting his contributions to the FARC section and asking him to come back and give us his opinion on the current state of the article. Dana boomer (talk) 02:46, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Besides all the points raised earlier in this review, are there any new questions about this article? Poor Yorick (talk) 21:55, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the delay; I'll look at other things once page numbers are provided. Page nos. are given on book citations, but not on journal articles or online news sources. (See WP:CITE). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:57, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's right, Sandy, as per Wikipedia:Parenthetical referencing: "When citing books and articles, provide page numbers where appropriate. Page numbers must be included in a citation that accompanies a specific quotation from or a paraphrase or reference to a specific passage of a book or article." The article DOES indeed use page numbers in such cases in references like #49, #84, #87, #99. But in general: "Under the author-date referencing system, a book is cited in the text in parentheses, after the section, sentence, or paragraph for which the book was used as a source, using the surname of the author and the year of publication only". The article referential notes do include the surname of the author and the year of publication only. WP:CITE allows usage of this referencing system: "Two forms of parenthetical referencing may also be used in Wikipedia: author-date referencing (APA style, Harvard style, or Chicago style); and author-title or author-page referencing (MLA style or Chicago style)." (emphasis added) Poor Yorick (talk) 05:35, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You have no one opining that this FA should be Kept, four editors asking for page numbers, and for some reason, they aren't being provided. This looks to be an invitation for someone to cite tag the article for specific places where full citation is needed (which is not usually done at FAR). I'm unclear what the issue is here: do you not have the sources ? Why are you wikilawyering a citation system, when providing the page numbers is easier and quicker, and four editors have asked for them? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:39, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This article is using APA style, and it was promoted to FA using this style. As long as APA is allowed, I will use this style. If FA says APA is not allowed, I will use MLA Poor Yorick (talk) 05:41, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What the article was promoted as isn't what is under discussion here; on older FAs, specific citation wasn't expected or required. You have an enormous list of books in the references (are all of those really used in the citations? If not, they should be moved to "Further reading"), but you won't provide page nos, so you're essentially saying that anyone who wants to verify the article has to read the enormous list of books given in References. WP:V; readers need to be able to verify content. Do you not have access to the books? If you can't verify this article, neither can we, and neither can our readers-- and more importantly, if you don't have access to the books, how can we be assured content is represented accurately? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:45, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All references are used, as the notes refer to those specific books. I realize WP:V says it must be verified, that what I used back in 2006. The books are all indexed, as this is a scholarly subject, so readers do not need to scan the entire book. In addition, much of these books can be verified using Google Books if readers need to verify. The point is Wikipedia Policy allows APA citation styles to be used, I have referenced the books used in this article, and where needed by APA, page numbers are provided as I have mentioned earlier. Poor Yorick (talk) 05:52, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Four different editors have disagreed with your wikilawyered approach. The choices now are 1) provide the page nos, 2) others tag the article where page nos are needed, or 3) reviewers enter Delist declarations because the article does not meet WP:V, verifiability. The choice is yours. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:08, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I will take option 2. Long live APA. Poor Yorick (talk) 06:16, 6 March 2010 (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 Raul654 00:09, 15 March 2010 [38].

Music of Minnesota

[edit]

Review commentary

[edit]
Notified: Listed Wikiprojects. Author long inactive.

Article has large passages that are compeltely unsourced. Many of the sources used, such as Myspace, and other ad hoc sites are far from RS. There is an undue weight on very modern music. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (help the Invincibles Featured topic drive) 02:35, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Research Quality related issues

http://204.169.52.42/history/ is not a secondary source published by a RS. Its tertiary linkspam.
SELF: "History of the Minnesota Opera". Minnesota Opera. Retrieved February 9 2006.
Unsigned Tertiary: Levy, Mark; Carl Rahkonen and Ain Haas. "Scandinavian and Baltic Music". Garland Encyclopedia of World Music, Volume Two. New York and London: Garland Publishin
Dead: "History". First Avenue. Retrieved January 5 2006.
Dead: "Pulse of the Twin Cities". Pulse of the Twin Cities. Retrieved February 9 2006.
Deliberately unreliable publisher, take the work to RS/N: Blush, Steven (2001). American Hardcore: A Tribal History. Feral House. ISBN 0-92291-571-7
Primary/SELF: "School of Music". University of Minnesota. Retrieved January 30 2006.
SELF: "About the Minnesota Orchestra". Minnesota Orchestra. Retrieved February 8 2006.

Citation Quality related issues

Grossly and completely unacceptable footnotes. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:34, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have gone and tagged everything I saw unfit. I snipped "As well, prominent serious composers resident in the state include Libby Larsen, Stephen Paulus, and Timothy Mahr" from the intro because they're mentioned nowhere else in the article, and cut out a bunch of crud while slapping {{fact}} and other maintenance tags left and right. This is the most tagging I've done in my life. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 03:09, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This amount of tagging is troubling; it's not necessary to deface an article to achieve the aims of FAR. A good practice is to tag a bit, and then tag more depending on whether someone works on the article. Also, please keep in the mind that the level of scholarship required for an article depends on the topic; in an article of this nature, we might expect less than scholarly sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:39, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. First of all, wow. That has to be one of the most annoying, unnecessary tag-bombings I have ever seen. It would have been much easier to put a note here or on the talk page that stated "Please check the red links for notability", and just put the citation needed tags after groups of sentences that needed referencing, rather than after every single sentence. I do agree that the article is very short on citations, has questionable sources (Ref #14, Anderson Jr., G.R, is a blog), needs referencing formatting, and need work on the prose and deciding whether all of the included information is relevant to the article. The external links section could use a cleaning, and the lead could stand to be expanded. Also, File:Slug-Atmosphere-20030727.jpg (the image of Atmosphere), needs a description. Dana boomer (talk) 19:06, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is also redundant tagging; it's not necessary to tag the top of a section as well as individual items within the section-- one or the other. And then the top of the article as well. I do think this is the most defacement I've ever seen of an article at FAR, and don't find it helpful. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:13, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I went back and removed all the {{Off-topic?}} tags and a couple other redundant tags. I think that most of the other maintenance tags should stand. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 01:11, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
When there are a lot of problems, it isn't usually necessary to tag everywhere, as highlighting tools are usually to point out the abnormal, but if unsourced parts are the norm...Still I think in Louisville, Kentucky, one of the topic custodians asked for everything to be tagged to remind him, and about 80% of the article was tagged YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (help the Invincibles Featured topic drive) 03:20, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This one definitely needs every tag I put on it. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 03:46, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, TPH, for removing a large portion of the tags. Between the ones still left and the comments on this page, interested editors should be able to get a good feel for what needs to be done on the article. If someone pops up during the review phase to work on the article, we can always add more tags after the ones already there have been taken care of. Dana boomer (talk) 21:18, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


The fair-use rationales for the audio clips are far too weak. They bear little relevance to Minnesota, and not enough in my opinion to merit inclusion. These groups are not influenced by Minnesota or strongly connected to Minnesota in the public mind. They draw their influences from other sources. Simiarly, the article as a whole appears to be a miscellaneous collection of Minnesota-related snippets rather than an encyclopedic treatment of a defined topic. DrKiernan (talk) 11:51, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

[edit]
Suggested FA criteria concern are citations, copyright. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (Invincibles Featured topic drive:one left) 02:30, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again. In 24 hours we went to today from yesterday. Sorry to come in so late. Think we'll make it? -SusanLesch (talk) 01:06, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like you've made a great start on improving the article. When interest is shown in improving the article, the FARC can, and will, be held open as long as necessary. The process is more about improving articles to current standards rather than delisting them. Dana boomer (talk) 02:01, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's great news! I am in Minneapolis for a couple weeks and have access to the public library if need be. Thanks very much. -SusanLesch (talk) 02:33, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see work is underway now, and good progress is being made. I've done a bit of MoS and citation cleanup. I've encountered several claims about bands, etc. sourced to themselves; care must be taken that claims are cited to independent reliable sources, and this will need review. Why was this section deleted? Byron is listed in citations but not in references. Curious about choice of musical genre and those that are missing: no opera, musical theatre, etc? For example, UMinn's BFA in musical theatre is not mentioned in the education section, and the word "Guthrie" doesn't appear anywhere in the article (!! Live at the Guthrie concert series), so more work will be needed on comprehensiveness. Also, attention to notability is needed: any group, organization, festival, etc mentioned here should only be here if it meets Wiki notability, but there is an absence of redlinks in the article. Anything notable should be redlinked, anything not notable shouldn't be included. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:48, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy, thanks a lot for your help. I think most of the bands are cited to Billboard or City Pages or to a book now. I made some drastic cuts to the venues lists and the list of festivals (most seem to be defunct) and cut the section on electronic/dance music (none of them were cited). Byron fixed. To answer your question, "popular music" didn't seem like a type of music, so the text of that section moved to rock. I don't see musical theater in the source for UofM ("Degree programs") but would be happy to add it if it turns up. The Guthrie is mostly a theater I think, but I will add it since you found a Rosanne Cash concert. The tag used to say the article had too many red links so I took them out. I understand there are other viewpoints so can add some back if you like. Also, one of the music samples was missing a source so it is nominated for deletion. Rationale for fair use has been added to the only one left. -SusanLesch (talk) 02:14, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, that info about redlinks was completely incorrect (see FAR above), and redlinks should be re-established where notability is met (see WP:RED). Here's UMinn BFA Musical Theatre: [39], although you may locate a better source. What is happening with the jazz section? Also, Guthrie has a musical concert series; is that not well known there (see link I provided above). Looking much better now! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:18, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if worth including, but ... "The Live at the Guthrie concert series has a long-standing history of providing patrons with an eclectic mix of high-caliber music and comedy appealing to a wide range of audiences. Illustrious performers such as James Taylor, Elton John, Robin Williams, Lyle Lovett and the Indigo Girls all performed at the Guthrie in the early years of their careers. More recent performers have included Al Green, Keb' Mo' and Chris Botti."[40] Might need an independent source if added. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:51, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Three red links added. Jazz section added but one source is to the Peterson family itself. You know when the Guthrie and Walker were next door to each other, concerts there did matter a great deal. The promoter only lists one concert there now (Roseanne Cash). -SusanLesch (talk) 03:08, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Image of Prince on top works in Firefox but I don't know about IE? -SusanLesch (talk) 17:02, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Whew, thank you, Cirt. Any area that you think needs work? Some of those short or one-sentence sections have been rolled into bigger ones. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:02, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Queries (questions, not suggestions):
  1. Would Dylan make a better lead image than Prince?
    I agree Dylan is a more important artist, but not in relation to Minnesota. -SusanLesch (talk) 18:34, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I'm not clear on the demarcation between Blues and Rhythm and blues; can these two sections be combined into "Rhythm and blues" (and the term "R&B" needs to be defined and linked).
    Wikilinks added for both genres. -SusanLesch (talk) 18:34, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. The Music in the US template in the lead is still doing something strange to formatting (large text offset): I don't know how to fix it.
    Bummer. In what browser? -SusanLesch (talk) 18:34, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    IE8; if no one knows how to fix it, I'll ask Gimme. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:30, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    OK maybe he or she can help. I don't have IE anymore. -SusanLesch (talk) 22:43, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. The article needs an image and alt text review; if no one does it, I'll ping some people.
    I expect you'll have to ping someone. I added alt text for everything here. -SusanLesch (talk)

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:02, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Alt text done; thanks. I took a quick look at the alt text.

  • Three images still lack alt text (please see the "alt text" button at upper right of this review page); can you please fix them?
  • Verifiability and repetition. In general, alt text should not contain proper names or other material unless they're obvious to a non-expert (please see WP:ALT#Proper names and WP:ALT#Verifiability), should not duplicate the caption (see WP:ALT#Repetition), so could you please reword and/or remove the following phrases: "Prince", "cast members", "MacPhail building" ("MAC PHAIL SCHOOL" suffices), "MacPhail building" (duplicates caption), "First Avenue", "1st Avenue", "Prudence Johnson", "Keillor".
  • Essence. Please briefly describe what William MacPhail looks like in his image (see WP:ALT#Portraits) rather than wasting time on not-that-relevant details such as "circular" and "upper right", and please describe the modern MacPhail building rather than wasting time on the cyclist (see WP:ALT#Essence, in particular the example of how not to describe the Abbey Road building). The alt text for File:MPR-2006-12-19.jpg should briefly mention the context for the electric sign, since most of the image is devoted to that context. For File:KBR label.JPG the alt text should mention that the label and logo are circular, as that's the most striking visual aspect. Portraits should briefly state the gender and approximate age of the people being pictured; see WP:ALT#Portraits for guidance.
  • Punctuation. Please see WP:ALT#Punctuation for advice on punctuation (it should be similar to captions).

Eubulides (talk) 20:32, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Should Judy Garland have a mention? Are any of the sources listed about midpage here worht exploring? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:34, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes! Garland added, with picture. Thanks very much for a good idea!
I don't see any important missed sources right away (and now have a list of things from Elcobbola to deal with). -SusanLesch (talk) 19:00, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist: numerous criterion three issues:
    • File:Prince-crop.jpg - Appears to be a copyvio [41]
      Wow! Good work finding that! How did you ever find it? I can replace with another portrait. -SusanLesch (talk) 19:11, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      To bore you: I got lucky this was from a show in Switzerland. My computer/OS/browser/etc are German, so Google searches return German language results. This was in an article called Letzte Zuckungen der Popkultur des 20. Jahrhunderts, which gave me the AP author's name, so I could locate an English language source. Эlcobbola talk 20:04, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • File:ApolloClub.jpg - Source is a deadlink. Archive.org version does not provide a publication date. Publication and creation are not the same thing; how can we verify pre-1.1.1923 publication?
      The Minneapolis Public Library was taken over by Hennepin County, who moved the link. The MPL History of Minneapolis on "Music" is here. Applies to this one and the next one. -SusanLesch (talk) 19:11, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      Link is fixed, but it doesn't address the issue of needing a publication date. Эlcobbola talk 20:04, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      Removed. I don't know when it was published. -SusanLesch (talk) 20:40, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      Not striken by me, but I agree it's resolved (removed). Эlcobbola talk 21:04, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • File:MacPhail.jpg - Source is a deadlink.
      Found again, see previous. -SusanLesch (talk) 19:11, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • File:The Ordway Center.jpg - Needs a verifiable source per WP:IUP (for self-made works, which this presumably is, this means an explicit assertion of authorship. A PD-self license is not sufficient).
      Removing this one. -SusanLesch (talk) 19:11, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • File:KBR label.JPG - Is a derivative work. The threshold of originality is quite low; the Kay Bank logo may be sufficiently original to be eligible for copyright protection.
      Removed.
    • File:Highspirits.jpg - WP:DUCK copyvio. A drive-by upload and only contribution from a red link. Highly doubtful this user is indeed a representative of Amos Records and/or has authorization to license on its behalf. This would need an OTRS ticket. (The High Spirits article, by the way, indicates the band's label to be Soma Records, not Amos.)
      Removed.
    • File:Orch hall.jpg - Needs a verifiable source. As per above, an explicit assertion of authorship is needed. A hitherto deleted en.wiki page is not sufficient.
      I can ask the author, who is I believe still active, to address this one.
      That would be fine; it's an easily remediable issue. Эlcobbola talk 20:04, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, that's one of mine. RxS (talk) 04:04, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      Just a note, the explicit assertion of authorship was performed when I released it into the public domain and linked it (via the act of uploading) to my userpage. I'm not sure what deleted en.wiki page is being refered to but if it's my userpage, it's still there. If there's some other assertion I need to make let me know but it appears to me that the act of licensing it as I did should be fine for these purposes. RxS (talk) 04:38, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      The image was deleted from en.wiki - log. The image is now a Commons shine through. Because of a poorly-written transfer script, it now credits you as the uploader, which isn't necessarily the same as being its author. You are indeed the author, so all that's needed is a verbiage change to make that clear. It's not an issue of the license you chose, but making clear that you are authorized to chose such a license (we want that clarity because of the common issue people have of believing derivative works are theirs to license as they chose). Эlcobbola talk 13:12, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      Эlcobbola, I edited the image page in the commons to say that RxS is the author. He or she doesn't have a commons account. Seems to me that should be fine? -SusanLesch (talk) 23:00, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • File:Prince-How Come U Don't Call Me Anymore.ogg - NFCC#10C requires a "specific" rationale and WP:FURG, incorporated therein by reference, requires a "detailed" rationale. Current rationale is ambiguous and does not articulate the contribution to the reader's understanding. That notwithstanding, I'm very hard pressed to believe a free demonstration of Minnesota music (NFCC#1) could not be obtained.
      Removed. By the way, free music doesn't equate to what is being deleted.
      Depends on how one defines "equal" (of course Prince is unique), but, for the purposes of MN music, there are no doubt free songs that could make the same contribution to reader understanding of this particular topic (not to mention free and non-free media alike that are better suited, e.g. "The Fair" by Anne Reed - "Minnesota, Minnesota, we are south of Manitoba, east of North Dakota, ...") Эlcobbola talk 20:04, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't know that song, but have seen Ms. Reed. Do you have a source? -SusanLesch (talk) 20:40, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, but not a free one; I have the song on Keepers, which is a MPR Morning Show CD. It's got to be from the early 90s; I dont know whether they're still made/sold. Эlcobbola talk 21:04, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      Here is the Reed song and a few others. Thanks for the clue. Since neither is free, I stick by what I said before, that this doesn't equate to what was deleted (a soul solo isn't the same as a folk ditty that happens to include the name of the state). Sorry. -SusanLesch (talk) 00:47, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      Sorry. Quite. A song irrelevant to Minnesota by someone who merely happens to be from the state and a song about a prominent aspect of Minnesota culture by someone who merely happens to be from the state are indeed not equal. It was brought up merely because the Prince song was a particularly injudicious choice. No need to belabor a moot point, as neither are acceptable. Эlcobbola talk 01:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • File:Flickr - moses namkung - Atmosphere 1.jpg - Something's fishy here. The source Flickr page indicates all rights are reserved; it received a Flickr review on 24 December 2009, however, clearing the CC-by 2.0 license. Very curious that the Flickr user would have changed the license in the short period of time between now and then, especially as the image has been on Flickr since August. All other images in the Flickr user's photostream reserve all rights. MBot has been known to make mistakes. Эlcobbola talk 17:40, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that is weird at all. People change their Flickr licenses whenever they like. I've been in this situation myself--sent a Flickr user an email and had them change the rights on all of their photographs. -SusanLesch (talk) 19:31, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The weirdness is not that it changed, but the time frame. As is, it isn't an opposable (delistable?) issue and was included here for completeness, but article's exemplifying our best work are better off without these sorts of issues. Remedies would be to contact the Flickr user to confirm the change and file with OTRS, or find an alternative image. If the image is to stay, I wouldn't object over it, but I'd leave it unstricken for others to consider. Эlcobbola talk 20:04, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Replaced with an image where the author changed his license for Wikipedia. -SusanLesch (talk) 20:40, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delist? Would you like to revisit that? -SusanLesch (talk) 19:31, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looking good, but now the quality of the image in the lead is poor-- perhaps switching the lead image to Dylan might help? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:04, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. I thought that picture of Prince was great--how many people would raise their little finger like that? But swapped for Dylan. :-) -SusanLesch (talk) 20:52, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Iffy.

  • Some of the images are rather dark; many are too small.
  • Yes, I agree with you and have added only a mention of numerous artists. I decided it is better to mention than not. What I am looking for is what Sandy noted above--the input of anyone with knowlege of this subject who can say what I left out. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:17, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Time passes. I have limited time available now to work on this article. I am no longer in Minneapolis (and thus can't run to the library). You can find me at Jeannette Piccard which was delisted from GA without warning. You can ping me on my talk page if you need anything. -SusanLesch (talk) 04:07, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy, my eye isn't as good as yours but I went through the article top to bottom for spelling and grammar stuff, and went through all of the sources. Fixed my sloppy "p." and "pp." and put the names of papers in italics. -SusanLesch (talk) 06:00, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi you guys. Although it was really nice of you to keep this FARC open so I had time to cite everything, I don't think it is fair to keep this open indefinitely. A couple days ago I had every source fixed for Sandy. Now we have an IP address adding incomplete sentences and incomplete sources. I will fix everything this person added, but is it too much to ask that this FARC be closed as soon as possible? Thank you. -19:57, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Thank you to IP address 173.196.66.81 for several additions. Unfortunately links to beatworld.com aren't sufficient to source the electro/dance music section. The two sources that were there are mine and repeat other parts of the article. In any case I kept your other additions, including one really weak source (West Allis High School) because Billboard itself does not maintain a list back that far (1975) past numbers 1 through 10. -SusanLesch (talk) 22:07, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Um, yes, we have a new problem now, with an IP editing (for the third time) in ways that will jeopardize FA status. Might as well wait 'til the IP is done to see what can be cleaned up. Seems to be the same IP who made unsourced edits a while back, and since his IP address changes, not much can be done. Unless the article can be semi-protected. But we can't just close a FAR without Keep declarations (although you've done a fine job, Susan, and your efforts are appreciated!) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:52, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I submit this revision for FARC. I am losing tolerance for other points of view. Including those of you who have failed to register "Keep". -SusanLesch (talk) 04:05, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article is restored to what I can cite for the Electro/Dance section, and keeps the radio section. What are you waiting for? I replied to Sandy on January 25 that I went through this top to bottom. On January 28, all hell broke loose and someone had to semi-protect this. I encourage you guys to please close this FARC as soon as you are able. -SusanLesch (talk) 19:23, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Susan. First of all, let me say that I will be going through the article in just a minute to be able to give you any final comments I may have, and will change my "vote" accordingly. Part of the issue with not closing the FARC as promptly as you may wish is that YellowMonkey is the only really active FAR delegate - Joel and Marskell have been away for a while and Raul doesn't usually get involved. As YM was the one who initiated this FAR, he can't be the one to close it. That means that it will have to wait until either 1. New delegates are appointed (a brief mention of this was made on the FAR talk page today, which is the only reason I mention this) or 2. Raul or one of the inactive delegates will have to close it. This, combined with the lack of keep votes, is why the FARC hasn't been closed yet. Sometimes FARCs must hang around for a long while (see some of the articles below this one on the FAR page), before they gather a sufficient number of keeps - this article is not a lone case, so please be patient. As I said before, I should have my own set of comments up shortly. Dana boomer (talk) 20:00, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional Support, pending Comprehensiveness and Source ReviewsComments

  • First of all, I'm not a music expert, and so I can't comment on comprehensiveness. I dropped a note to the Music WP, since they don't seem to have been notified of the FAR, and that note can be found here. Before being kept, this article needs a thorough review by a music expert to make sure that all of the information that needs to be included is and that the sources would all be considered "high quality" by someone in the music world. This is of course supposing that such an expert can be found and would be interested in this work.
  • The lead could use some expanding. Although it is four paragraphs long, which fits with WP:LEAD, all four paragraphs are quite short. The lead needs to be a summary of the entire article, without providing original information.
  • I would still like to see the lead expanded further. However, since it does technically meet the requirements outlined by WP:LEAD, I shall hold my peace for now :)
  • Some books use the short format in-line with more information in the References section, while others have full information in-line. This should be standardized.
  • Ref #69 (IMDB) needs to be fully formatted.
  • Ref #80 (Northern Light "Minnesota" on Billboard chart in "Top Songs from 1975" . West Allis Central High School.) should be sourced to something better than a high school reunion website.
  • I'm questioning the use of Ref #169 (YouTube). Although YouTube itself is not automatically an unreliable source, what gives the account "radiotapes" the right to post this news broadcast? Unless they have specific copyright to this broadcast, they are posting it against copyright, and this makes it unusable as a source.
  • There are several other references I'm not sure about, but I'm not the greatest at picking out unreliable references, so I have dropped a note at User:Ealdgyth's talk page, to see if she has the time to do a sourcing run-through of the article.

These are my initial comments, I will be back to add more comments on the prose after I have done a full run-through of the article. I hope that the notes I have left for various users and WikiProjects will help this article to remain a FA. Dana boomer (talk) 20:52, 28 January 2010 (UTC) Prose issues:[reply]

  • Lead, "Minneapolis, the northernmost major city on the Mississippi River," what does its location have to do with music?
  • History, "Minneapolis' most famous performers were the descendants of Norwegians Eleonora and Ethel Olson and Ernest and Clarence Iverson (Slim Jim & the Vagabond Kid)" This needs a separation to show that Eleonora etc were the descendents, not that the famous performers descended from them. When I first read it I thought "it's nice to know who the parents were, but who were the performers", until I read it again and realized what it actually meant.
  • Education section. The first paragraph and the first sentence and a half of the second paragraph are largely redundant. These could easily be combined and trimmed of repetition, allowing for tighter, more easily readable prose.
  • Education section. Do no colleges offer anything beyond a bachelors degree in music-related fields? For an example, see the University of Minnesota's website here which offers both masters and doctoral degrees in music.
  • Venues, "a few venues catering to all ages crowds," This is rather awkwardly worded, perhaps "crowds of all ages"?
  • Venues, "Defunct but historically important venues include the Pence Opera House,[46] the Coffeehouse Extempore or Extemporé,[47] the Uptown Bar,[48] and the ballrooms including the Prom Ballroom and Treasure Inn in Saint Paul and the Marigold Ballroom and the Flame Cafe[49] in Minneapolis, which featured prominent jazz, rock, country and other bands in the mid-20th century." Run-on sentence, perhaps split into two?
  • Radio, "throughout the country and indeed throughout the world". Redundant wording, "indeed" is rather POV.
  • Recording studios and record stores, "The studio had big hits from The Trashmen ("Surfin' Bird") and Dave Dudley ("Six Days on the Road"), The Underbeats, The Chancellors, The High Spirits, The Castaways ("Liar, Liar" in 1965), which helped popularize Soma Records and a distinctive Kay Bank style based on using three-track recording and echo effects." Run-on, and some issues with grammar. Perhaps split, and check the use of "and" then commas.
  • Classical, choral and opera, "orchestras to perform on the radio and to record." Worded a bit funny. I understand what it's trying to say, but it could definitely flow better.
  • This still reads a bit oddly, but I guess it's fine.
  • Classical, choral and opera, "With an early reputation as "progressive (and) 'alternative'"[98] when it merged with Saint Paul Opera in 1975, the Minnesota Opera began to include traditional works in its repertory." Flow. Needs something between alternative and when to help the transition.
  • Folk music, "Minnesota is home to many ethnic groups, but the state's folk music is best known in the areas of Swedish, Finnish and Norwegian musics because these immigrants settled in rural farming areas in communities that retained Old World social and religious patterns and the context for music performance." Run on sentence, and I'm really not sure what the end part is trying to say.
  • Folk music, "cultural identities grew blurred." I think you could drop the "grew".
  • Folk music, "Norwegians and Swedes very frequently". I think you could drop the "very", it's redundant.
  • Folk music, "As of 2007, Dylan maintained a home in Minnesota." Could this be updated?
  • I see. Well, it would be something to keep in mind in case you run across any references to it in the future.
  • Blues, "Strother, who knew each other, were". First, what does it matter that they knew each other, and second, most well-known musicians who perform the same genre in the same city know (or at least know of) each other, so this isn't anything special.
  • In the various genre sections there are a lot of short paragraphs, which make the article quite choppy. Please try to combine some of these so that the article as a whole flows better.
  • The various genre sections still read as lists of unconnected facts with no connecting narrative. IMO, simply listing various bands/singers/composers that have ties to Minnesota doesn't meet the "engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard" requirement that FA asks of its articles. The first two paragraphs of the Rhythm and blues section is how I would like to see the rest of the genre sections read. The prose flows from thought to thought, with no abrupt jumps, and connects between artists.

I've checked up through the Music about Minnesota section. Later this evening I will return and add my comments about the rest of the article. Dana boomer (talk) 21:44, 28 January 2010 (UTC) I've completed my review of the prose, and have added several more issues to the list. When these issues have been resolved, I will be able to add my conditional support, with a full support pending a review of comprehensiveness and sources. Dana boomer (talk) 23:50, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Dana. Just a check in. Everything on your list has been done, except writing the lead and work on the genre sections writing. Thanks very much for taking your time. Your comments are easy to follow and they all make sense. -SusanLesch (talk) 06:26, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Small introductions and transitions written for the genres. I removed the citations from the lead. Probably not "engaging, even brilliant" but I hope serviceable. -SusanLesch (talk) 21:55, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your quick response, Susan. I have added my provisional support as promised. In the process of looking over the article again I have made a few tweaks, mainly to reference formatting and a little bit of copyediting. Please let me know if there's an issue with any of the change I made. I look forward to this article being kept, and hope that content and sourcing experts stop by soon! As a note on sourcing experts, I just dropped a note on the subject to User:Rafablu88, who I just remembered usually does all of the source checking on music FACs, so he may be dropping by as well. Dana boomer (talk) 01:01, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Dana boomer. Happy to see conditional support. Your changes look good to me. Regarding the IP addresses' request for a section on Electro/Dance, I looked at the websites of Minneapolis television channels 4, 5, 9 and 11 as well as the Minnesota Broadcasters Association (who were in the YouTube video) and didn't find anything for the search phrase "Beat Radio". I agree with Dana's comment that the newscasts are copyrighted. -SusanLesch (talk) 02:02, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Due to the lack of response from music editors, I have dropped a further note on User talk:A Knight Who Says Ni, who appears to be one of the more active editors on the music project talk pages right now. Hopefully the direct appeal will get a music person over here to make any final comments. I have also struck the part of my vote that referred to sources, as that review has been completed. Dana boomer (talk) 23:44, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Source comments What makes this reliable?

This one seems a commercial store used for factual info. I lean slightly reliable, but I'd like to hear what others think:

  • I'm happy with the use of IMDb and Amazon for basic, physical info, but have a few nitpicks:
  • The ISBNs in the Reflist need conformity of style and number of numbers. Pick a simple 10 number version with no dashes for all the books.
  • Are all those refs used? If not, some may need to be removed or put into Further reading.
  • If some are only used once, then they have to be placed in the footnotes instead of being in both sections for a single cite. RB88 (T) 02:37, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • No they don't. A lot of editors (me included) like to keep things consistent and have all book reference be in the short form in the footnotes. There is nothing that rules against this in the sourcing guidelines, and this has not been brought up in the recent FACs I've had that sported this style of referencing. Dana boomer (talk) 02:43, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I fixed the Blegen cite based on the url link, but I don't think it's right.
  • I'm confused by the Nute ref.
  • The Mayer ref had a year in location. I put it in brackets but it might need to be removed.
  • The Noran ref has the same title and publisher. Somehow, I don't think that's right.
  • Make sure all the magazine urls have a retrieval date for internal consistency. Some are missing one.

RB88 (T) 17:00, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • CommentDelist My concern with this article is not the facts, or the citations (which I don't have time to check), but the quality of the writing. I'll hop in and out, making changes as I go to make it flow a little better, but right now I don't believe that its at FA standard. It'll take time to improve it all, there's a lot of text there. Parrot of Doom 23:13, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've had another look, and while making minor changes here and there I have come to the conclusion that this article needs a major re-write to maintain its FA status. There are just too many instances of poor wording, like "The MacPhail Center for Music offers classes on 35 different instruments and also tuition in the Suzuki method and art therapy,[15] by instructors from all over the world, to more than 7,200 students at 45 locations". I can make changes to the most obvious errors, but I don't have anywhere near enough time to do everything that this article needs. In the end, its going to have to be the article's primary contributors who sort this out. Parrot of Doom 17:06, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist: Frankly, a very poor article. The writing is appalling and runs the gambit from being sloppy and redundant ("brought with them French chansons" - as opposed to brought with someone else?) to editorializing and OR ("Rock and roll has a surprisingly long history in the state" - surprising to whom?) Thoughts are not organized or clear (e.g. first paragraph of the history section discusses the traditional music brought by early Europeans, yet somehow ends on "Modern-day traditional dance" and is then succeeded with a paragraph returning to discussion of European settlers. Completely irrelevant Garland information finishes the section. Also appears to fail 1C; there are dozens of books related to this topic that appear not to have been considered (no "thorough and representative survey"). Here's several possible sources I found with a two minute search:
    • Sherman, John K. (1958). Music and theater in Minnesota history. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press
    • Parthun, Paul Robert (1984). Ojibwe music in Minnesota. University Microfilms
    • Björnson, Val (1969). The history of Minnesota. Lewis Historical Pub. Co. (there are at least two volumes)
    • Larson, LeRoy Wilbur (1983). Scandinavian-American folk dance music of the Norwegians in Minnesota. University of Microfilms International
    • Tourville, Tom W. (1990) Minnesota rocked!!: the 1960's : a discography & guide to the music & the people of Minnesota from the 1960's. T.W. Tourville
    • Gillis, Frank James (1958). Minnesota music in the nineteenth century. University of Minnesota Press
    • Sterling, Mick (2005). The Long Ride Home: A Life in the Minnesota Music Scene. Crotalus Publishing. ISBN 0974186058
    • Beck, Roger Lawrence. (1987) Military music at Fort Snelling, Minnesota from 1819 to 1858. University of Minnesota
    • Legg, Douglas B. (1982). Minnesota folk music and folklore in the recorded collections of the Archive of Folk Culture. Library of Congress, Archive of Folk Culture
    Have these been consulted? Have the dozens of others? Article doesn't even appear to satisfy WP:LEAD. "Venues" and "Recording studies and record stores" are important enough to have level two headers, but receive no mention in the lead. Эlcobbola talk 17:44, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist: while I applaud the effort and massive improvements made by SusanLesch, Parrot of Doom's and Elcobbola's concerns are too significant to overlook, and this review has already run too long. Delisting, with an aim towards improving the prose and sourcing and a return to FAC, would be more in order at this stage. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:18, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome to your views, but I find the pile-on "delist" votes to be late. We had two "keep" votes and a conditional support before Parrot of Doom, Эlcobbola and SandyGeorgia chimed in on the last day. -SusanLesch (talk) 23:10, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was not and not aware of a time limit, let alone this being "the last day". Perhaps you would care to point out where one can find this information on {{FAR-instructions}}? Am I not reading "extensions are always granted on request, as long as the article is receiving attention" correctly? What, by the way, does time have to do with anything? Does this article meet the criteria or does it not? Am I to understand that it's acceptable to retain non-compliant articles if the timing of concerns is perceived as being inconvenient? Эlcobbola talk 23:29, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Эlcobbola. I understand time has run out, looking at Sandy's message on User_talk:Raul654#FARs_due_for_closing. That's what I mean by pile-on "delist" votes being "late" and on the "last day". Last time I looked was yesterday when things looked promising. -SusanLesch (talk) 23:51, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(to SusanLesch) - it isn't as though the article suffers only from poor grammar. I do my best (which isn't the best here), but I genuinely struggled to understand much of the article's content because of the way it is written. That, in my opinion, would take more time than is appropriate for a passing editor to try and solve, moreso for someone who lives on a different continent. Parrot of Doom 12:24, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Parrot of Doom. I apologize. I was having a bad day that day. It's very nice of you to try to help fix this article. :-) -SusanLesch (talk) 05:09, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist since this is like trying to cook a steak by breathing on it. Prose issues still stand; needs a lot more work per consensus. If all we're going to do is quibble about everything for more than FOUR MONTHS, then clearly this is not FA quality. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 01:43, 3 March 2010 (UTC) Keep now that it's finally been copy edited. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 18:20, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • My opinion is unchanged, even after the copyedit. A few random selections, and I didn't have to go searching. I don't think any explanation is required:
    • The Minnesota Orchestra was founded in 1903 as the Minneapolis Symphony Orchestra. Although it was among the first to perform on the radio and to record,[71] it initially was not known as one of the country's great orchestras. In the 1930s, Eugene Ormandy transformed it into an excellent ensemble and expanded its repertory, making it the most-recorded orchestra in the United States, and giving it an international reputation.[72][73] Other illustrious conductors included Dimitri Mitropoulos and Antal Dorati.[74]
    • Minneapolis became noted as a center for rhythm and blues (R&B) in the 1980s, when the singing star Prince rose to fame. The city had little history in African American popular music, such as R&B, until Prince debuted in 1978. He became the first architect of the Minneapolis sound, a funk, rock and disco-influenced style of R&B, and inspired a legion of subsequent performers, including the Prince-related acts The Time, Wendy & Lisa and Vanity 6.[116]
    • Minnesota is home to many ethnic groups, who bought with them the folk music of their homelands. When these immigrants settled in rural farming areas, their communities retained Old World social and religious patterns that gave a context for music performance.[5] These ethnic communities frequently settled near each other, in Minnesota and in Iowa, Wisconsin, Illinois, North Dakota and South Dakota, and their musical and cultural identities blurred

Parrot of Doom 21:44, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • SusanLesch asked me to revisit; I remain of the opinion that this article should be delisted. While the prose has improved, there are still numerous issues, for example WP:PEACOCK in the lead (Talented musicians), poor phrasing ("The studio had hits..." - the studio didn't "have" them; they were recorded therein), the bizarre Garland "paragraph" remains, etc. Prose work, additionally, does not address the aforementioned 1C concerns. 14:43, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi, Elcobbola. I fixed the specifics you mention. The 1C problem is one of perspective I think. The books that you found might be good but the material they cover is for the most part covered already by sources in use here (there is no need for another book on most of the subjects in your list). Thank you for returning to give this another look. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:28, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, but if they've not even been consulted, how are we able to make the determination that information therein is entirely redundant? There's a whole book about Ojibwe music; only Dakota is discussed. There's a whole book about military music; a topic not at all discussed. There's a whole book about nineteenth century music; coverage is this century is largely non-existent (refer to the nominator's concern of bias towards modern music). I realize a lot of this may be more appropriate for a spin-off (e.g. History of music in Minnesota), but, as they apparently have not been consulted, how do we know that they don't contain relevant information about influence, etc.? A "thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature on the topic" (WIAFA 1C) has simply not been conducted. Эlcobbola talk 16:09, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I think asking anyone to consult every book on a topic is nuts. The Métis who are part Chippewa (Ojibwe) are mentioned but Dakota history might be more pertinent to the state. John Philip Sousa's march though no more about military music is mentioned. The goal here is not to write a Ph.D. thesis, but rather to create an overview. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:25, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide a diff where I requested "to consult every book on a topic". That would, of course, be nuts. The titles and contents of several books not consulted, however, suggest a gap in comprehensiveness. Эlcobbola talk 17:36, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but I disagree. Scandinavian immigrants dominated and their nineteenth century music for example is covered in the "History" and "Folk" sections. To chose another from your list, the 1960s are, if anything, overrepresented in the sections on "Rock" and "Recording studios". -SusanLesch (talk) 17:44, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine. It's ok to disagree and that's indeed why the FA director and delegates get paid the big bucks. Again, however, my concern is not about the specifics of the history (i.e. event X occurred at time Y and place Z), but that the neglected sources may contain necessary "big picture" information. Regardless, speculation of whether their material is covered in summary is nowhere near a "thorough and representative survey". Survey the literature; if there's no new material to be added, then there's no issue. But the survey needs to occur. It's one thing when articles come to FAR because they've deteriorated in style and writing quality over time; it's another when the promoted version wasn't comprehensive or thoroughly researched to begin with (I'm aware standards have changed). Эlcobbola talk 18:14, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm just wondering if there is any overview work or source out there from anywhere that has been found to be as comprehensive or more thorough than this article on the stated subject. In short: is there an article anywhere that is nearly as good as this one? If not, we are dealing with the best article on the subject to be found anywhere. If that's not good enough, to what standard is the article being held against? Lambanog (talk) 17:07, 13 March 2010 (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 Raul654 00:09, 15 March 2010 [42].

Sino-German cooperation (1911–1941)

[edit]

Review commentary

[edit]
Notified: Author and listed WikiProjects

The article lacks citations in many places. Many subjective passages such as the legacy, attribution of motives and value judgments are uncited. In one case, a 1939 work is used as a cite for Hitler's legacy when later writers have the benefit of more hindsight; other contemporary sources are used that may be now out of date, including some primary sources YellowMonkey (Southern Stars photo poll) 06:19, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Media review

There's a lot of white space in the "Sino-German cooperation in the 1930s" section, which could probably be removed by alternating images and removing the two with uncertain provenance. DrKiernan (talk) 11:18, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Citation style is inconsistent and IMO, weird. Anotherclown (talk) 11:51, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: there are a few issues that I see with this article. As per above, the article needs more inline citations (at least one per paragraph, if not more), also there are a couple of MOS issues, but I will try to fix those myself. On my screen there is also a lot of whitespace due to image stacking, which I feel should be fixed too. As per Anotherclown's comment, I feel that "Ibid" should not be used in citations on wiki due to the fluid nature, which might mean that the original citation might get deleted, thus leaving a lot of Ibid's but no actual name. Hence, the Ibids should be changed to a more appropriate style that allows the reader to identify the source easily. Finally, there are a lot of links in the See also section, which I think is usually frowned upon at this level. I feel that these should be incorporated into the text if possible and removed (they may already be linked in the text, if so, I feel they should be removed from the See also section). — AustralianRupert (talk) 23:44, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I think I've fixed the whitespace issue. Please review and if anyone disagrees it can be changed back. Before going any further, can we get some consensus on the citation style please? What style does everyone feel is appropriate for the article? I feel that the current one is not good and needs to be changed. My preferred is short citation style in Notes (e.g. "Smith 2010, p. 1." or" Smith (2010), p. 1."), with the full bibliographic details going in the References section. What does everyone else think? — AustralianRupert (talk) 00:27, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think that would be a good start. Anotherclown (talk) 01:24, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've fixed the issue with the citation style. If anyone objects, please revert. I wasn't able to verify the sources, however. Cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 23:10, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: also I feel that there are a few grammatical/tense issues in the article. I've tried to fix a few as I found them, but if someone else is keen to do some copy edit work that would be appreciated. Cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 01:42, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Commments This article unfortunately no longer meets the FA criteria. My comments are:
    • Referencing is inadequate. The use of 'ibid' is totally unacceptable as there's no way of knowing whether edits made after such references were added mean that this term still refers to the preceding reference - material sourced with 'ibid' may as well be unsourced given that WP:V isn't met
    • The claim that "Before the Nazi rise to power, German policy in China had been contradictory" and after this it was better directed seems a bit dubious given that the Nazi doctrine of racial superiority meant that doing business with 'inferior' races like the Chinese was also contradictory
    • I have some serious concerns about the neutrality of the article - it appears to be pretty sympathetic to Germany and I suspect that it greatly exaggerates the importance of German assistance to China. For instance, it is claimed that "However, a series of Sino-German agreements in 1934–1936 greatly accelerated railway construction in China." but how this translated into railroad construction is never explained. The implication that advice from Germans and German-designed weapons were critical in China holding off the Japanese also seems exaggerated. In the rare instances where the article gives concrete figures for the extent of German support they're typically rather modest.
    • It is notable that the article doesn't discuss China's relations with other western countries - for instance, support from the United States was also important during this period, and grew rapidly as the Pacific War approached. This needs to be covered to provide context to the assistance received from Germany.
    • The article is littered with untranslated German terms which could be replaced with English terms with no loss of meaning - eg, what's the Denkschrift für Marschall Chiang Kai-shek, and why is 'Hitlerjugend' used instead of the more common English language term 'Hitler Youth'?
    • The discussion of German-Chinese relations after the outbreak of World War II fails to mention that the naval blockade of Germany and the Japanese capture of most of China's main ports meant that there was no longer any prospect of trade between the countries.
    • The article has too many images
    • The lead is too short
    • While the article is reasonably well written, it needs a copy edit. Nick-D (talk) 10:46, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

[edit]
Featured article criterion of concern are images, citations, neutrality, comprehensiveness, prose, MOS. YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 00:28, 25 February 2010 (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 00:04, 9 March 2010 [43].

El Al

[edit]

Review commentary

[edit]
Notified: Flymeoutofhere, WikiProject Airlines, WikiProject Israel

I am nominating this featured article for review because is has fallen short of the FA criteria. While there are no huge issues, there are a lot of smaller things which summed up make the article mature for a review. Some comments:

  • The lead is shorter than would be expected of an article this length. It in no way summarizes the article, for instance leaving no mention of the fleet. It also tends to overfocus on details and has a what I feel is a 'glorification' of the airline (through selective choice of content, not necessarily because what is stated is in any way untrue).
  • Two of the section titles contain 'El Al'. These should be removed. Also, the section 'today' should be renamed something more specific, such as 'operations'. (fixed)
  • There are two instances of galleries, neither which are suitable. (fixed)
  • The article needs a thorough copyedit. For instance, the first sentence of 'history' flows badly because it lacks a comma after the date. Other issues are that the aviation term for 'borrowing an aircraft' is 'lease'; most of the sentences are very short, giving a compulsory feeling of having to make too many breaks, thus eliminating the flow of the prose; spaced emdashes; using $ without specifying currency; short paragraphs; a number of smaller MOS issues;
  • The individual hijackings should be covered in the 'accidents and incidents' sections. Instead, the prose should not so much cover the incidents as the reactions and measures the airline did. (modified, so should be okay now)
  • I am uncertain if File:El Al ocean ad.png is within Wikipedia's permitted fair use policy. (okay)
After double-checking with HeWiki's resident lawyer, I have been satisfied that the image is in the public domain and changed the license accordingly. —Ynhockey (Talk) 16:18, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • All the [very short] paragraphs under '1990s and early 2000s' start with "In [date]... or on [date]...". (better)
  • The lead states very bluntly that the airline is the world's most secure. However, in the body, this is only accredited to a single source. (okay)
  • Only military geeks know what 'CAMPS' are.
  • There are some uncited claims.
  • There should be a more filling explanation of the destinations and services, and the codeshare cooperation should be written into the prose. (partially fixed)
  • Again, the fleet section should have prose discussion the fleet before the actual list. An overview of past fleet (either in the fleet or history section) should be included. (partially fixed)
  • Instead of many small sections with alienating titles (i.e. using brand names), a section such as service should be created to include the various aspects (frequent-flyer program, lounges etc.) (fixed)
  • I am unsure about this, but it would be easier to read if the incidents and accidents section was converted to a table (with date, location, aircraft and a description)
  • As 'Sun D'Or International Airlines' is mentioned in the prose, it should not be in "see also". (fixed)
  • Two links point back to the article.
  • There are eight dead links.
  • One reference is a bare link. (removed)

Arsenikk (talk) 11:00, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After spending some time copyediting the article, things seem to be getting worse. While looking through references, there seems to be more and more uncited or vague claims. Right now there are four {{citation needed}} tages, and about a dozen commented comments related to inconsistencies or lacks of the prose. At the moment, there seem to be two main issues with the article, which will both require a significant portion of work to conform to: 1) the sources are in part lacking, in part not up to standards and in part dead. A few places, the age of the sources give either dated information (typically statistics from 2006 or 2007) or claims which cannot automatically be considered true nine years later 2) the prose is not up to featured standards. While most of it fine and grammatically correct, the prose is not 'brilliant'. Several places, the prose uses an unprofessional language, it is unnecessary vague or flows badly. In addition, there are still a few MOS-non-compliances, although most of these have been straightened out. While the article is now better than when the review commenced, it is still in need of some sourcing and research, which I will not conduct myself, although I can of course be of assistance. Arsenikk (talk) 19:54, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Images
Hi Arsenikk! Thank you for the interesting review. I will attempt to address the issues you have raised with time. However, please note that Nominators typically assist in the process of improvement; they may post only one nomination at a time. I request that you withdraw the nomination for the time being, and I will definitely take all of your comments into account and try to improve the article. I hope you can help! Thanks, Ynhockey (Talk) 18:48, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Section headers no long start with numbers. Arsenikk (talk) 19:54, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Accidents and incidents

There is long-standing consensus at WP:Airlines to include a list of notable incidents and accidents in the article; see WP:AIRCRASH. Many of the listed incidents have their own article, and many of the incidents could have their own. Some incidents are notable enough to mention in the article, but not enough to have a their own article—these are by convention placed in the airline section, and, if relevant, in an airport article. While I can agree that the current list seems a bit non-professional, this is the way articles are being passed through GA, and no real alternative exists at the moment. In my opinion, including the in the history is perhaps not as good an idea as can seem, because the incidents ten to be notable independent of the chronology. Perhaps someone has some better ideas for how this can be done? Arsenikk (talk) 00:15, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

[edit]
Featured article criterion of concern are prose, comprehensiveness, lead, citations. YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 06:28, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist - Still many citation needed tags, plus some of the entries in the "Incidents and accidents" section are unreferenced but not tagged. The "Incidents and accidents" section should be turned into prose, or even integrated completely into the History section, as much of the information is duplicated there anyways. At 55k, this article doesn't need to be duplicating large amounts of information. There are lots of short paragraphs, which make the article choppy, and the punctuation needs a comb-through. Some sandwiching of text between the images in the Early years section, which needs to be resolved. There are several dead links in the references (see the toolbox for the link checker tool) and the lead needs to be expanded. Dana boomer (talk) 01:53, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist per Dana Boomer, very many dead links and sourcing issues, also agree on the "Incidents and accidents" section being an examplefarm. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 23:07, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist for lack of proper references and sub-standard prose. No-one is working on brining it up to proper standards. Arsenikk (talk) 00:09, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist, referencing issues. Cirt (talk) 17:38, 2 March 2010 (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 23:46, 1 March 2010 [44].

Characters of Kingdom Hearts

[edit]

Review commentary

[edit]
Notified: Guyinblack25, WikiProject Square Enix, WikiProject Video Games, WikiProject Disney

There are a few problems to this article, but they're still big. There are un-referenced parts in this article, mainly with the characters. Moreover, the "Other characters" section makes the article more like a list than an article. So please give me your thoughts. GamerPro64 (talk) 02:44, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Images are lacking alt text and a few of the refs dates are inconsistent (refs 34, 36, 72). Ref 13 is dead and is 34 a reliable source? It looks like a forum. CrimsonFox talk 09:55, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: Looks like Gamer beat me to the punch on this one. I agree that this article does not meet the current FA criteria.

  • Unreliable sources:
    • Several refs (2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 32, and 38) are interviews from other publications hosted on Kingdom Hearts Ultimania, a fan site which does not meet WP:RS
    • Other refs (4, 17, 35, and 49) are the same, but from different fan sites: Kingdom Hearts Insider, KingdomHearts3.net, and Video Game Blogger.
    • The forum and image postings (34, 42, and 53) do not meet citation and sourcing guidelines.
    • Pretty sure the IMDB sources can be replaced with a listing on a reliable gaming site.
  • Excess detail.
    • Some well-meaning editors felt listing every character with bullet points would be better than concise overviews. A rewrite and trim of these sections is in order.
  • Synthesis
    • Ref 37 cites Jesse McCartney's Twitter page, which I'm not sure whether or not it meets WP:RS. Regardless, the content on the twitter post does not match the content in the article, and some bold assumptions are made. Mind you they make sense, but I think such methodology is discouraged for featured content.

I know this is not the part where we decide what to do with the article, but I know the sourcing issues—specifically the interviews on the fan sites—cannot be easily fixed. I spent months hunting down the original source information to properly cite the interviews but turned up nothing. I stumbled across a few extra tidbits here and there, but nothing that could replace the "Creation and influences" section, which depends entirely one these interviews. Without that section, the article is not comprehensive.

In short, I don't see this FAR ending in any way other than a delisting. Maybe some white knight of the Wiki will come and save the day. But I'm not holding my breath. (Guyinblack25 talk 16:32, 1 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Comments: In my opinion, this article doesn't have nearly enough information describing the characters to be a FA. The vast majority, if not the entirety, of most characters' text is nothing more than plot detail. Powers T 13:55, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Images

I'm concerned about the fair use rationales for two of the images:

well it can be formatted better. especially for the main paragraphs. right now it looks like a giant paragraph instead of few smaller ones. The article just needs to be trimmed and find proper sourcing, though what guyinblack has said, there are some things that just cant be found. Unless we change consensus and make it so that forums are acceptable to a point, then the article could possibly be saved, but that's really unlikely.Bread Ninja (talk) 16:31, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

[edit]
Featured article criterion of concern are copyright, comprehensiveness, lack of citations and reliable sources YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars photo poll) 07:18, 16 February 2010 (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_2010&oldid=765866968"