Wikipedia:Featured article review/archive/October 2009

Kept status

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

The article was kept by Marskell 17:27, 31 October 2009 [1].

---

Second Crusade

Notified: Adam Bishop, ... WikiProject Christianity, ...

I am nominating this featured article for review because entire sections of the article are missing and have citation needed. Article is missing ALT text, as well as contains links to four disambiguation pages. This article would not even pass GA nomination. warrior4321 00:40, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment On first glance, the need for citation isn't as bad as I thought it would be. Did you bring these issues up on the talk page first? Dabomb87 (talk) 00:44, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment. Alt text done; thanks. Images need alt text as per WP:ALT. Eubulides (talk) 17:58, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll try to get to this in the next couple of weeks. There aren't a lot of sections that are uncited, thankfully. And it does indeed have a lead section which should help. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:55, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, there was actually very little uncited. I've cited everything with a "citation needed" tag in the article. In the process I replaced a ref to "Durant (1950)" which wasn't in the bibliography, but I highly suspect was to a Will Durant work, and thus replacing it is a good idea. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:06, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Disambiguation links fixed. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:38, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

And alt text added. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:02, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for doing all that. The alt text looks great. However, alt text is missing for the lead image (the infobox map). Also, all those tiny little decorative flags need to be marked with "|link=|alt=" as per WP:ALT #Purely decorative images. Please see the "alt text" button at the upper right of this review page to find them all. Eubulides (talk) 04:41, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

You'll forgive me if I let someone else do the little flags. And I did put alt text into the infobox, it hasn't been updated for that yet, obviously (If you look in the article, you'll see it.). I dislike that huge infobox, and honestly refuse to touch it. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:55, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually the wrong syntax was being used for the infobox image. I fixed it, and fixed the little flags as well. Thanks again. Eubulides (talk) 14:28, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Eubulides. I find that particular infobox (campaign isn't it?) supremely ... ugly and huge. I'd take it out if I though it'd stick. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:25, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

The flags still need alt text however. warrior4321 03:31, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I believe Eubulides marked them with the link parameter which means they are purely decorative, and don't need alt text. Correct me if I'm wrong, Eub. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:03, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

You're not wrong. I just now audited the article with the Altviewer tool and found one little rascal that still needed fixing, so I fixed it. Don't know how I missed that earlier. Eubulides (talk) 17:32, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Do people feel this can go? Marskell (talk) 16:29, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Alt text is done and the disambig pages and citations have been fixed. I'm willing to do further work if required, but nothing has been brought up recently. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:31, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

That was fast!

I pinged warrior for an update. Marskell (talk) 16:39, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

No comments from the nominator. I'll move this off. Good work. Marskell (talk) 17:22, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The article was kept by Marskell 17:27, 31 October 2009 [2].

---

Manchester City F.C.

Notified: Oldelpaso, WikiProject Football

I am nominating this featured article for review because I believe it no longer meets the standards. Having just strenuously dragged Luton Town F.C. to FA, I'm in good stead to recognise areas where this article fails; these include, but are not limited to (I have only had a scan through):

1. . The club history suffers heavily from recentism (about half of it focusses on the past ten years)
2. . The "is/are" argument that dogged the Luton Town promotion is still not resolved here. Either one is fine by me, but it's very jarring when it keeps on switching from one to the other
3. . Explanation required for flags (see key implemented in Luton Town article)
4. . The "managers" section, while derivative to the Manchester City managers page, could be a little more interesting
5. . The "supporters" section is perilously under-referenced, as is much of the page (while it may be covered by the books, in-line citations would be reassuring) – some parts even occur beyond 2002 (the date of the most recent book citation) and are unreferenced (see "ownership" in particular)
6. . The "1988/89" format of season is about – for the sake of consistency, 1988–89 please – Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 21:49, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment. Alt text done; thanks. Images need alt text as per WP:ALT. Eubulides (talk) 22:38, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

• This FAR has probably been on the cards for a while. A revamp has been to my to-do list for a long time, but without actually getting done. I guess I'd better expedite my efforts. Oldelpaso (talk) 09:41, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Midway through adding more references. Oldelpaso (talk) 10:31, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

The history had a bit of that frequent Wikipedia phenomenon, the addition of recent events in a line by line fashion as they occur. I've trimmed this down. This was also the cause of season format inconsistency, which is now fixed. Discretionary plurals have been something I've not done anything with since the article was on the main page, when there was a back and forth the whole day. It put me off intervening on the issue for life. Personally I favour use of the discretionary plural for "Manchester City", "the team" etc but the singular for "the club". No doubt others will disagree. I'm not aware of a consensus on a key for the squadlist. Luton would appear to be the only one for which it is used. It strikes me as entirely superfluous. Oldelpaso (talk) 12:30, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I personally agree with your stance, but I'm sure you remember I faced a mighty battle to get LTFC featured – one of the things I had to do was use the "American "is""… I don't think it would have trickled over the line without it, due to the American contingent on Wikipedia. I remember that one of the points raised was that it should be consistent, and I do agree with that: I, in your shoes, would therefore go along with it. It's up to you though. – Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 21:24, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

As for the squadlist nationality key, I seem to recall somebody pointing out at the LTFC FAC that flags should be defined for people who may not recognise them (It was at MOS:FLAG unless I'm much mistaken). – Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 07:21, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

This does not appear to have been an objection at the Luton Town FAC, but in any case, I simply do not see how the key helps. In terms of accessibility, a user using a screen reader will already have "flag of x" in the relevant place. Oldelpaso (talk) 09:02, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I do seem to remember a debate about the key, but no matter. I believe the matter is not so much that as that people may not recognise flags of the world. This is surely a very important issue for clubs such as Manchester City, where the squad includes players from all over the world. It's just my opinion, but I think that although they are often a little superfluous, they are sometimes helpful and add more than they detract. I would therefore be in favour of a key – but, it's your choice. – Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 18:30, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

• Alt text added. Oldelpaso (talk) 11:46, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks, it looks good. Eubulides (talk) 17:11, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

• Token remove - Just because it's Citeh. Just kidding. But I do still think that this article should be demoted, purely because it isn't referenced anywhere near well enough, particularly in the History section, but also in the Club records, Stadium, and Supporters sections. The stats for the notable former managers could also do with a reference. – PeeJay 22:48, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Someone seems to think that File:ManCity1904.jpg is copyrighted, which could be possible, since we don't know when it was first published. DrKiernan (talk) 16:08, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

• Delist for now, until some serious work is done. – Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 07:09, 19 September 2009 (UTC) Comment – Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 10:18, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Referencing should be sorted out now. Feel free to tag anything I may have missed with {{cn}}. Oldelpaso (talk) 11:52, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, refs look grand now; now to work on the actual content of the article (I've just had a quick run-through so may not have caught everything):

1. in a lot of places you use "F.C." and "A.F.C." in club names. I'd expand them to their full forms (e.g. "Football Club")

   Not sure about this. As long as the clubs are linked, there's little advantage, since this is clearly an article about football, to continually state "football club"... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:59, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

2. "Players and staff": Still no key? Suit yourself, but I don't see what's wrong with having them.

   I guess you're referring to the flags? They all link to the relevant countries, and this isn't Luton, the key would be as large as the list of players and staff...! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:11, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

3. "Players and staff": I'd rename "Hall of fame" to "Notable former players": not all of the players in the linked article will be in the hall of fame, after all.

   Hmm. Perhaps you may not be aware of the dangers of a section called "Notable former players"... One man's "notable player" is another man's donkey. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:01, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

4. "Players and staff": As I mentioned before, the managers section could be much more informative.

   It could be but that's why we have content forks which should cover these specific things in much more detail. No point in repeating information. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:01, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

5. "Supporters": "Manchester City has a large fanbase in relation to their comparative lack of success on the pitch." Oh dear. It's Manchester City have, the club has. You can have either "The club has a large fanbase in relation to its comparative lack of success on the pitch" or "Manchester City have a large fanbase in relation to their comparative lack of success on the pitch", but not a mixture of the two!

   Common fault. Fixed. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:12, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

6. "Supporters": "A common stereotype is that City fans come from Manchester proper, while United fans come from elsewhere. A 2002 report by a researcher at Manchester Metropolitan University found that a higher proportion of City season ticket holders came from Manchester postcode areas (City 40%, United 29%). United had a higher number of season ticket holders living in Manchester postcode areas, as they had more season ticket holders overall, and the report contained a caveat that the number of City season tickets had since increased (the report was compiled before City's move to the City of Manchester Stadium), and following stadium expansion United have more than doubled their number of season ticket holders." ...what? This whole paragraph is very hard to follow grammatically – I'd rephrase it thus: "A common stereotype is that City fans come from Manchester proper, while United fans come from elsewhere. A 2002 report by a researcher at Manchester Metropolitan University found that while it was true that a higher proportion of City season ticket holders came from Manchester postcode areas (40% compared to United's 29%), there were more United season ticket holders, the lower percentage being due to United's higher overall number of season ticket holders (27,667 compared to City's 16,481). However, the report warned that since the compiling of data in 2001, the number of both City and United season ticket holders had risen: City's move to the City of Manchester Stadium has caused season ticket sales to increase "considerably", while United's expansion of Old Trafford has seen their number of season ticket holders double^{[Incidentally this final point needs to be referenced.]}."
7. In "Honours", I'd expand names to their full titles (First Division → Football League First Division) and space out name changes a bit to make them easier to read (Football League First Division/Premier League → Football League First Division / Premier League). Also, why aren't the seasons linked to their relevant competitions – for example, for the 1936–37 League championship, why not link to 1936–37 Football League?

   Of course, you understand the complexities of stating that the First Division is now the Second and the Premier League used to be the First and that League One was Division Three... But sure, the competitions have been expanded, although I now think this will be confusing. Seasons all appear linked. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:15, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

#In "Stadium": "state-of-the-art"? This is an encyclopaedia, not a brochure.

1. Also in "Stadium": "47,726-seater" → "47,726 all-seater"
2. Also in "Stadium": "in East Manchester ("Eastlands")" → "in East Manchester (giving it the nickname "Eastlands")"
3. Also in "Stadium": "Before moving to the stadium, Manchester City spent in excess of £30 million on upgrading it and lowering the field of play from ground level (where it was during the Commonwealth Games) to below ground level, adding an additional tier of seating around the entire pitch and also building the new North Stand." Split this up and reword it, it's hard to navigate. Try this: "Before moving to the stadium, Manchester City spent more than £30 million on redevelopment: a new North Stand was built, and the field of play was lowered from ground level (its position during the Commonwealth Games) in order to enable the construction of a additional tier of seating around the pitch."
4. Also in "Stadium": Is the first match at the ground really relevant? The result certainly isn't.

   This seems a little picky to me. The fact it was a spanking new stadium opened with a friendly against one of the best club sides in the world which City won is interesting enough for inclusion. Taking it out wouldn't achieve much. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:06, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

5. Also in "Stadium": "Manchester City have also used several other grounds during their history. After playing home games at five different grounds between 1880 and 1887, the club settled at Hyde Road and stayed for 36 years. After a fire destroyed the Main Stand in 1920, the club decided to look for a new site, moving to the 84,000-capacity Maine Road in 1923, which was nicknamed the "Wembley of the North" by designers. On 3 March 1934, Maine Road hosted the largest-ever crowd at an English club ground, when 84,569 attended an FA Cup tie against Stoke City. Maine Road was redeveloped several times over its 80-year lifespan, though by 1995 its capacity was restricted to 32,000, prompting the move to the City of Manchester Stadium." No, no, no. Try "Manchester City have used several grounds during their history: after playing home matches at five different stadia between 1880 and 1887, the club settled at Hyde Road, its home for 36 years. After a fire destroyed the Main Stand in 1920, the club started to seek a new site and moved to the 84-000 capacity Maine Road three years later. Maine Road, nicknamed the "Wembley of the North" by its designers, hosted the largest-ever crowd at an English club ground when 84,569 attended an FA Cup tie against Stoke City on 3 March 1934. Though Maine Road was redeveloped several times over its 80-year lifespan, by 1995 its capacity was restricted to 32,000, prompting the search for a new ground which culminated in the move to the City of Manchester Stadium in 2003."
6. Also in "Stadium": "Its capacity of 47,726 is the fourth highest in the FA Premier League." Two things; firstly, why is this at the end of a paragraph talking about old grounds? Move it up to the end of the first in "Stadium". Secondly, FA Premier League.
7. "Ownership": Shinawatra is constantly referred to by his first name: is this deliberate? It seems to me very unorthodox in tone for an encyclopaedia.

Overall, looks on the way to being kept if you follow my suggestions. Keep up the good work. – Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 21:14, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

A couple of quick responses:

2: I'd like to get some wider input on this one.

3: Changed from {{main}} to {{tl:seealso}}, which is more precise in this case.

5: I will sort this issue out, but I'll probably do it after addressing everything else.

15: The standard form of address for a Thai person in a formal context is the forename, see for example [3] from today's press.

Will address things related to prose in due course. Oldelpaso (talk) 10:24, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

• Comment – Link checker shows that references 41 and 52 are to dead links, and references 2 and 34 need further formatting to match the style of the other web cites. Giants2008 (17–14) 23:17, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Done. Oldelpaso (talk) 09:24, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

• I'm still active on this, but unfortunately from today I will be away for a week and thus offline. Oldelpaso (talk) 09:06, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Duly noted. – Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 07:07, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
    • I'm happy to address any remaining issues in Oldelpaso's absence. I made a start on responding to some of the comments above. It would be particularly helpful if we could have a summary of outstanding issues as it's got a bit mixed up... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:18, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
      • Points still outstanding as 18 October 2009:
      • "Notable players", to me, can be easily defined: either holds a record, or played 100 matches. Easy.
        • Not exactly. Either of those are subjective. What about a player who won the FA Cup with a broken neck? That's really notable but doesn't meet your criteria. And as I said earlier, we have forks for lists of players. Check out how many players meet your criteria here - this information belongs in a fork, not in the main article. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:34, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
          • I think we must have misunderstood each other: I'm not saying this does belong in a main article! Just leave this one as it is. – Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 10:18, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
      • I don't see how giving the full names of competitions under "honours" can be confusing if you give the level or tier with it (as is currently done)...
        • Full names and tiers are there so presumably this isn't still outstanding? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:34, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
          • No, it isn't. Just giving clarification. – Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 10:18, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
      • On the flag key, it's a difficult one for me because on the one hand, you are right that it would take up a lot of room and skew the page quite a bit; but on the other hand, how many people in the world can, at a glance, identify the flag of, for example, Togo (no offence to Togo intended)? Hmm. Well, it could probably be said that you can simply click the link through if you're not sure of a nationality: for this reason I'm not going to be too strict about this one.
        • Yep, click on the flag, get the link. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:34, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
          • Exactly. – Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 10:18, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
      • On F.C. and A.F.C.: I don't know about you, it just doesn't read as well to me. It's a matter of flow, not of clarification. Try to read it through each way a few times and you'll probably see what I mean.
        • Could you provide me with a couple of examples of what you consider to be poorly flowed prose? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:34, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
          • Just for an example: "In 1887, they … were renamed Ardwick A.F.C. to reflect their new location. Ardwick … were reformed as Manchester City F.C.[.]" Try: "In 1887 they … were renamed Ardwick Association Football Club to reflect their new location. Ardwick … were reformed as Manchester City Football Club". (Incidentally, why are the club's various names bolded outside of the article lead?). – Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 10:18, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
            • Fixed, I think. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:21, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
              • Looks good. – Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 10:39, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
      • Re-write the supporters section; have a look above for my suggestion
        • Done using suggested reword and could find no source for a doubling of Utd season tickets so it's no longer there. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:51, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
          • OK. – Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 10:18, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
      • Ditto stadium section
        • Done using suggested reword. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:39, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
          • OK. – Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 10:18, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
      • Cheers, – Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 20:38, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

The nominator indicated on user talk he had no more concerns and there's nothing coming from anyone else. So a keep! Marskell (talk) 17:26, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The article was kept by Marskell 15:49, 26 October 2009 [4].

---

Cape Feare

Review commentary

Notified: Maitch, Gran2, Scorpion0422 and WikiProject The Simpsons.

I am nominating this featured article for review for 3 reasons. Firstly, I am concerned that is too US-centric. We are told at The Simpsons that this programme airs around the world; why isn't this demonstrated in the article? All of the audience ratings and reviews are from America. Therefore, it fails 1(d) of WP:WIAFA. "File:Cape Feare.gif" appears to fail point 3 of the said policy - it claims to come from a press kit, yet no evidence is shown and the source identified is a fan page. There are also sourcing concerns; 2 are from Amazon and most of the rest are from Fox (failing 1(c)) - a heavy reliance on primary sources for an article such as this is surely not healthy? DJ 10:04, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - As one of our oldest FAs it was inevitable that this would eventually happen and we at WP:DOH will look to improve it, but some of the nominators concerns I disagree with or don't fully understand them. Firstly, "most of the rest" of the sources are from Fox. None of them are "from Fox". I assume you mean the DVD commentary. That is used as the source for the production because it wa recorded by the people who produced the episode, therefore, there is no better (and indeed, no other) source for the production of the episode, it can't really be called a primary source - pretty much all DVDs have the disclaimer "The views expressed in the commentaries do not reflect the views of Fox/WB/NBC etc." for a reason. As for it being "US centric", that is all well and good to say, but there just are not any review of the episode from other countries (with the possible exception of the UK, I'll look). This episode aired in 1993 so it's likely if there were any, they have long been deleted. In fact, looking at the article I see reception informatin from Empire, Total Film and The Daily Telegraph, all of which are UK publictions. The images are definitly a problem though. Gran² 10:20, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

But what about TV viewing figures for the episode from other countries? In regards to the UK, I know that The Guardian has a good backlog of ratings and you may be able to obtain some infomation from BARB. And its not just about the UK - Australia? Ireland? Foreign language countries? The list goes on. The article doesn't actually mention when this episode first aired abroad. However, I do understand the disclaimer issue on the DVD commentary. DJ 10:31, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I've added an Australian publication mention of the episode I found on Newsbank (there is one other, which says its better than a newer Sideshow Bob episode, but doesn't actually mention which that one is, so isn't very helpful). It does not list any article which mentions the episode's title from any country apart from US/UK/Aus. As for ratings from other countries, the only source I've found for the UK airdate (October 10, 1993) is a fansite. I searched Newsbank and only three UK articles from October 1993 mention "The Simpsons" or "Simpsons", none of which are refering to this episode. I also looked at BARB for that week and it doesn't list Sky or even any specific shows (at least not as far as I can see). Gran² 11:15, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I cleaned up the article a bit and added a Swedish and a Norwegian source to the reception section. Theleftorium 16:36, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Round 2

All of the above concerns have been addressed excluding one; the 2 Amazon links that fail WP:RS. One still remains as Amazon and this must be changed. The other has been replaced with ""DVD New Releases". Evening Times. 2005-04-23.". The publication's Wiki article says that its a Scottish local paper and after a search of its website, it doesn't appear that they do DVD reviews, let alone one on the DVD concerned. Along with the fact that a user just randomly knew that the review took place on this date, I highly doubt that this article exists. Therefore, I request some proof (a scan of the article etc) or a change of source until we go futher. DJ 20:19, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Ever heard of newspaper archives? :) Here is a screenshot. Also, since when is Amazon not a reliable source for that kind of information? Theleftorium 20:33, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Because its a commercial website; it is writing to sell and not inform. Countdown (game show) got its FA status revoked due to a reliance on IMDb and Amazon sources. DJ 20:42, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

But all it is being used for is to prove a VHS exists and that this episode was on it. I've been trying to find something about Amazon on the RS noticeboard and this is the only thing I can find: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 7#Amazon.com as a RS for merchandise? Consensus seems to be that Amazon is fine for proving products exist which is all that is happening here. Maybe you should create a new discussion? Gran² 20:48, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Already done. Theleftorium 20:49, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I have now replaced the Amazon.com reference with this. Theleftorium 19:57, 24 August 2009 (UTC) Nevermind, I just noticed that that source was for a re-release of the 1997 collection without the "Who Shot Mr. Burns?" episode. I'll wait for some more replies at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Is_Amazon.com_a_reliable_source_for_this_sentence.3F. Theleftorium 20:07, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

A new source has been added by User:Bradley0110 ([5]). Theleftorium 15:54, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concern are citations, comprehensiveness, balance. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 07:09, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

• Keep, concerns significantly addressed. Cirt (talk) 17:34, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep All problems seem to have been dealt with. L0b0t (talk) 21:50, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

This is at the bottom of the FA range for Cr. 1a: undistinguished. I don't have enough energy to oppose its retention as a FA, though.

• Bad pipe from "sheet music" to "score"—not the same thing, and not even useful. I fixed it.
• "unbeknownst"—code for "unknown"?
• Why is "mystery" linked?
• A redundant "also". Tony (talk) 13:57, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

All done (I think). I'll try to get someone to copyedit the article. Theleftorium 14:04, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I went through the lead and plot, and will try to go through the rest when I get the time. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:52, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. It's much appreciated. Theleftorium 09:29, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The article was kept by Marskell 15:49, 26 October 2009 [6].

---

Gerald Ford

Review commentary

Notified: Jtmichcock, Veracious Rey , WikiProject U.S. Presidents, WikiProject Michigan

I am nominating this featured article for review because I was shocked to find that it only dedicates 4 sentences to Ford's presidency, and has apparently been like this since last year. Additionally, it has undergone tons of editing over the years, with entire sections being revised drastically, and more than half the images have not survived since the last FAR in January 2007. TheCoffee (talk) 17:51, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. There are 1c concerns, as many of the sources are superficial and there are many dead and irrelevant links.[7] —mattisse (Talk) 19:55, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment Ouch; when an article on a President of the United States devotes more space to the man's scouting and athletics activities than his presidency, there's a major problem. If this was at FARC already, I would !vote delist just on that problem alone. I will do what I can, but my reading material on Ford is extremely limited. Otumba (talk) 23:42, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Additional Located the edit which removed the vast majority of the presidency section: [8]. I can see the logic behind the editor's justification, "pretty much redundant from the Presidency of Gerald Ford article", and I do not believe the editor is deserving of any backlash. However, I think we can all agree that "Presidency of X" articles are meant as an 'overflow' area almost, where details of X's presidency that are not notable in the context of Ford's life in general but which are still notable in the context of his presidency are placed. "Presidency of X" articles are not meant as a substitute for a sizeable summary on X's main article. Otumba (talk) 00:02, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

• I'd agree with that statement. Things like bills passing would be a good example. JKBrooks85 (talk) 04:15, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. Done; thanks. Images lack alt text as per WP:ALT. Eubulides (talk) 06:05, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Images

• File:Gerald Ford 1914.gif: No information on first publication, and is frankly unlikely to have been published prior to 1923. The Ford Library seems to list this image among its pay-for-use images [9]
• File:Fords wedding 1948.gif: again appears to be listed at the pay-per-use area of the Ford Library website [10]
• File:Mr. and Mrs. Ford and Nixon 13 Oct 1973.jpg: seems to be a problem with this file (I can't see it on the article page).

The main image looks airbrushed. I wonder if it could be replaced with an original? DrKiernan (talk) 12:03, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

• Move to FARC – Many tags scattered throughout, and the article's scope is off-balance, as the lack of text on his presidency indicates. I would also expect to see some of the books listed in the general references used for cites; as of now, 1c is clearly not met. Giants2008 (17–14) 14:12, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested criteria are lack of balance, referencing, alt text, coverage. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 07:43, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delist – A large section on his presidency has been re-added, but there are too many 1c issues. I count at least 15 tags in various places, and no effort has been made to improve sourcing quality with books. Giants2008 (17–14) 01:15, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I saw that a good deal of work has been done since I last commented here, and the scope is improved. However, citation issues are still present. There is still one cite tag in the presidency section, and several unsourced paragraphs, a couple of which include quotes (should definitely be cited). A couple of books have been added as references, but some of the Internet references are problematic; I see YouTube (ref 38) and Find a Grave (ref 127), neither of which would be considered a reliable source, never mind a high-quality one. With these factors in mind, my 'vote' stands. Giants2008 (17–14) 02:29, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delist, per FA criteria concerns, and lots of unaddressed issues. Cirt (talk) 06:16, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
• Comment. Just getting into this one late. The main issue appeared to be scope, which is much improved as Giants2008 indicates - but is it improved enough? I'll start work on the tags this afternoon. Once tags and referencing are fixed, I'd like some guidance on what still needs work as far as the scope is concerned. Thanks, UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 14:48, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I've worked through about a third of the article, and many of the refs have been re-linked or revised. I did find a paragraph of straight verbatim copyvio under the Warren Commission (!); this has been rewritten. Continuing to work through the tags - and please tag any problems I miss. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 19:04, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Unless I missed something, all of the tags should be taken care of, either through re-citing the fact or revising the statement to match the source given. In one case, I left a citations needed tag; We know Pres. Ford died on 26 December, which is both Boxing Day and St. Stephen's Day. What citation should I use on the statement that Ford Died on Boxing Day? The original citation was the homily delivered during the service, which doesn't mention it as far as I can tell. Other than that tidbit, though, the sources should be in good order. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 01:10, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

• External link farm needs pruning, per WP:EL. Have image issues been addressed ? There is some faulty layout in sections per WP:ACCESS and faulty WP:DASHes (article used spaced emdashes). Has reliability of sources been reviewed? There is still a cite tag. Curly quotes throughout need to be fixed. Citation cleanup is needed: book titles and periodicals/newspapers should be in italics, and some websources have incomplete info. There are many deadlinks and dabs that need to be fixed (see the toolbox). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:19, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

The Citations Needed tag was mine, addressed above, regarding Boxing Day and St. Stephen's Day - what would you recommend, there? If the fact that the date of death matches holiday(s) is considered common or obvious knowledge, then the citation can go away entirely, since the date of death itself is confirmed elsewhere, I believe. All of the (reference) links tagged as dead have been re-sourced, removed, or re-linked; I'll work on the rest today and tomorrow. We had a few tagged as unreliable or source-doesn't-say-that; I refactored the text to match the source or removed the reference. In one case, the source did actually say that. So I'm confidence in the reliability of the sources; as you say, I'll take another sweep through for formatting. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 13:59, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Also, please don't forget the alt text. You can click on the "alt text" button in the toolbox at the upper right of this review page to see what needs to be done. Eubulides (talk) 16:09, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

With the exception of the portrait in the infobox and the photo of the assassination attempt, alt-text is done for all images currently in the article. I'll figure out the assassination picture shortly, and I'm not certain how to add alt text to the image in an infobox - so, something to work on. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 20:38, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for all that. The new alt text looks very good. For the infobox, you need to add the parameters "|alt=put portrait alt text here |signature_alt=Gerald R. Ford". Eubulides (talk) 20:55, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Coming back to check, I see that that was done. Thanks for whipping the alt text into shape. Eubulides (talk) 00:59, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

• Undue weight problems There is still a big lack of info about the VN War, about how Thieu of SV appealed for aid after the ceasefire was violated and there were calls for US bombings of Vietnam and aid, except taht Congree blocked it. This is much more notable than the actual evacuation of the embassy and a lot of other stuff in the foreign relations (as well as the football stuff). It may be symptomatic of other uneven coverage YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 00:59, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Only one smallish paragraph on his time as House Minority Leader. Needs more meat (surely he must have done some compromise deals etc during that time to pass legislation), especially as the Navy section is about four tiems longer (Ford was a lieutenant commander, equivalent to an army major). YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 01:13, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I've greatly expanded the section on Ford's time as Minority Leader. I'm not 100% sold on the flow of the section, but the material is there. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 15:14, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I've expanded our coverage of Vietnam, focusing on Ford's (unsuccessful) request for aid, and his declaration that the war had ended at Tulane. I think we'll need to add some section headings to the Foreign Policy section, to tidy things up, but the material is there for review. I'm done for today. Next up: Endashes (!). UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 20:30, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

• Delist nothing happening. Substanital content problems YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 06:36, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I pinged Ultraexact for an update. We can hold while he works. Marskell (talk) 23:42, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

We've made some progress in the last week. I plan to work on the Minority Leader section today, and vietnam after that. The undue weight is a big issue, agreed. Once that's done, though, we'll fix citations, endashes, and the other items. Still working on it, thanks for the time. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 12:11, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm out of time for the week, and still haven't covered Vietnam. I plan to do a section that arcs from the situation when he took office to the fall of Saigon, and the political fallout as a result. Maybe 6 paragraphs? I'd like a few days to pull it together, though, if possible. In the meantime, are there other areas of undue weight (beyond foreign policy) to address? Presidency of Gerald Ford is just as light in several areas, so there's nothing to merge back on this. Thanks again for the time to get this right. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 19:48, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

• The undue weight and endash issues have been resolved, if someone wants to doublecheck my work - I only found one dash that was improper, which worries me a little. I'm working through citations now, item by item. Other than headings in the Foreign Policy section, what other items are still in need of attention? Thanks again for the extra time to get this one right. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 12:18, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I took the liberty of moving this comment from Giants down. Marskell (talk) 20:56, 8 October 2009 (UTC) I saw that a good deal of work has been done since I last commented here, and the scope is improved. However, citation issues are still present. There is still one cite tag in the presidency section, and several unsourced paragraphs, a couple of which include quotes (should definitely be cited). A couple of books have been added as references, but some of the Internet references are problematic; I see YouTube (ref 38) and Find a Grave (ref 127), neither of which would be considered a reliable source, never mind a high-quality one. With these factors in mind, my 'vote' stands. Giants2008 (17–14) 02:29, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
    • I'm continuing to slog through the remaining references; I'm about a third of the way through, and have removed several problem sources - including that youtube clip. I've also added some more solid sources. Still working on it, UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 19:09, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
      • OK, I think I've caught all of the references with issues - specifically, the ones mentioned above and the other flawed sources. I've added several in their place, as well. Are there any other specific referencing issues I should address? UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 20:42, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

With no further comments coming, I'm considering the delists stale and closing this as keep. Thank you for taking the time Ultra! Marskell (talk) 15:45, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for giving me the time to get it done. Much appreciated! UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 17:20, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The article was kept by Marskell 15:49, 26 October 2009 [11].

---

George F. Kennan

Review commentary

No editor has made more than a dozen non-minor edits, and the nominator is long since inactive. Biography, Cold War, and International Relations WikiProjects have been notified.

Main concern is 1c. "Early life and his career" and "X" sections particularly deficient in citations, and quotes attributed to Kennan are not all cited. I think the article can be easily salvaged, since much of it seems in order to me, but I don't have the resources to do it, hence directing the issue here. Otumba (talk) 18:37, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I am no longer inactive... I have restored a cleaner version of the article, which has eliminated a lot of the recent poorly written and unsourced content. The article should now be up to standard at the moment. 172 | Talk 18:53, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah, my apologies 172. The new version is an improvement, but I think the same problems I highlighted still exist (uncited quotes, lack of citations particularly in sections highlighted). The citation criteria has become much tougher since 2005, and even 2007 when I was first around. Otumba (talk) 19:03, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I have taken another look; I do notice that some uncited quotations were added that were not in my original version. From a quick glance, though, off the top of my head I beleive they are all accurate. I'm sure I'll be able to add the relevant citations.... I'll let you know when I'm done. 172 | Talk 20:51, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your work, and your plan. Do you want me to add citation needed tags to sentences which I think need to be cited, or can you see what I meant regarding the lack of citations in particular for the sections noted? Otumba (talk) 21:03, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. Please go ahead and add citation tags. Two sets of eyes are better than one. 172 | Talk 22:22, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Cheers, and done. :) On another note, per WP:IBID, ibid references are no longer ok, but if it's ok with you I don't mind converting the ibid references. Otumba (talk) 03:02, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

By the way, it was very interesting for me to learn more about Kennan. When I studied the onset of the Cold War, I did learn about the Long Telegram, and I gained an impression from the standard interpretation of the telegram, that Kennan was a hothead against the Soviet Union. Of course, reading the article, clearly that was not the case. Otumba (talk) 03:50, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

An editor has added a section entitled "Criticism". I raise this because when I was last around in 2007 that sort of section seemed ok, but from what little I have read on the issue since then I gather that sort of section is a no-no now, so please could I have some clarification or a direction to where I can read up on posting criticism sections? I guess the most important query is whether FAs should have criticism sections. Cheers in advance for replies. Otumba (talk) 05:22, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

• I would seriously consider taking both that and the preceeding "Historical assessment" section right out. Both consist of ideologists fitting Kennan into their sets of toy figurines, the first as Hero, the others as Villain. It may be possible to make use of those claims, but Gaddis' and Cockburn's own articles seem a better place. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:14, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Done. If there is a decent summary of Kennan's work by somebody who isn't a doctrinaire with an agenda, that might be worth summarizing; but it may be much too soon. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:44, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
    • I will also lend a hand with adding references. I had planned on adding citations to this article a while back, but now that we're at FAR, I might as well get on top of that. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 16:17, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
      • Update: I've picked up some books at the library. I should hopefully get done with referencing in a week or two. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 12:35, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Alt text done; thanks. Images need alt text as per WP:ALT. Eubulides (talk) 07:32, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

• Update: Slowly moving forward on this page. I've been a bit busy, so I have not been progressing as planned. However, I'd appreciate it if the FAR reviewer could leave this open until I finish, which I hope will take only a few weeks. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 20:18, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

No need to panic. But I'm moving to FAR to see what the folks think YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 02:27, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concern are citations, comprehensiveness, alt text. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. FAQ? YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 02:27, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment As YellowMonkey said, no hurry. Nishkid is still working on the article, so let's give him time before re-assessing. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:07, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks. I'm a bit swamped with work this week, so I might not get a chance to do some research. I still need to add a historical assessment section and run through the article once more to make sure everything is sufficiently covered. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 17:14, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

• Although I haven't finished what I had planned on adding to the article, I believe it currently meets the criteria for featured articles. I believe FARC voting can be opened now. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 17:38, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for doing all that. The two images still need alt text to conform to the criteria; please see WP:ALT#Portraits and the "alt text" button in the toolbox at upper right of this review page. Eubulides (talk) 18:04, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

• Added. Good? Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 21:00, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, thanks. Eubulides (talk) 16:41, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

• Prose mostly looks OK. "expansive tendencies... Soviet pressure"—I presume it's not the end of a sentence after "tendencies". Please see Ellipses at the style guide. Please check elsewhere for other instances of this. There's "Hitler" linked within a quotation ... try to avoid (and "Nazi" is linked elsewhere). I've reduced the overlinking at the top. I see common words that English-speakers are expected to know: "autonomy", "arthritis", and more. There are lots of high-value links—people, institutions, so let's minimise their dilution? Tony (talk) 10:48, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Sourcing question Is this "Gaddis, John Lewis (1990), Russia, the Soviet Union, and the United States: An Interpretive History (2nd ed.), New York: McGraw Hill, ISBN 0075572583." a text book? Its heavily relied upon and has a title and publisher that make me suspect it is. Amazon and Google Books provide no help. Amazon's citation service reduces my confidence further. This is a question going to over reliance, source quality, and the potential of finding a "better" source. It shouldn't roll the article back. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:44, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Are you saying that textbooks are of a lower caste? YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 02:40, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

It depends, entirely, on the textbook. Some "textbooks" are scholarly monographs, which happen to be eminently suitable for teaching, and are marketed as such. Some "textbooks" are scholarly monographs aimed at a universal public (Think Zinn's People's history), which happen to be eminently suitable for teaching. Some textbooks are yearly revised magisterial summaries of a field of study, and duplicate the consensus academic opinion (I'm thinking Econ, Law, Eng). These three are high grade sources. Some textbooks are course-notes writ large. Some textbooks are out of date consensus (Gaddis' was first published in the 1970s). Some textbooks at University level bend disciplines towards a... hmmm... "Uniquely American" perspective on disciplinary practice. Some textbooks omit or obscure topics, sources, debates, methodologies which are vital in the academic debate, but difficult to teach at first year, second year, or a community college. Textbooks in the Humanities and Social Sciences which were generated to support specific courses, or low level college teaching, rather than being works in their own right bent towards college teaching later or at marketing stage, can obscure major points that an Encyclopedia would want to cover. Gaddis' title pings some textbook marketing elements, but my attempts to check the book via Scholar or Books or Reviews or Amazon failed. Depending on, if it is a textbook, and, what kind of textbook it is if it is a textbook, the source reliance on it could be reconsidered and a higher quality source located. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:15, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, Gaddis is the official biographer of George F. Kennan. Although some of his theories on containment have been controversial, I believe I've only used Gaddis to reference factual statements about Kennan's life, not any interpretive statements regarding his policies. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 02:27, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with that source. Foreign Affairs calls it "an excellent survey". [12]. Reviewing the book for The Journal of American History, Lisle Rose writes (of the first edition) that it is "carefully researched" and "judiciously written" and "a valuable summary", and the book (which is a monograph) is widely cited — Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.1.214.112 (talk) 13:21, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. The concerns noted above have been addressed. The sections in question are now well-sourced, and alt text is present. Eubulides (talk) 07:57, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The article was kept by Marskell 15:49, 26 October 2009 [13].

---

Delrina

Review commentary

Notified: User:Captmondo (major contributor and nominator), Wikipedia:WikiProject Computing

This is a 2005 promotion.

Concerns are:

• 1a Prose is not always clear.

Example: "Despite the seeming threat posed by Microsoft in the online communications and fax markets back in 1995, the company has not made significant improvements to its communications software; in Windows 95 the fax software was dropped, and it still licenses HyperTerminal from Hilgraeve. However, Microsoft's Internet Explorer would become the dominant Web browser in the years after Cyberjack was released."

• 1b, Comprehensiveness.

Does not put the company nor the products in wider context. There are no insights into the company, the product or the rising sophistication of the technological climate. Also neglected is any comprehensive explanation of the underlying technology. No outside views of the products and company are provided.

• 1c. Well-researched

The article was poorly cited to begin with, with an absence of reliable sources. Example:

The section on the court case Berkeley Systems Inc. v. Delrina is uncited

Many sources are to corporate websites and are not neutral

There are now many dead and irrelevant links.

• 1d Neutrality.

The article seems to promote the product rather than give an objective view.

"Despite the publicity generated by the case, Delrina lost hundreds of thousands of dollars over the affair. The decision itself has been interpreted by some as an erosion of First Amendment rights over the increasing protection provided to copyright holders." (unsourced)

"The most notable multimedia software produced by Delrina was Echo Lake, an early form of scrapbook software that came out in February 1995. During development it was touted internally as a "cross [of] Quark Xpress and Myst"[5]. It featured an immersive 3D environment where a user could go to a virtual desktop in a virtual office and assemble video and audio clips along with images, and then send them as either a virtual book other users of the program could access, or to print. It was a highly innovative product for its time, and ultimately was hampered by the inability of many users to easily input their own multimedia content into a computer from that period." (unsourced) —Mattisse (Talk) 13:12, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. Alt text done; thanks. Images (including company logo) need alt text as per WP:ALT. Eubulides (talk) 17:01, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Images The fair use rationale for File:Delrina-logo.png: "Lo-res image" should be expanded. File:PerFormDesignerUI.gif, File:Delrina-OpusNBill-BrainSaver.jpg, File:EchoLake desktop.jpg, File:DelrinaCommSuite95-BoxShot.jpg need fair use rationales. DrKiernan (talk) 09:53, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

As the original writer of much of this article I understand the majority of the points that you make. Since the article was originally cited Wikipedia has grown and more rules governing citations and the use of images have been added.

<rant>The criteria for reaching Featured Article status has, in my opinion, become high enough so that it is no longer worth my time jumping through the various flaming hoops set in one's way, and of late I have opted instead to work on lifting material up from "Stub" status to at least "Start". I also resent having a sudden two-week deadline to "improve" an article without any prior warning.</rant>

A question: many of the online sources for this are no more -- if I decide to do so, can I link to the relevant pages from the Wayback machine (if they have in fact been archived there)?

On the topic of neutrality, I think there needs to be some "give" here, if only because the primary sources for an article of this nature would be company issued materials, product reviews, and occasional mentions in the press, none of which are guaranteed to be neutral. Could you please provide a reference to a Featured Article of another company from which I can draw a useful comparison?

I am deciding as to whether or not it is worth my (or anyone else's) while to further improve this article -- I would appreciate a considered response to my points above. Captmondo (talk) 14:06, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Anybody there? There's little point to me even starting to update the article to the current standards if I don't at least have the Wayback machine question answered.

Is there another forum that some of the other points should be addressed in?

I would like to help, but I think some of the criteria listed as issues listed above may be unrealistic. If for example all corporate info is considered biased (ditto reporting on those firms), that would seem to nix the idea of any article on any other firm being a possible Featured Candidate, which can't be the right way to go about this.

Appreciate any comments. Captmondo (talk) 11:46, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't know anything about the Wayback machine. Primary sources are ok for "facts" about the product, but my understanding is that the article should include third-party reviews, analysis of the company/product's place in the history of computer software etc., or else the article is merely a promo for the company. Show some way that the topic is important and relevant. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 12:53, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

• You might ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Business for an appropriate forum for the other points. Also, I suggest adding this article to Wikipedia:WikiProject Business #Article alerts.
• The Wayback Machine is OK for sources, though it's better to use the original source if available. Please see Wikipedia:Using the Wayback Machine for more on this.
• Press releases are iffy sources. They are OK if they are used only as sources for claims about the company itself (not about other topics, such as the competition), if they are not unduly promotional, if they are directly on topic, if there's no reasonable doubt on them, and if the article is not primarily based on them. Please see WP:SELFPUB for the current policy on this.

Eubulides (talk) 17:39, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, this gives me something to work with. Will see what I can do. Captmondo (talk) 19:36, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

There is no 2+2-week deadline. That basically only applies if there is no work. If there is consistent work it can last even three months or more. YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 02:29, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

the web archive is acceptable YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 02:30, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concern are citations, reliable sources, neutrality, comprehensiveness, prose, alt text. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. FAQ? YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 02:29, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delist, per FA criteria concerns, 1c, among others. Cirt (talk) 11:16, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delist per lack of citations throughout. As improvements are made and it gets closer to FA status, I can offer a more detailed review. JKBrooks85 (talk) 12:08, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

• Hold. The article seems to be progressing, and I'll reserve judgment until Captmondo says he's done. JKBrooks85 (talk) 07:32, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

• Delist per nom and per above concerns. The article is not being actively worked on. User:Captmondo who said above that he would address concerns has not edited the article since February. —Mattisse (Talk) 15:29, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

• Hold as article is being worked on and is improving. —Mattisse (Talk) 12:01, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I see the voting has already begun so this may be too late, but I have addressed in part the supposed "lack of references" problem, at least when it comes to the court case section. I have found numerous citations to back up the original assertions, which I may mine later for further depth. The old citations that had become dead links are now fixed with WaybackMachine references, though I have discovered that they need to be linked back to the section in the article that uses them as a citation.

This article *is* being worked on, albeit slowly, so I would ask for people to forebear delisting it. Captmondo (talk) 02:46, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

That's good to hear. The directors will give you time, so no need to worry. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:44, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for working on it. Can you also please fix the alt text while you're at it? Click on the "alt text" in the toolbox at the upper right of this review page. Eubulides (talk) 15:41, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

That's on my list for tonight then. That and providing justifications for use of the images that was previously mentioned. Captmondo (talk) 16:17, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale added for all images used in the article, along with descriptive alt text. Captmondo (talk) 01:09, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. That alt text is good; a couple of further suggestions. For the logo, could you please say what the logo looks like (e.g., 'in black small caps letters, with the final "A" extended to the upper right by a large blue triangle pattern', or perhaps you can do better). And "Echo Lake software screen displaying" should be removed, since you can't tell that just from the image. Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 20:31, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Good points. Have amended the alt text for both images, and have added alt text for another image added to the article. Have also added references where requested in the "Forms products" section, expanding the section somewhat and trying to tie in where the firm's products stood in terms of its contemporaneous competitors.

Looks good. Thanks again. Eubulides (talk) 12:24, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

A question: I'd like to dispute the need for a citation for the following phrase: "With the release of Windows 95 earlier that year, Delrina was now competing directly against Microsoft" as it seems wholly self-explanitory. Maybe a rewording is intended instead, but if so, I'm hard-pressed to know how to clarify the point further. Captmondo (talk) 02:14, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Update: many former "footnotes" (which was the reference preference on WP at the time) have been converted to inline references. Contrary to Matisse's initial claim that the article was "poorly cited", it would be more accurate to say that it was "differently referenced", and in accordance with the WP referencing style of the time. Have also managed to track down many contemporaneous articles and other third-party references to subjects which were not previously cited. In several cases (notably in the court case section) the subject matter has also been expanded, all images now have fair-use rationale attached to them, and alt text added. Still don't consider myself to be be done with this as yet, but I would welcome any further suggestions on what still needs to be done.

So help me, I am beginning to enjoy jumping through the "flaming hoops". ;-) Captmondo (talk) 02:00, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

• Glad to hear that you're taking a stab at fixing it. To help you along, here are a few comments:

• Please standardize the format of the citations. You've got a numbered list, then a bulleted list with a different font style. In addition, the citations vary in structure. Some have publishers first, some have Web addresses first, and some have magazine titles first. It looks like there's a pattern, but it's difficult for me to parse out. There are citation templates out there that do a decent job, but if you don't want to use those (I personally hate them), check out a featured article like Rampart Dam to see how citations can be done at FA quality without them.
• There's some odd brackets on citations 4, 7, 9, and 31. Not sure if there's supposed to be a Web link with them or not.
• There's a scattering of citation needed tags throughout, and someone's questioned the validity of one of the sources.
• I'd suggest somehow merging the annual revenues section into the main body of the article or removing it entirely. It's a nice way of showing the company's growth, but I'm concerned that there aren't values for the entire life of the company. Without knowing those other values, I can't judge the figures provided.
• The second paragraph of the lead is a bit brief. Try mentioning some of the portions of the company that were sold off and to whom they were sold. I don't suggest merging the two paragraphs, since that would leave you with a one-paragraph lead, which is frowned upon.
• In the "Beginnings" section, "this idea" is unclear. To what does it refer?
• In the beginnings section, it's said that the headquarters were in Toronto "for much of its existence". Did the headquarters move? If so, when and to where?
• How many employees did the company have at various stages of its development? How were they distributed among the branch offices?
• In the beginnings section, what is "its market"?
• In the Echo Lake section, citation No. 29 concerns me. Business Wire is used for press releases, so I don't think it's the best thing for asserting that Echo Lake was the "most notable" software program produced by the company.
• The above items are fairly minor compared to what I believe is a fundamental flaw in the article: its focus on the software programs produced by the company rather than the company itself. There's no information about the company's structure, how it operated, how many employees it had (except for the infobox), its impact, or its history. Compare this article to Microsoft, another computer company-related FA. Yes, there are a hell of a lot more sources that mention Microsoft than Delrina. It won't be easy to fix, but I think this article's focus needs to be completely shifted from the company's software to the company itself. I don't think anything (well, at least not much) needs to be deleted about the programs, but they need to be viewed through the context of the company's history, not as separate programs. Talk about the development of the programs and how each stage of the process changed the company. How did the success (or failure) of each program cause the company to grow (or shrink)? Did the company's management change? But that's just a pointer; the structure of the article will be determined by your writing style, of course.
• Because so much work is needed on the article, I'm not going to go much deeper than I already have. If you manage to turn the article around, I'll be more than happy to submit more items to work on.
• You've picked a tough article to save, but if I can offer any additional comments, don't hesitate to ask. Good luck! JKBrooks85 (talk) 05:06, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

These are all good points, and I will attempt to address them in coming days. The trickiest (as you rightly pointed out) will be providing more info on the internal workings of the company, and how it evolved/developed. Will see what can be done but that one may prove to be insurmountable. Will see what can be done though! Captmondo (talk) 14:44, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

A question re: "Unreliable Source" reference. As I look more closely at the suggested guidelines on Wikipedia:Reliable sources, it seems to me that the policy on Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves would apply. It may be self-published info, but it seems no less trustworthy on the subject matter it covers. As long as a citation makes reference to a statement rather than an opinion, then it could be used, correct? I understand that another third-party published source would be preferred, but in the absence of that this should not be excluded and is not strictly speaking "unreliable", right? Captmondo (talk) 20:42, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

• I think it's the other way around. Opinions stated by an unpublished source are OK ... everyone has an opinion, right? But without editing and verification, stated facts are more iffy. Someone please let me know if that's not correct. JKBrooks85 (talk) 23:05, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

• It seems to be progressing pretty well. Here's hoping it stays on the same track. I'd suggest getting someone to copy edit it when you think you've got enough content; the prose is pretty rough. I'm also a bit confused about the citation formats, and a look at the prose didn't help much. It looks like a reflist with a list of separate references tacked on. There's also a mix of citation templates and handwritten citations. These should be made consistent. But Captmondo continues to improve the article, and it might be saved yet. JKBrooks85 (talk) 07:32, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the vote of confidence -- am about to get my hands on a wealth of additional material so there should be significant expansion in the next week or so.

As for the citations, I *believe* I am using the correct citation style as required -- I think the differences that JKBrooks85 sees is as a result of deliberately different citations styles for print Magazine vs. Book vs. online vs. archived Wayback online references. Am using the prescribed Wikipedia:Citation_templates for each type of reference. If there's any that has slipped through the cracks, please let me know.

When I get a bit further with the additional source material that is coming, will ask a knowledgable colleague to do a copy-edit pass on the material.

I believe the article is well on its way towards retaining its Featured Article status, and ought to be a much-improved article as a result. Captmondo (talk) 13:59, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

• The article is immensely improved. There is still a raw reference http://www.kevinsteele.com/mackerel_el_story.html —Mattisse (Talk) 11:58, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! Much work has gone into it. As for the "raw reference" that one is a matter of debate, as neither I nor JKBrooks85 are certain of the interpretation of Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves would apply in this particular case. How should that be interpreted? Is opinion okay and facts asserted not, vice versa or neither? Cheers! Captmondo (talk) 13:54, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

'During development it was touted internally as a "cross [of] Quark Xpress and Myst"' Is kevinsteele, the web host, one of the developers or a good source for what happened internally? (I am assuming he wrote it, as it is unsigned as far as I can tell unless I am missing it.) —Mattisse (Talk) 16:09, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

On http://www.kevinsteele.com/mackerel_el_gallery.html he says "A team at Mackerel led by Karl Borst, Jeramy Cooke and myself..." so he was one of the developers of the program. Captmondo (talk) 17:30, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I would have no problem as far as it being a self-published source if you had confirmation that Kevin Steele was one of the developers. —Mattisse (Talk) 17:52, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I doubt I can supply any third-party reference to that, if that's what's needed. Otherwise, it safe to say from the content on that site that he was a developer, and had an intimate knowledge of the development of the product. Is that good enough? Captmondo (talk) 18:30, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, I will stay out of that part, as I don't know what the conventions are regarding this type of article. I don't think the issue is important enough to hold up a "keep" of the article. However, the reference should be properly formatted. As far as the self-published part, self-published is ok for factual information or "point of view" material on the part of the self-publisher. So if Kevin Steele is a developer, then his point-of-view can be cited by his blog. That is my understanding of the sourcing issue. —Mattisse (Talk) 19:03, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. And I should be able to take care of re-formatting all of the Web URL citations to the current template referenced at WP:CT this evening. Captmondo (talk) 19:49, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

All of the Web citations—save for the WayBack Machine URL references, which have their own specific format—have been converted/updated. The only one I can't seem to fix is the reference to a Robert X. Cringely article in a citation (currently citation #54, "Sorry, Andy, but our calculations demonstrate there is no Santa Claus"), which I think may be a problem with the underlying citation template. Could someone please check my work on that citation? Captmondo (talk) 15:19, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

At this point the revisions I intended to make are largely "done", though there are a few minor points I'd like to flesh out. The bulk of the article has been re-written, focusing squarely on the company's history, with each point very thoroughly backed up from the numerous contemporaneous sources I have been able to track down. I believe that all/most of the previous criticisms of the article have been dealt with, and hope that any remaining criticisms are relatively minor. Captmondo (talk) 14:54, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Nothing new coming, so I'm keeping this now. Thanks Capt. Marskell (talk) 15:46, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The article was kept by Marskell 18:09, 15 October 2009 [14].

---

Nafaanra

Review commentary

Notified: User talk:Mark Dingemanse, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Africa, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Languages.

FA from 2005, some referencing/1c issues, WP:LEAD is a bit short. Much of article appears to be descriptive rather than historical. Images: File:Nafaanra language.svg and File:Nafaanra Delafosse1904.png could use standardization with commons:Template:Information. Image File:Nafaanra literacy class.jpg could use confirmation of status with WP:OTRS. Cirt (talk) 11:02, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

• I don't see why "much of the article appears to be descriptive rather than historical" is a problem. +Angr 12:00, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
• Comment. Referencing seems to be very robust, especially in relation to article size; plenty of notes, plenty of references. It's easily comparable to current FAs. A more detailed motivation/specification concerning 1c issues would be enlightening. Peter ^Isotalo 12:17, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
• Comment. Done; thanks. Images need alt text as per WP:ALT. Eubulides (talk) 17:22, 20 July 2009 (UTC) Done. Could you check if it is appropriate? G Purevdorj (talk) 08:46, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
• Given the overall shortness of the article, a short lead may be justified. Then, it would indeed be possible to find a few unattributed statements (eg on the translation of the Old Testament), but that might be dealt with by the FACT tag rather than by a wholescale review. And while I didn't check the sources of this article, it inspires confidence that it made best (and critical) use of these sources. So I don't see much that would call into question the FA status of this article. G Purevdorj (talk) 22:12, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
• Comment - The section "Geography and demography" would benefit from clarification.

(Para 1): "Nafaanra is bordered by Kulango languages to the west, ..."

(Para 2): "The Nafana people live in the north-west corner of the Brong-Ahafo region of Ghana, concentrated mainly in Sampa (capital of the Jaman North district) and Banda. There are two dialectal variants of Nafaanra: Pantera of Banda, and Fantera of Sampa.[2] Bendor-Samuel gives a 79% cognate relationship on the Swadesh list between the two of them.[3] The Banda dialect is considered central. The terms 'Fantera' and 'Pantera' come from other peoples and are considered pejorative by the Nafana.[2]"

• "Nafana" apparently refers to the language sometimes, and at other times to the people and to a geographical area. This is confusing This section would benefit from some added context to orient the general reader, in my opinion as I find the article difficult to decipher.
• Also, I think the article would benefit from a "History" section, again to orient the general reader, and place this language in an overall context.
• "Delafosse was the first linguist to mention Nafaanra." Who was Delafosse? How did he come to be the first linguist to "mention Nafaanra". Did he name it? Is there a story here on how he came to be the first? (I now notice that there is a wikilink to his name, way down in the references.)
• I suggest this article be organized more clearly, so that the relevant information is together in the article. (See above comment on Delafosse.) —Mattisse (Talk) 12:18, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Para 1 basically says "language group A is bordered by language group B". Not sure how that can be improved. I've tried to tweak para 2 by explaining what a Swadesh list is, but I'm not sure what else needs to be done. Is it the "central" comment that's troubling you?
  • I've searched the article for instances of "Nafana" and "Nafaanra" and I can't find any inconsistencies in usage. The former refers to the people, the latter to the language. The only exception is the description of the historical map.
  • I've linked to the article on Delafosse in the first instance. However, I'm not sure it's actually relevant or necessary to describe the European "discoverer" of the language in any greater detail since it wouldn't have any relevance on the nature of the language itself.
  • The organization of the article quite closely follows the language template developed and maintained by WP:LANGUAGE. What little historical information there is is basically present under one heading, which in this case seems like an acceptable solution. I don't believe that creating a history section from what little related content there is would improve the article. There might be a need for more historical information in general, but it's difficult to tell if such information is actually available without proper knowledge of the sources. Peter ^Isotalo 05:11, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concern are citations, lead. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. FAQ? YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 02:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• Keep, sources are high-quality, and lead seems to be long enough for a relatively short article. If not, it can be expanded without the need for delisting. +Angr 10:25, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delist, per unaddressed FA criteria concerns. Cirt (talk) 10:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Namely? All you wrote was "some referencing/1c issues", but what specifically do you consider to be not well researched, not verifiable, or not attributed to high-quality reliable sources? +Angr 11:42, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Well for one thing there is most of the entire subsection Research. Cirt (talk) 12:11, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
      • That's swimming with references, they're just not inline links. +Angr 13:43, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
        • "1(c) well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature on the topic. Claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported with citations; this requires a "References" section that lists these sources, complemented by inline citations where appropriate;" —Mattisse (Talk) 14:19, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
          • Exactly. +Angr 14:30, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
          • I have trouble seeing any specific issues here. Simply citing criteria doesn't clarify anything. Peter ^Isotalo 21:27, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. As said, the section in question is swimming with references, and the rest of the article is transparently referenced as well. The article itself is quite short and doesn't seem to need a very long lead, but if THIS is the main concern ...? G Purevdorj (talk) 14:45, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
• Comment. Done; thanks. Images still lack alt text as per WP:ALT and WP:ACCESSIBILITY. Please click on the "alt text" button in the toolbox at the top left of this article; all the blue boxes in the result are blank and need to be filled in. Please fix this problem, as alt text is required for featured articles (see criterion 3). Also, two references are dead links, and have been dead for a while; please click on the "checklinks" button. Eubulides (talk) 18:27, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
• Fixes needed There are many {{citations needed}} and {{page needed}} tags in the "Research" section. These need to be fixed with references and page numbers. Dead links should be replaced or removed, e.g. the PDF for Blench 1999 (ref 7). Books need isbns. —Mattisse (Talk) 19:03, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
  • There's no requirement on specifying pages for each and every citation. It all depends on what is being cited and how. We need more specific examples. Peter ^Isotalo 21:27, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
    • (Naturally, I agree with the last statement. Removing the last dead link, though, led to Blench 1999 becoming an unitentifiable source, ie not citable. G Purevdorj (talk) 21:32, 3 August 2009 (UTC))
      • You need to address where someone has tagged {{page needed}} in the article by an editor. —Mattisse (Talk) 21:37, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
        • It is nonsensical to demand page numbers when you merely introduce research works! Page numbers are an appropriate demand to hinder people to make claims that may be hidden within 300 or so pages. But deign to take a look at just WHERE page numbers where demanded. I'll quote one tag that I deleted: "After a period of silence on Nafaanra, Painter (1966) appeared, consisting of basic word lists of the Pantera and Fantera dialects." Setting such a tag may be indicative of a certain sense of humour ... but it would not even be possible to adhere to its demand. So please consider what you ask! There seem to be problems that should be addressed, though, eg the image matter or the incomplete source I just pointed to. G Purevdorj (talk) 01:20, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
          • Just trying to help out. It is immaterial to me if this passes or fails FAR. I will butt out. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 01:39, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
• Comment Lead has been expanded with an additional paragraph describing various distinctive linguistic features. Peter ^Isotalo 18:08, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
• Comment: It appears that none of the image issues from above have been addressed. Cirt (talk) 21:21, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Templates and stuff added. I don't see why File:Nafaanra literacy class.jpg would require OTRS, though. It's taken from a site licensed under Creative Commons. Peter ^Isotalo 09:47, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Thanks for those fixes. I will take a look further at this other image. Cirt (talk) 15:34, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
      • I have submitted this image for deletion, as a simple assertion from the image's uploader is not sufficient to confirm that the copyright holder did indeed release the image under a free-use license. Cirt (talk) 15:02, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
        • Is this the only remaining issue? If so, I don't see the need to keep the FAR open. If the image is kept, wonderful. If it's deleted, it will naturally be removed. Peter ^Isotalo 12:49, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

• Questions:

• Is the number of speakers growing/shrinking/remaining constant?
• Is there much published in Nafaanra?
• Have any famous plays/books/poems/TV shows/radio shows been created in the language?
• Are there any famous speakers of the language?

• These are just a few questions that occurred to me while reading the article. JKBrooks85 (talk) 22:38, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
  • The current situation of the language is not my area of expertise, but I'm just guessing that a relatively small West African language with speakers in the tens of thousands (without a literary tradition) is unlikely to generate notable works of literature or sustain major media outlets. Oral tradition is probably lively, but that requires dedicated research and can't exactly be googled. As for "famous speakers", not even FAs on major languages like Turkish have such info and it's not considered to be a relevant requirement by WP:LANG. Peter ^Isotalo 08:16, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

1. There is no published information about current sociolinguistic trends so the first question has to remain unanswered.
2. It seems there is not much published in Nafaanra besides the New Testament and some literacy materials. The Old Testament is still under revision (Carol Jordan p.c.). I did find some more audio here but I'm not sure how relevant that is.
3. As for questions 3 and 4, I don't know about famed speakers or famous creative works, but of course any language is intrinsically important as intangible cultural heritage. — mark ✎ 08:32, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

• True. For me, listing noted or internationally acclaimed works is a way for readers to connect to the subject. Even if they've only read a translated work, it gives a frame of reference. JKBrooks85 (talk) 23:09, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

• For once, a map in which you can read the embedded text!
• The logic of "however" escapes me: "Nafaanra is bordered by Kulango languages to the west, while Deg (a Gur language) and Gonja (Kwa) are found to the north and east. The closest eastern neighbour, however, is the Mande language Ligbi (whose speakers are also called Banda), interestingly enough also an outlier to its own family."
• Ref 4 is from 1980: "The Nafana people relate that they come from Côte d'Ivoire, from a village called Kakala. Their oral history says that some of their people are still there, and if they go back they will not be allowed to leave again.[4]" Is this still the case?
• Double, not single quotes.
• 17th, not a superscript "th". (See MoS)
• "or are unable to speak"
• See MoS on spelling out numbers: "15–25% of the Nafana people are literate in Twi, whereas only 1–5% are literate in Nafaanra." Start with "Of the ...,".
• Some awkward sentence structure, such as "Dompo, thought to be extinct until a field work trip of Blench in 1998 proved the contrary, is their first language." Why not "Dompo is their first language, thought to be extinct until a field work trip of Blench in 1998 proved the contrary."?

That's just from the top. Needs work on the writing. Tony (talk) 09:23, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for having a look at the article, Tony. I've done my best to fix the issues you mentioned here. I'll run through the rest of the article as soon as I can, if someone doesn't manage to do it before me. If there are reoccurring issues that you feel need fixing, don't hesitate to point them out.

Peter ^Isotalo 07:41, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• Keep The article is predominantly written by two linguists editing under their own names, and their home pages indicate expertise in this area. I'm not quite clear on what is meant by "The Banda dialect is considered central." I'd be inclined to remove the second sentence of "The Nafana people relate that they come from Côte d'Ivoire, from a village called Kakala. Their oral history says that some of their people are still there, and if they go back they will not be allowed to leave again.[4]" and just leave it as something like "The oral history of the Nafana people relates that they come from Côte d'Ivoire, from a village called Kakala.[4] This is consistent with the linguistic affinities between Nafaanra and Tagwana, the language spoken in that area of the Côte d'Ivoire.[15]" DrKiernan (talk) 09:33, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The article was kept by Marskell 18:09, 15 October 2009 [16].

---

Gyeongju

Review summary

wikiProjects notified. Author has retired.

Article fails 1c. Many sections and paragraphs are entirely uncited. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 13:56, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I will work on that. Please hold on the review for a while.--Caspian blue 14:03, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

sure. If work is steady, it can take up to 3 months YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 14:12, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Two of the images, File:Burial-Mounds-at-GyeongJu.jpg and File:Temple-at-gyeongju.jpg appear to be missing permissions, or at least I couldn't find it at the web site given as the source [17]. The dead links in the references should be updated. DrKiernan (talk) 10:57, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I replaced the images with File:Korea-Gyeongju-Bulguksa-32.jpg and File:Gyeongju-2.jpg. And the dead links seem to be a result of updates by the Gyeongju City site, so I will replace the broken links with correct ones.--Caspian blue 01:09, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Alt text done; thanks. Images need alt text as per WP:ALT. This is for WP:ACCESSIBILITY to the visually impaired. Eubulides (talk) 07:27, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concern are citations, alt text. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. FAQ? YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 01:06, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Meaning, please? I've uploaded images of Gyeongju to Commons to enhance the article (I'm planing to expand some sections so..), so I've been not much paying attention to editing/replacing sources in the article, but I will get back to the replacing sources in the next week.--Caspian blue

I've started tweaking things now that refs are being added. I won't be closing this obviously YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 04:32, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• Hold. Caspianblue is doing a heck of a job improving the article, but it's still got a ways to go. I've added a raft of fact tags to aid in placing additional citations, but the article needs an entire new section dealing with utilities like electricity, water, and communications. If Caspianblue wasn't working on the article, I'd vote for Delist, but I hope it'll continue to improve and I can change my vote. :) JKBrooks85 (talk) 08:32, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

• I have enabled the toolbox at the upper right corner of this page, to make it easier to debug problems with alt text and with external links (both problems exist). Eubulides (talk) 02:46, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: Work appears to be continuing, but I'm concerned that virtually all of the citations are in Korean. I suppose that's unavoidable, but it means I can't check them. ;) JKBrooks85 (talk) 02:57, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately, Koreans do not use English in real life, and academic studies on Korea are far behind compared to Chinese and Japanese studies in Anglosphere, so high quality English sources are really really scarce. Except history section and tourism, there are virtually no English sources even though the city that once was the capital is the third most visited tourist place and has the 2nd most cultural properties and treasures in South Korea. I've tried to minimalize using sources from the government, so many of my sources are from online Korean encyclopedias and newspapers with high credentials but written in Korean language. To break through the difficulty, I'm planning to seek another type of copywriters who can read Korean language. Or if you have any doubt in your mind, please just ask me to quote specific passages and translate them.--Caspian blue 11:21, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
    • It was just a bit of wishful thinking on my part. I did a bit of searching but ran into the problems you mentioned. Given your editing history, I've got no problem accepting the citations IGF. JKBrooks85 (talk) 21:25, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

• Note, the prose is very rough, currently not in shape to meet 1a. As work progresses, I'll look in to see if examples are needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:29, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment I know the prose is not well written in the current stage even though the original writer is a native English speaker. As the article is getting expanded, my grammatical errors (I'm not a native speaker of English) should be fixed as well. So I've tried to find copywriters, but some of them declined my request and one ediors promised to edit the article next week due to their involvement in other works. So I was planning to expand the article this week since reviewers above demand me to add new sections (I've added health/utility/sports sections as well as expanded other sections) and then expect other promised copywriters would take the job of proofreading/copywriting. So please give me more time, or would you give me some direction, where I could find skilled copywriters? Thanks.--Caspian blue 11:21, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Time's not an issue. As long as work continues, this FAR will stay open. Dabomb87 (talk) 12:39, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Comments by Himalayan

Definately avoid saying things like "Today Gyeongju is a typical medium-sized city sharing the economic, demographic, and social trends that have shaped modern South Korean culture" in the intro. Too subjective. How exactly do you define a "typical medium sized city"? The later on in the article you claim "In the 20th century, the city has remained relatively small, no longer ranking among the major cities of Korea.". Either it is a typically sized city or small city or what?? I would remove this loose definition.. Himalayan 12:52, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

That passage was written by the original writer, and I could not know what source he used for that. Per your request for clarification, I modified it to

“ As the city of Gyeongju was united with the nearby rural Gyeongju County in 1995, it has been an urban-rural complex city among 83 small and medium-sized cities in South Korea.[12][13] With the historical heritage, today Gyeongju shares the economic, demographic, and social trends that have shaped modern South Korean culture. ”

--Caspian blue 15:04, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't the population/data for the sub divisions by referenced? You mention a source but it needs to be verifiable..

The last paragraph of the Economy section is unreferenced except for the final sentence. Maybe you could add a source to back up the history? Himalayan 15:46, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Himalayan 15:35, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

The population/data is referenced. Also The whole last paragraph at Economy is referenced with the same sources as used for the last sentence.--Caspian blue 15:50, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment. Some alt text is now present (thanks), and is a very good start, but has a few problems:

• Five images still lack alt text. Please use the "alt text" button in the toolbox at upper right to see them. (Warning: that button uses a cached version of the page and can sometimes give delayed results.)
• The phrase "the city's name" in "On the center of the map, the city's name is put on a red circle." cannot be verified by a non-expert (non-Korean-speaking) reader simply by looking at the image as per WP:ALT#Verifiability. Please change "the city's name" to "慶州", which can be verified. Normally it's better to avoid Unicode text but there is an exception when transcribing prominent characters (see WP:ALT#Text).
• The word "Buddhist" in "A front view of a Buddhist shrine" also cannot be verified by a non-expert simply by looking at the image, and should also be removed, or moved to the caption.
• "Illustration of principal mountains and drainage patterns of Gyeongju" simply repeats part of the caption and does not capture the gist of the map. Please see WP:ALT#Maps for suggestions here. A similar problem exists for the long text beginning "Simplified map of the administrative divisions of Gyeongju".
• Phrases like "A front view of" (twice), "A side shot of", "An under view of", "A slightly side shot of", "On the far right,", "A side view of" are not that useful and should be removed as per WP:ALT#Phrases to avoid.
• The proper name "General Kim Yusin" should be removed from the alt text as per WP:ALT#Verifiability.

Eubulides (talk) 17:10, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

• • I hope the revision of alts is okay now.--Caspian blue 23:28, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
    • All the problems noted above have been fixed; thanks! One new one has been introduced, though, and needs fixing: the alt text for the maps focus on unimportant visual aspects such as colors and icon shapes, and neglect the essence of what the maps tell the reader. Please see WP:ALT#Maps for advice here. For example, for File:Gyeongjumts.png the current alt text is "Moutains in Gyeongju are marked as triangles. Mountains with a high height are colored in black, otherwise in gray. Gyeongju is colored with white. Outside regions of Gyeongju and rivers and a sea are respectively colored in peach and light blue.", but better alt text would be something like "A river runs from south to north through the region, draining most of it. Half the tallest mountains are on the southern border; other mountains are mostly in the west, clustered in the northwest." Please fix the alt text for all the maps in a similar way. Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 02:53, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
      • I hope this time the above raised roblems regarding alt texts are now fixed.--Caspian blue 06:25, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

        Thanks, that one map has been fixed, and the other maps have been greatly improved. The alt text is pretty close to done now. However, I noticed three problems.

        1. The alt text for maps still contains phrases discussing irrelevant details that should be removed as per WP:ALT#Maps. These phrases include "with a peach background", "in indigo pink and the rest of the province is colored in orange", "is colored in yellow", "are mostly colored in yellow-green", "colored in mint green", "with red", "colored in ivory against a dark beige background", "colored in light green", "with pink", "is colored in green". (It can be useful to note that something is highlighted, but it's not useful to say exactly how it's highlighted.)
        2. The word "lied" is surely a typo, no?
        3. The phrase "meaning "Hospital and Korean traditional medicine hospital affiliated to Dongguk University" fails WP:ALT#Verifiability and should be removed, since we can't assume the typical reader can read Korean.

        Eubulides (talk) 16:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

        • I really hope that this time all problems raised are gone with my copy-editing.--Caspian blue 21:03, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

          It looks good now, thanks. I tweaked it a bit more as per WP:ALT#Maps and WP:ALT#Verifiability, and also tweaked Template:Gyeongju subdivisions and tweaked Template:North Gyeongsang as per WP:ALT#Purely decorative images. Eubulides (talk) 00:32, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

If progress is still being made, a sources review should be done. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:41, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

• • I'm still working on expansion.--Caspian blue 23:28, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Comments

• "57 BC–935 AD": please read MoS on dashes. Same for "urban-rural complex". And see MoS on hanging hyphens: "small and medium-sized cities". And see MoS on minus signs for the table?
• Why is "tourism" linked? And why "foothills", "drainage", etc? Please remove common-term links throughout.
• Images: why so tiny? Consequently, we squint to see what they are, and the captions wrap awkwardly. The text on the map needs a powerful magnifying glass: I don't have one.

Generally, the prose is pretty good. Tony (talk) 09:14, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you for the review. Is File:Gyeongjumts.png "the map" to which you're referring to? Yes, the letters look quite small. I will increase the text soon. However, the first image at History section at 280px looks too big to my eyes. As far as I've known, except few cases (such as lead images, maps, or articles focusing on images), forced images are discouraged. May I ask you what resolution are you setting at? I've checked the layout with 13, 15, 17, and 19 inch monitors in various resolutions, but the images looked fine to me. (See Talk:Gyeongju#Layout) The default setting of images on Wikipedia might be small, but since other people could have different opinions on this, I will follow to the consensus.-Caspian blue 11:14, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

  I had to revert the image setting at 280px per WP:Images#Forced image size, WP:IMGSIZE and MOS:IMAGES, but I will implement the map about mountains and drainage.--Caspian blue 21:03, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

  I increased the text size and updated the color scheme.--Caspian blue 00:37, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

• Note about Korean sources Although I have tried to use English sources, but except history and tourism sections, virtually very little or no source could be found. So I've mainly used three reliable encyclopedias (Encyclopedia of Korean Culture, Korean version of Encyclopædia Britannica, Doosan Encyclopedia) that provide information online and several newspapers written in Korean (not direct translation to avoid plagiarism). However, it is shame that many articles of such major newspapers or media in South Korea have not been created yet. Therefore, several links are also "red links" if you see the reference section on the bottom of the page. As you would be curious at to know what "Ilbo" and "Simun" mean; they respectively refer to "daily news" and "newspaper" in Korean such as The Chosun Ilbo, JoongAng Ilbo, The Dong-a Ilbo, Daegu Ilbo or [[Gyeongju Sinmun] and Kookje Sinmun. Unless Korean newspaper/media companies prefer styling with English translation, transliteration is commonly used for Korean media-related articles. I've also used many Korean academic sources from reputable universities. I hope this will help to rectify any concern about Korean sources. Thanks.--Caspian blue 12:04, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Regarding images

Per Wikipedia policy (WP:IMGSIZE) we should as a rule use the default thumb or thumb|upright sizes and not set images to a fixed size. There are exceptions to this outlined at MOS:IMAGES, but the only such exceptions in this article are IMO the maps. Also per the MOS, "Do not place left-aligned images directly below a subsection-level heading (=== or lower)". I'll try and do a bit of cleanup with regard to images sizes/placement on this basis. Some of the captions could do with a little work, but I'm afraid I don't understand Tony's comment above ("the captions wrap awkwardly"). I'll try and fix the hyphens/dashes/minus signs issue that Tony raised, though.

Per Caspian blue's request I shall try and do a bit of copyediting and look at the image captions and alt text, hopefully within the next week.

Caspian: Can you do anything to improve File:Gyeongjumts.png? It may be an idea to request improvement at WP:GL/MAP. Also, can you check refs #73, 155, 156, 157, 177? The Checklinks tool identifies these as dead links. PC78 (talk) 23:58, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, PC78. I have read the dash things, but I could not find what difference "-" and "–" and "—". (I'm dull at such manual parts) As for the source, the first links works fine, but the others from Gyeongju Sinmun are currently under construction.:-( They were added on Sept.10, and worked fine, but well....I shall replace other news sources. --Caspian blue 00:21, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, I've adjusted the images slightly. WP:PICTURE recommends that if image width is specified it should be at least 300px, so I've increased the map to that size (also makes it easier to see). File:Korea-Gyeongju-Bulguksa-Dabotap Pagoda-01.jpg now uses "upright" rather than a fixed width. MOS:IMAGES also says "Avoid sandwiching text between two images that face each other"; that may still be a problem for the "Tourism" section. PC78 (talk) 00:29, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I've just been throgh the article and fixed a few dash/hyphen issues I found, fixed a few dates and de-linked a few years. I've also used {{convert}} for all the measurements, though not in the "Utilities" section for kW or tonnes because I'm not sure if they need converting or what they need converting to. PC78 (talk) 01:38, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I deleted the (temporarily or not) deal links and replaced with other sources.--Caspian blue 18:56, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Korean name: is the hangul for Gyeongju 경주 or 경주시? The infobox gives both, and it's not obvious (to me) why. PC78 (talk) 10:46, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

It is like calling 'Gyeongju' or 'City of Gyeongju' (or Gyeongju city) (corresponding to the order of your above comment). It is commonly called 경주, but officially 경주시.--Caspian blue 12:12, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

• Keep It's been 11 weeks with no delists. Images check OK. Substantially sourced. Tony says the prose is "pretty good". DrKiernan (talk) 08:06, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The article was kept by Marskell 20:59, 8 October 2009 [18].

---

Talbot Tagora

Review commentary

Notified: Bravada, WikiProject Automobiles

Concerns: Seems quite short (1b), limited number of references, few of which are clear cut reliable sources (1c), could use move/better quality images and more comprehensive captions (3). Aubergine (talk) 01:16, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment. Images need alt text as per WP:ALT. Eubulides (talk) 03:19, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: It doesn't look that bad to me; the main thing I'd suggest is substituting specific page numbers for the Auto Katalog references (if possible) instead of a general range reference. Without having the catalog at hand, I can't make that decision. I'd also suggest a quick runthrough for weasel words; forex "far short". Other than that, the prose looks concise. JKBrooks85 (talk) 04:24, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment: I have gone over the article and fixed up all issues that are within my ability to fix, however, I do not have any print sources for this car so I can replace the two "questionable" references. I would just like to note that the "questionable" sources are not referencing anything controversial (it's only a car) so I would argue that they are okay. If this was a biography or controversial event, I wouldn't be arguing this.

"Seems quite short (1b)": we work with the references available, the article seems to cover everything important. Aubergine, could you please point out the information that you felt was lacking?

"could use move/better quality images and more comprehensive captions": the image quality is fine for the subject in question. Captions have been addressed. OSX (talk • contributions) 11:50, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Can you please fix the alt text too? Click on the "alt text" button in the toolbox at the upper right of this review page. Please see WP:ALT for advice about what should go into those (now-empty) blue boxes. Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 01:34, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concern are citations, comprehensiveness, alt text. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. FAQ? YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 02:34, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

• Keep I admit to have written a good chunk of this article as it stands, and I am absolutely positive those were and are the "best quality" sources we can get on this obscure subject. Other possible sources are either inaccurate or incomprehensive, so even if they might look nicer by means of being print or more "high-quality" websites, they wouldn't consitute better-quality SOURCES for me. This is a rather special case in that there was minimal coverage of the subject by any form of lasting media, and I understand it is raising considerable doubts, but I hope this meets with understanding. Please do point me towards better sources if I missed some by any chance.
  As concerns comprehensiveness, this article really says all there was to say about the subject, and then some. I was actually getting anxious there was too much of trivial and unencyclopedic material put in there, so I am quite surprised the article is getting doubts on the other front. OTOH, similar concerns were raised during the original FA candidacy, and proved mostly to stem out of reviewer's cursory look at the article as "too short". Such concerns usually fade away on more thorough reading - there really isn't much, or actually anything, left to say.
  The alt text issue seems to have been fixed by OSX, or am I wrong?
  Kind regards, PrinceGloria (talk) 06:05, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

"I admit to have written a good chunk of this article as it stands" - Good to see you back Bravada! I think I asked you about this last year YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 06:15, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Your not the only one then: "So I am guessing you are the same person as the long retired User:Bravada? I have kind of suspected that for a while now." OSX (talk • contributions) 07:55, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I emailed him last year. Who else edits vintage cars and Eurovision? YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 04:21, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the alt text problem has not been fixed yet. Please click on "alt text" in the toolbox at the upper right of this review page. All the little blue boxes are blank, which means the alt text is missing. Eubulides (talk) 07:19, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

All images have captions. Please check the actual article rather than relying on that tool sever programme. OSX (talk • contributions) 07:55, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

This thread is about alt text, not about captions. Alt text is intended for visually impaired people, who cannot see the image; it typically has very little to do with the caption. Please see WP:ALT #Difference from captions. Eubulides (talk) 16:19, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

So if visually impaired people cannot see the image, how are the supposed to read the text? Wouldn't an alt text description be against WP:OR? OSX (talk • contributions) 12:59, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Typically they use a screen reader like JAWS, which reads the alt text and caption out loud to the user. The alt text should contain only information that can immediately be verified by a non-expert who is merely looking at the image; this satisfied WP:OR since the image itself supports the alt text. These topics, and others related to alt text, are discussed further in WP:ALT. Eubulides (talk) 02:00, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Alt text now added. OSX (talk • contributions) 12:21, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, it's now present, but it needs work. "Brown Talbot Tagora" conveys one word ("Brown") about visual appearance, but the other two words "Talbot Tagora" are not about visual appearance and repeat the caption. Alt text is supposed to not repeat the caption, and should focus on visual appearance only. It's OK for later images to have alt text that say "Talbot Tagora" and thus to refer to the lead image, but the lead image should describe the gist of the visual appearance of this automobile: it's a 4-door sedan, it's an angular style with rectangular headlights, it has a black stripe along the side at bumper height. This shouldn't be too long; just the gist. Later images can have alt text that describes what's distinctive about this particular view of the car. Similarly, "Grey-coloured automobile interior" doesn't contain quite enough detail: I'd shoot for something more in the range of 20 to 40 words. Eubulides (talk) 00:30, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

• Keep: article is now in good shape. OSX (talk • contributions) 12:21, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comments: I'm concerned about the adverbs in the first sentence of the design subsection: "generous", "ample", and "large" aren't precise and might be called weasel-wordy, unless they can be backed up with a source. Can someone provide one or give accurate measurements as to the wheelbase changes, etc.? JKBrooks85 (talk) 23:49, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I have fixed this up as best I can without loosing meaning ([19]). It cannot be ignored that the Tagora is a large car. OSX (talk • contributions) 04:17, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, the sources seem to use much of the same language. How well has the car held up under maintenance? Have there been any long-term problems? JKBrooks85 (talk) 04:59, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - Hard to see how this ever became a FA to begin with. Seems like a very minimal article. If this can be a FA, then many, many can be. But so be it. —mattisse (Talk) 00:52, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Please feel welcome to contribute any more info you can find on the topic! PrinceGloria (talk) 17:00, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. Looks alright. Not sure if it'd pass through WP:FAC today, but not worth delisting either. Cirt (talk) 06:02, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
• Provisional keep. But has someone sifted through for prose and MoS? "newly-launched"? (Check Hyphens).
• Why is "bankruptcy" linked? It's a normal English word, yes?
• Some of the images are TINY. Please increase: see this for the syntax: try 240 to 260px often.
• "The deal was finalized in 1978, with the buyer paying a mere"—clumsy. Try ", in which the buyer paid ...". See this.
• "Rather" is almost always unencyclopedic.
• Does the "axle" link-target go to a specifically car axle section? ("Pre-production" is good: car article).
• Linked "billboard advertising"? Is it an obscure item? "Brass"?
• "higher power rating." -> "higher power-rating." Easier to read. Tony (talk) 14:07, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Done. OSX (talk • contributions) 14:05, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

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

Removed status

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

The article was removed by YellowAssessmentMonkey 02:12, 28 October 2009 [20].

---

Salvador Dalí

Review commentary

Notified: Daniel Nuyu, Wikiproject Biography, Wikiproject Visual arts, Wikiproject Spain

This article, in my opinion, is not a Featured Article, because the article does not fulfill the criteria in the FA process.

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

The lead is choppy and short. Especially with Dalí was highly imaginative, and also had an affinity for partaking in unusual and grandiose behavior, in order to draw attention to himself. This sometimes irked those who loved his art as much as it annoyed his critics, since his eccentric manner sometimes drew more public attention than his artwork. This seems like an opinion on his technique, rather than fact.

Poorly written sentences -

• When he was five, Dalí was taken to his brother's grave and told by his parents that he was his brother's reincarnation,[9] a concept which he came to believe.

• After her death, Dalí's father married his deceased wife's sister (why not say "wife's sister" and what was the sister's name?).

Chronology error:

• Dalí also had a sister, Ana María, who was three years younger than he.[7] In 1949, she published a book about her brother, Dalí As Seen By His Sister.[12] His childhood friends included future FC Barcelona footballers Sagibarbá and Josep Samitier. During holidays at the Catalan resort of Cadaqués, the trio played football together.
• 1 (c) well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature on the topic. Claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported with citations; this requires a "References" section that lists these sources, complemented by inline citations where appropriate;

I see many instances of [citation needed] throughout the article. Also, the some links are dead links or not properly formatted.

• 2 (a) a lead: a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections;

Lead is too short and choppy.

Some other issues may exist, because I just made a quick glance over. miranda 18:48, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. Images need alt text as per WP:ALT. Eubulides (talk) 19:26, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concern are citations. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources.

• Delist - Very little to no effort has been made to address my concerns. miranda 04:52, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The article was removed by YellowAssessmentMonkey 04:32, 20 October 2009 [21].

---

Warsaw Uprising (1794)

Review commentary

Notified: Piotrus, Halibutt, Irpen, WikiProject Military history, Polish WikiProject.

I am nominating this featured article for review because it does not longer meet the FA criteria. The article was promoted in August 2006 and no review has been conducted since then. There are large portions of the article uncited (1c) and the majority of sources used are non-english. It should be verified if no English-language equivalent sources exist. However, a thorough referencing clean-up should be made. Eurocopter (talk) 18:40, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I was involved in the original referencing and I am sure it was done well. References in foreign languages are acceptable. Editors are of course welcome to improve the article by adding more references in other languages. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:37, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Are acceptable but should be replaced if an English equivalent exists per WP:RS. --Eurocopter (talk) 20:44, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Amended by addition, not replaced. If it says replaced, let me know where; such a policy needs to be changed :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:46, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

As the author of most of the original FA content I should probably throw in a cent or two.

1. First of all, there were barely any English sources on the topic in 2006. Most of those that were available to me (Warsaw University Library, Google Books and such) were simply short notes in some encyclopaedias and such. What's more, many of them were far from reliable in that they repeated 19th-centurish misconceptions that were dropped by modern Polish historiography long ago (like for instance the ridiculous claims by Kiliński). I doubt there are more sources now as the topic doesn't seem to be high enough on the list of priorities for English-language historians.
2. Of course we could cut the article only to statements that are available in English-language sources, but that would mean cutting the article to little more than a stub. I see no point in that, especially that there is a plethora of Polish language monographs, all of them by respected historians, peer reviewed and so on. If the choice is between good article based on Polish and Russian sources and bad article based on English sources, I'd go for the first option.
3. If you feel something is fishy with this or that chunk of the text, just ask for a source and I'll be happy to provide it. Especially that many of the sources cited in the text are available on-line and easy to check. BTW, that's precisely what the {{fact}} template is for. However, I believe marking the entire article as "not meeting the FA criteria" without citing specific paragraphs that need revision is neither helpful nor justified.
4. Finally, what do you mean by a "thorough referencing clean-up"? What's wrong with the current refs except for the fact that the majority of them are not in English?

Regards, //Halibutt 21:01, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

• Of course cutting the text is not a solution. First of all, I have added tags in places where citation needed, although I'm pretty sure you are familiar of how a current FA should look like. Secondly, you should have separate sections for notes and references - see examples of clean referencing systems here and here. I know that it's a bit of work to do, but FA standards grew up since 2006. --Eurocopter (talk) 21:28, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

• Comment on sources There is an over-reliance on "Kazimierz Bartoszewicz (1913). ">>Święta Insurrekcyja<< w Warszawie". Dzieje Insurekcji Kościuszkowskiej (History of the Kościuszko's Uprising)." which is sad, because its a 1913 work. I'm quite happy for the sources to be primarily Polish as long as 1) They're scholarly peer reviewed (of course) and 2) you try to find scholarly book reviews in English of the works, and 3) you include commented-out quotes (in Polish) so we can google translate the key evidentiary sentences for second editor verification. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:48, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. Images need alt text as per WP:ALT. Eubulides (talk) 04:44, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concern are citations. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 00:50, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delist as sourcing quality no longer meets WP:WIAFA or WP:MILMOS#SOURCES standards (a level B- standard). Fifelfoo (talk) 01:23, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delist Issues raised above not resolved. --Eurocopter (talk) 18:20, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delist, as per Fifelfoo (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 21:21, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The article was removed by YellowAssessmentMonkey 04:32, 20 October 2009 [22].

---

Virginia Tech massacre

Review commentary

Notified: Ronnotel, Sfmammamia, WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography

I think that the article in its current state is not quite featured quality. Several sections are stub-quality, the timeline of victims contradicts the text, and the "See also" section seems to be composed of one relevant link and two off-the-wall links. Teh Rote (talk) 14:29, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment. Images need alt text as per WP:ALT. Eubulides (talk) 16:59, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• Comment I don't understand what "[s]everal sections are stub-quality" means, nor how that violates an FA criterion. See also—surely this is a {{sofixit}}-type issue? As for how the timeline contradicts the text, specific examples would be helpful. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:42, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

  Glad to clarify on the sections issue.

  • The "Victims" section is two sentences long and most of its information is repeated elsewhere.
  • The "Gun politics debate" section is the same length. Quotations from notable activists would probably be necessary.
  • The "Settlement" section can probably be fleshed out. Also, it just doesn't read as well as the rest of the article.

  The "See also" section, I suppose I can work on that. I would just like input from some of the authors as to why said links were put there in the first place.

  Now, for the timeline. User:Aquila89 noted that "The article claims to be listing deaths in chronological order. However, Librescu is third on the list, while the text of the article states, that Cho first went to Room 206 and 207 and killed people there, before going to Room 204, and killing Librescu." Their concern was voiced in June and still stands. Teh Rote (talk) 01:23, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the clarification and examples. Hopefully these issues (in addition to the alt text needs) can be addressed quickly so that the article can be kept without much fuss. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:52, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment. Almost nothing has been done since I listed this article. Not knowing what else to do, I removed the "See also" section myself, since the links didn't seem necessary. If this article is to remain at featured status, it needs work. Teh Rote (talk) 12:13, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Note that user:Auntieruth55 and I have been working on cleaning up the article. Karanacs (talk) 19:31, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I can do little more without reading up on it, and that I don't have time to do. Nonwiki life--called a dissertation--calls. I'm happy to go through and copy edit, but I don't have time to read much. Auntieruth55 (talk) 22:37, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concern are comprehensiveness, accuracy (self-contradictions). Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 00:52, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delist, per FA criteria concerns, and unaddressed concerns. Cirt (talk) 21:16, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delist, next to nothing done to improve the article. Teh Rote (talk) 13:24, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

• Hold. I reviewed this article's prose and fixed some glaring issues; in one case, I removed (using invisible wiki text) a sentence that had no attribution/citation). There are contradictions between the order of the shootings in the box and the text. I suggest removing the box. "High quality sources" .... This is such a recent event, there is next to nothing scholarly written on it, but I submit that the appropriate quality available have been used, including the STate review panel report, and a variety of newspaper articles. I suggest contacting the original editor and asking if they want to tackle it again, before it is taken off FA status. Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:10, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

• Agree with Hold, concerned about these kinds of delists (where it doesn't appear that reviewers have engaged the article), and wonder if anyone looked into the possibility of reverting to the featured version, or version some time after mainpage day. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:17, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

• that's a possibility, Sandy. I've also just gone through and reorganized some of the material, changed the heading on the chart, etc. I don't know how to do a revert that far back, so if that's the decision... Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:28, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

• It was on the main page on April 16, 2008, which isn't so far back. The deal is to go back in article history and find the best version just after it was off the main page, after all vandalism and any pending talk issues are cleaned up. I can't offer to help just now because my main computer gave up the ghost, and I'm on a dinosaur. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:31, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delist. This article is still sourced to media accounts from more or less immediately after the event. Since then, a number of books have been written, none of which are used. See Lucinda Roy's No Right to Remain Silent: The Tragedy at Virginia Tech, Ben Agger's There is a Gunman on Campus: Tragedy and Terror at Virginia Tech, Roland Lazenby's April 16th: Virginia Tech Remembers, and Douglas Kellner's Guys and Guns Amok: Domestic Terrorism and School Shootings from the Oklahoma City Bombing to the Virginia Tech Massacre just to name a few. Rather than simply relying on contemporary medica accounts, an article like this needs to take advantage of more extensive accounts written with the benefit of hindsight. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.1.214.112 (talk • contribs) October 13, 2009
  • I briefly skimmed a few of these books, and I think there is definitely room for improvement for the sourcing in the Perpetrator section and in some of the response sections. Several of the books offered comparisons with Columbine and placed this attack in a broader setting with other school shootings; this is not handled well, if at all, in the article currently. Karanacs (talk) 16:11, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
    • I concur, the use of some of these works would seem pretty much required to help give a broader less immediate perspective on the issue. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:53, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
      • OK, then my hold is conditioned upon some editor being willing to udpate the article to reflect new and better sources. Is anyone able to work on that? If not, pls disregard my hold. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:55, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
        • Like Auntieruth55 above, I can only commit to copyediting right now. Karanacs (talk) 02:12, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The article was removed by YellowAssessmentMonkey 04:32, 20 October 2009 [23].

---

Oroonoko

Review commentary

Notified: Geogre, WikiProject Books, WikiProject Novels

I am nominating this featured article for review because it fails the featured article criteria, primarily criteria 1c. The article contains numerous unsources statements, with many sections being wholly unsourced.

• The first paragraph if Biographical and historical background - entirely unsourced. All but one sentence of "Fact and fiction in the narrator" - unsourced.
• "Models for Oroonoko" - all but a few sentences, again unsourced.
• "Slavery and Behn's attitudes" - two sentences cited, the rest not.
• "Historical significance" not a single citation.
• "Literary significance" - two cited sentences.
• Three cited sentences in "The New World setting" - the rest not.
• "Character analysis" has one whole cited sentence.
• "Women in Oroonoko" appears to possibly be cited, but with the issues in the rest, I'm inclined to think its only those three sentences that have citations
• "Adaptation" uncited except one sentence.

It also fails criteria 2a - as the lead does not summarize the article adequately, or really at all. The second paragraph focuses on the author's history rather than the novel. It fails 2b in that it lacks the basic novel infobox. Being an older FA (passed in 2005) it does of course lack alt text on all images, though by itself would not be a reason to delist.

Attempted to tag the article for needing references to give time for improvement and left a note explaining the problems on the talk page, but tag was removed and was attacked for it by another editor who claimed "you are merely vandalizing the page by adding what amounts to graffiti. Please either list your concerns so someone can address them, or cease this" despite my having already listed the areas uncited (same as I've now noted here). In my original message, I noted that if the article was not corrected soon, it would be brought to FAR for review and delisting, but no work was done, only attacking me for daring to point out it does not meet the criteria.[24] -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:38, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I removed the personal attacks above per TPG, and advised C to pursue resolution regarding individual editors with them, but C has restored comment. For the record, I dispute this version of events. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 22:30, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. Images need alt text as per WP:ALT. Eubulides (talk) 18:04, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

  Done. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 10:08, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

  Thanks for adding the alt text. There are two problems with it, though:

  • Alt text is missing for File:Behn Oroonoko title page.1688.jpg. Here, I suggest simply transcribing the text as per WP:ALT#Text.
  • The alt text that is present is mostly just a repetition of part of the caption. It should not repeat the caption; see WP:ALT#Repetition. Also, the alt text often contains proper names and other details like "at age 30" that cannot be verified by a non-expert who is looking only at the image; these details should be removed or moved to the caption as per WP:ALT#Verifiability.

  Eubulides (talk) 14:42, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

  Thanks, I will correct those issues. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 17:30, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• Keep: <offtopic bluntness redacted following agreement> Giano (talk) 22:00, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

"Unsourced"

Collectonian, I've studied the argument on Talk:Oroonoko, including the sections you have removed, and I can't agree that you were in any sense attacked for "daring to point out it does not meet the criteria". Perhaps you're referring to Outriggr's attempts to explain that it does meet the criteria, since lacking footnotes doesn't mean an article is unsourced? It's a common notion that only footnotes are properly to be called "sources" or "inline references"; but that doesn't make it correct. There are other ways of giving the sources of an article; for instance, by incorporating them into the text. That is not in any way an inferior kind of sourcing. That (plus 21 footnotes) is the way Oroonoko is sourced. I quote Outriggr:

Do you not understand what it means for attributions to references to be incorporated into a sentence? Here's an example: "Also, as Ernest Bernbaum argues in "Mrs. Behn's 'Oroonoko'", everything substantive in Oroonoko could have come from accounts by William Byam and George Warren that were circulating in London in the 1660s. However, as J.A. Ramsaran and Bernard Dhuiq catalog, Behn provides a great deal of precise local color and physical description of the colony."

The references incorporated here are then complemented by the "References" section at the foot of the page, with full publishing information plus page numbers. Of course the sourcing wouldn't be complete without that. With it, it is. This happens to be the way sources are given in my own academic field. Why is it better that Wikipedia be peppered with unattractive superscribed and non-consecutive note figures? Does that in any way give more information? No, it doesn't.

Why are you so angry? Bishonen | talk 23:15, 20 September 2009 (UTC).

• Although I greatly respect the article's primary editor, it does appear to need more inline citations. I would suggest having at least one at the end of every paragraph so that there isn't any dangling, uncited text. With that, the article should be good to go. Cla68 (talk) 23:38, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd wonder if that would be possible, however? Looking at the original FA that passed in 2005, a much larger amount of content has been added, without a similar increase in sources, which would beg the question, where is the information coming from? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:40, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I trust that the sources listed contain the information in the article. Someone with access to those sources just needs to take a few minutes and add the citations. It's not necessarily the primary editor's fault. This FA was done in 2005 before the current emphasis on having all text with cited sources. Cla68 (talk) 23:56, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

We can always go to FARC early if that's what people want. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 01:52, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

YellowMonkey, for months I have noticed comments from you at FAR talk that are not becoming the holder of a position that needs to be seen as neutral by the community. I would have commented about this sooner, but I prefer to stay as far away from FAR (and drama) as possible. Above, you appear to be using your position to threaten an early closure of the discussion. Here, you appear to be siding with the initiator of the FAR, suggesting that there are article "owners" (which is ridiculous, and which I find insulting, given that I simply find no merits in this case—has anyone noticed Outriggr on any "cabals"?—and it seems to me the main contributor to the article has left); and implying that you've already made a decision on the case. You have tried to implement quite "pointy" changes to the FAR "introduction text", against consensus from FA-related editors who show a great sensitivity to conflicts of interest. All of these are very non-neutral comments for any moderator of this forum. If this is your approach, can we go back to Marskell et al? It's kind of like a bureaucrat stepping into an RFA half-way through and saying, "well, this is kind of looking like an unsuccessful bid isn't it? Maybe close it now, speed it up a bit?" Due process please, or leave it for someone else. Outriggr (talk) 04:54, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore, I would now request that another FAR administrator be responsible for closing this. Outriggr (talk) 04:57, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Outrigger, you should have made this post on YellowMonkey's talk page, not here. I personally don't have a problem with the way YellowMonkey is administering this forum. Cla68 (talk) 05:02, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

The comment is directly related to FAR, and to this FAR. I'm afraid I don't follow that logic. Outriggr (talk) 05:08, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

The above comment by YellowMonkey (talk · contribs) may be referring to individuals choosing to bold their "votes" early, prior to the FARC segment of the FAR process... Cirt (talk) 05:22, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

[ec with Sandy] I'd considered that, but there is actually only one individual who has "voted", so the suggestion still comes across, on balance, as rather "pointy" to me. The nomination has been open some 12 hours. The FAR introductory text says "Each stage typically lasts two to three weeks". One possibility: show me that this is YellowMonkey's usual approach and I'll retract my concern (although the concern remains that it doesn't follow the stated protocol). Outriggr (talk) 05:33, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• To my knowledge, there has never been a case of "go(ing) to FARC early" since the new FAR/FARC was instituted in mid-2006, and I would be seriously alarmed if that was ever done; I'm hoping that was a joke that I missed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:31, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I believe it probably was intended as such. Cirt (talk) 05:58, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• It just seems extraordinary to me, that any editor consistently contributing well-sourced and well-written, knowledgeable and informative Wikipedia articles should want to expose himself to this kind of process. Even reading this page is unenlightening. Why should any editor want their article to be featured in this atmosphere? --Wetman (talk) 18:15, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I think there is a hope that the featured article process with result in a useful critique. Unfortunately, too often the result is something like the nomination here which consists of footnote counting and detecting the lack of an infobox. It's far from being a useful or interesting critique; there's little evidence in the nomination that Collectonian has even read the article. Nominations like this would be well served if the nominator were to step back and ensure that they've at least demonstrated a command of the English language and not just basic counting skills. Christopher Parham (talk) 14:20, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

• Keep - There are no problems as the sources at the bottom cover most of the whole page. Direct quotations are directly cited. This can later be fixed to put citations throughout. But there is nothing to suggest that there is original research or the rest in the article, which would be the only reason to delist it here. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:50, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll assume as well that moving this early was meant in jest. The only early moves out of FAR are default keeps. But Collectonian raises fair points so this can get its time here. (Mostly fair points: the lead is meagre but an infobox is not required.) As for 1c, the newer material has significantly more than the older, which makes the referencing uneven. And there are areas that clearly call for a reference (e.g., "One potential motive for the novel..." or "...likely designed to awaken Tory objections"). "The New World Setting" mixes parenthetical citations with footnotes; it's also a single massive paragraph.

In any case, I don't see that YM needs to step aside from handling this. Marskell (talk) 22:30, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concern are citations, lead. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 00:49, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delist concerns never met, article still has large amounts of content with no clear citations (despite claims above that they are "obvious" in the text or in the footnotes). Lead also still does not summarize article properly or adequately. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:55, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delist, agree with Collectonian (talk · contribs), as well as FA criteria concern noted by YellowMonkey (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 04:38, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delist per above concerns. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:10, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Far too good for the likes of Wikipedia these days. A few of Geogre's featured articles have not been torpedoed yet: who will be the first to find fault with Ormulum or Colley Cibber or Jonathan Wild? -- Disinfoboxman (talk) 12:43, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delist. The article simply doesn't meet our sourcing requirements. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 14:23, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The article was removed by YellowAssessmentMonkey 04:32, 20 October 2009 [25].

---

Manos: The Hands of Fate

Review commentary

Notified: WikiProject Films

I am nominating this featured article for review because I do not believe it is up to FA-class standards. For example, the plot section is too long, and there are too many one- and two-sentence paragraphs. Honestly, I do not feel as if this article was ever up to FA-class standards. –Dream out loud (talk) 19:47, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment. Images need alt text as per WP:ALT. Eubulides (talk) 21:47, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm working on it. --Moni3 (talk) 22:47, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

• The claim "Reports that the only crew members who were compensated for their work in the film were Jackey Neyman and her family's dog, who received a bicycle and a large quantity of dog food, respectively, would seem to indicate that the film failed to break even financially" seems like original research. The source only quotes Nayman saying "Everyone worked real hard, and the only ones who got paid were me and Shanka. I got a new bicycle, and Shanka got a fifty-pound bag of dog food" - the Wikipedia article appears to draw from that that the movie didn't break even. Yeah it probably didn't... but it still seems like a claim that runs afoul of WP:OR. --Sancho Mandoval (talk) 20:59, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
• A broader problem is that, in tracking down the source for the above issue, it seems this article is heavily based on 2 articles that ran in "Mimosa", a fanzine of some sort. It is cited 17 times for core information about the movie. Both articles are written by Richard Brandt (almost certainly not the Richard Brandt there's a WP article on). Brandt's source appears to be interviews with 2 production people, but his story seems rather unlikely... he decided to write an article about the movie, then by shear coincidence learned that two people who made the movie are poker buddies of his good friend? It's not even clear the article isn't just a joke. I'd like to see some kind of corroboration that Brandt is to be believed before we report his claims as facts. This issue doesn't seem to have been raised in the FAC or on the talk page. --Sancho Mandoval (talk) 20:59, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
• I will say that this article still does a fantastic job of summarizing the production and reception of an obscure film... those sections read like a textbook featured article. If the information in them proves not to be BS, and the plot section is trimmed (its length caused me to skip over it to more interesting sections), this could be salvaged as a FA. --Sancho Mandoval (talk) 21:04, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
• The more I dig, the stranger this is. Everything about the production of Manos seems to trace back to Brandt as the source. People have pointed out various claims of his seem more intended to be interesting and funny than factually accurate (for instance, his claim that Harold Warren was a fertilizer salesman has no non-Brandt source, and many people claim it's not true... in the MST3K episode they joke that he's a fertilizer salesman, but it seems like it was purely a joke). Furthermore, even the 1966 newspaper article someone scanned in is problematic. Maybe I'm just being overly paranoid here, but I find the last sentence "Someone is spoofing us" to be very strange... it has nothing to do with the article, as far as I can tell... and could be a clue that the whole thing is a prank. --Sancho Mandoval (talk) 00:36, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested criteria are citations, original research/verifiability. Also note the recent changed to WP:WIAFA requiring "high-quality sources" YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 03:25, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

• Delist. It's been almost a week and no reply to my concerns raised above. I did some more digging and found nothing to make me more confident in Brandt as a source. Apparently his 2004 documentary on Manos is based around an outright false claim (that everyone involved in the movie died or disappeared mysteriously, except a lone stuntman). As it stands, this article is based heavily on a fanzine article by a questionable person... it's not really FA material and could need a total rewrite if I'm right. I know I could be wrong, but someone needs to clear things up... and that doesn't seem to be happening. Sorry... I know people worked hard on this article... and don't doubt they did so thinking they were using a trustworthy source. --Sancho Mandoval (talk) 01:35, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delist, concerns not addressed. Cirt (talk) 21:10, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The article was removed by YellowAssessmentMonkey 23:53, 12 October 2009 [26].

---

"Weird Al" Yankovic

Review commentary

Notified: User:BullWikiWinkle, User:Maxamegalon2000

I am nominating this featured article for review because large chunks are lacking in sources (1C):

• The first three paragraphs of the "Music" section are unsourced, as is most of its "Music Videos" subsection.
• "Reactions from original artists" also has unsourced OR.
• "Notable television appearances" is also sorely lacking in sources, replete with a {{fact}} tag.
• The discography list of Grammy awards should probably not have the dates pipe-linked, either.

Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 20:15, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment. Images need alt text as per WP:ALT. Eubulides (talk) 20:17, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

• Quick comment: Discog links are piped to the respective year's Grammy awards, as opposed to a date page. This would be appropriate "date" linking as such as it is. --MASEM (t) 20:22, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

• File:Weirdalclassic.jpg: missing a fair use rationale.
• File:Weird Al Yankovic.png: its parent file is missing permission. DrKiernan (talk) 15:14, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I've fixed the first image with a new FUR. --MASEM (t) 15:36, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concern are citations, sources, alt text. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 01:51, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

• Delist as nominator. As I pointed out, large chunks of the article are undersourced or unsourced entirely. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 16:04, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
• Delist, per referencing issues. Cirt (talk) 21:06, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The article was removed by YellowAssessmentMonkey 23:53, 12 October 2009 [27].

---

Introduction to evolution

Review commentary

Notified: User:Filll, WikiProject Evolutionary biology, Evolution

I would like to nominate that Introduction to evolution be reconsidered and removed as a FA. I am a biologist with a BSc, MSc, I am working on my MEd in ecoliteracy, and I have been teaching evolution to university students for the past ten years. I also hold grants and research in the field of evolutionary biology. There are MANY conceptual errors in this article. It is not entirely clear why this article exists in the first place, it is almost as complex as the main article Evolution and it is misleading in many respects. This is a very poor introductory article to be read by schoolkids for example - it would confuse the hell out of them.

Reviewing the criteria:

1. It is—

• (a) not well-written: its prose is not engaging, hardly brilliant, and of a un-professional standard;

For example:

"Several basic observations establish the theory of evolution, which explains the variety and relationship of all living things. There are genetic variations within a population of individuals. Some individuals, by chance, have features that allow them to survive and thrive better than their kind. The individuals that survive will be more likely to have offspring of their own. The offspring might inherit the useful feature."

Please re-read that last paragraph. It is clearly not well-written. It is confusing because it makes broad generalizations that miss the premise and requires huge conceptual leaps.

• (b) comprehensive: it neglects lots of major facts or details and places the subject in context;

There are entire sections that have few if any references that are entirely based on conjecture. For example, the first few paragraphs on Introduction_to_evolution#Source_of_variation is original research that cites only Darwin. I hardly doubt that Darwin reflected on how he was mistaken about heredity. The first sentence in this section is also a run-on sentence and so I refer you back to criteria 1a. This article cannot deliver on the type of information that is required of any person to grasp the concepts of natural selection (e.g., [28])

• (c) well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature on the topic. Claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported with citations; this requires a "References" section that lists these sources, complemented by inline citations where appropriate;

Some sections are well-researched, however, the interpretations are oftentimes incorrect. For example, the lead states: "Traits which help the organism survive and reproduce are more likely to accumulate in a population than traits that are unfavorable, a process called natural selection." This is NOT natural selection - it conflates adaptation with natural selection in an awkward way only to confuse the issue. Hence, it does not serve its utility as an introduction. This topic is of such importance and has been addressed time and time again by many scientific organizations, such as The National Academy of Sciences’s book, "Teaching about Evolution and the Nature of Science (1998)" -- the concepts must be presented accurately.

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

There are lots of missing examples that would give the article balance. For example, there is no mention of sexual selection - which is one of the simplest examples that is used to demonstrate the principals of natural selection in an introductory level. What about ring-species? Every introductory book on evolution teaches the ring-species example, because it is conceptually the simplest way to demonstrate how breeding and geographic isolation has occurred.[29] Some of the references are suspect - some of them take you to websites rather than peer-reviewed literature source, which introduces bias.

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

Did the reviewer even read the talk pages? What a mistake this nomination was. There is an effort taking place to re-write the entire article from scratch because of the problems it faces.

2. It follows the style guidelines...okay, it does this, but the structure is poor:

• 1 Darwin's idea: evolution by natural selection
• 2 Source of variation
• 3 Modern synthesis
• 4 Evidence for evolution

• 4.1 Fossil record
• 4.2 Comparative anatomy
• 4.3 Molecular biology
• 4.4 Co-evolution
• 4.5 Artificial selection

• 5 Species
• 6 Different views on the mechanism of evolution

• 6.1 Rate of change
• 6.2 Unit of change

Looking at this from afar you can see that it jumps around. This is an introductory article and #3 is about the Modern synthesis?? It is highly inconceivable that someone without any knowledge of the subject would be able to understand and comprehend the modern synthesis in the way it is presented. This introduction should be presented using a time-line of the topic, such as Historical Figures in Evolution. There are few sub-headings that would help in the organization of this article.

and

4. Length. It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

For an introductory article the paragraphs are long and tedious. None of my students would be able to maintain consciousness long enough to get through one of the un-captivating paragraphs. They go into too much detail and need to be broken down. The sub-heading issue discussed above would help this.

Without going into too much detail - there has been much debate on this controversial topic - this article is DEFINITELY not worthy of FA designation. Please see that this article is removed from the FA list so that people do not get a misleading idea of what evolution is really about. This would confuse the hell out of the kids I teach. Thanks.Thompsma (talk) 19:01, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Delist for three reasons: (a) clarity and conciseness; (2) scope; (iii) quality of writing. (These pertain to WP:FA? 1a and 4. I think criterion 1b "comprehensive" can be bracketed for the moment, since an introductory article is expected to overlook at least some major issues that are too 'complex' to be adequately treated in a mere introduction.) a and iii are pretty self-evident, but regarding scope, I question why an article 'introducing' readers to the concept of evolution would spend 2 pages explaining evolution, 2 pages polemically defending evolution ("here's evidence for why you should believe us!"), and 2 pages discussing the history of evolutionary biology and the complex network of changing ideas in the field. Should our Introduction to general relativity article spend as much time discussing the lives and politics of physicists as it spends explaining the actual content of the theory? As I understand it, an article merely introducing a scientific idea or concept to readers should spend 99% of its time on that concept alone, and at most 1% explaining its historical background and social context. Framing the first section of an intro article as 'Darwin's idea: evolution by natural selection' does absolutely nothing to clarify what evolution is to anyone; if someone's taking a British history test and needs to know what Charles Darwin's big idea was, this might help (though not much, since Darwin never once used the term "evolution"), but if they're here to understand biology and the natural world, they'd be much better served by sections with titles like 'Natural selection: Traits helping and harming organisms', or even just 'Selection'. -Silence (talk) 20:33, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Minor technical correction: Charles Darwin stated that "from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved" as the closing sentence to all editions of On the Origin of Species, he introduced the increasingly fashionable term "evolution" to his writings in his 1871 publication The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex,[30] and subsequently used the term in the 1872 6th edition of The Origin of Species.[31] . . dave souza, talk 19:11, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment In regards to stability. The article is essentially identical to the version that achieved FA status over a year ago (The concern raised does not seem related to archaic information). The changes that have occurred are extremely minor at best. Perhaps the concern over stability raised by the nominator is based on the torrid history up to the Fa achievement. If so, then please see Raul654 comments on the original FA listing Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Introduction to evolution regarding edits for improvement during FA. Since the article has not changed since the original FA; this request; I can only assume is a rejection of the original decision to list. No doubt, Raul654, filtered through the massive amounts of commentary during that period along with the even more dramatic Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Introduction to evolution (2nd nomination) that was occurring simultaneously. Essentially, we are opening an old case. Few, if any of the many contributors during that period wish to re-live that event. I suspect the members of "The Wiki-gang" from the past hung up their guns and went into seclusion. This should prove interesting... I'll watch list the page.--Random Replicator (talk) 14:26, 11 September 2009 (UTC)(Sorry - I was responding from my retired account --JimmyButler (talk) 17:48, 11 September 2009 (UTC))

• I agree that the article is very stable. In fact, I would raise the opposite problem. Too little change has taken place on this article. The editors at Evolution and others should be working on maintaining and improving it, but instead it seems that different factions have taken over the different pages, turning Evolution and Introduction to evolution into editorial POV forks of one another rather than an 'introduction-overview' relationship. (The lack of growth and change on the Intro page also accounts for part of the divergence between the two articles: Many of the 'features' of Introduction are actually vestigial leftovers which used to be present on both pages, but were removed from the more high-traffic Evolution page because they weren't very helpful, while slipping through the cracks on the Intro over the years.) -Silence (talk) 14:38, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Ownership and POV pushing are serious allegations that go beyond a merely badly constructed article. I've carefully re-read the talk page since FA and fail to see any evidence of this claim. In fact, I see the contrary, nothing but passionate discussion; however, consensus was reached in every case. Most importantly, I see no reverts of anyone's contributions other than vandalism. Your perception would have to be based on indirect observation; since I can see no examples where you have contributed to either the discussion or the article since it obtained FA status. I have requested that Thompsma respond; since he is the only User that I can find in the edit history that engaged in serious dialog over content in the past year. If he felt ostracized, then I am both wrong and sincerely disappointed in my behavior as an editor. --JimmyButler (talk) 17:48, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

?? Where did anyone suggest ownership or POV pushing? All I said was that different groups of editors have tended to work on Evolution and Introduction to evolution; it's as though the two articles, though sharing a distant common origin, were reproductively isolated, preventing healthy hybridization and gene (idea) flow, with the result that the article with less selective (editorial) pressure placed on it, Introduction to evolution, retained many subpar traits that were whittled away on the main page. :) That is how content forks usually develop. (If I was unclear in talking about 'editorial POV' above, I was simply referring to the different views editors have about, e.g., what sections to include on the page. If you go back to what Evolution looked like when the Intro to Evolution was created, you'll notice many, many more similarities to how the Intro page looks even today, e.g., with sprawling "Evidence" and "History of evolutionary thought" sections, lipservice to Dawkins and Gould, etc.) -Silence (talk) 18:06, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I misinterpreted "different factions have taken over the different pages" which was intended to read "different groups tend to work on different articles". Thank you for your clarification. --JimmyButler (talk) 18:33, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Culpa est mea, I am sometimes prone to overly melodramatic wordings. :) -Silence (talk) 19:17, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment. The article was - very - thoroughly reviewed while at FAC. It hasn't changed much since then. If the nominator sees problems, then be bold and edit the article. All articles can be improved including this one. But to suggest that it somehow slipped through the cracks and doesn't meet FA standards is a bit off-base. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 18:22, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I would gladly simply start editing the article today .. except that the edits I'm proposing are so sweeping that they would require us to delist the FA article anyway (both because it would violate the 'stability' criterion, and simply because the article will have changed so much that it needs to be resubmitted as an FA). So, whether I improve the article to the point where it satisfies me (and thus completely change its scope) or leave it the mess it is, either way it has to be delisted because it will either be too low-quality to be FA, or it will be in effect a brand-new article, needing to go through the same series of hoops any article does before becoming FA'd.

For example: My first suggestion is to delete two-thirds of the article immediately. No "Evidence" sections (an article is not an argument!), no "Different views on the mechanism of evolution" sections, and no "Modern synthesis" section. And delete "Artificial selection" too while you're at it; this obfuscates the underlying process of evolution in the exact same way that appealing to the 'macro/micro' distinction would here. My second suggestion would be to completely reorganize and rewrite all the remaining sections: Instead of a "Molecular biology" section (which is about as non-introductory as you can get), integrate occasional crucial details of molecular biology (e.g., 'What is DNA?') into more general, flowing, and straightforward sections with super-simple names like "Variation" or "How does evolution work?". If our presentation of the topic isn't maximally simple and straightforward, and we don't want to treat the intro article as a content fork, all we're left with is simple:Evolution, which is obviously not the main function of introductory pages (even if simplicity of language is part of our modus operandi). -Silence (talk) 19:17, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Which policy or guideline says that an FA article must be delisted to make changes - even 'sweeping' changes? I think you misunderstand article stability which is to do with edit warring than legit content addition. FA articles can always be edited and improved. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 19:34, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment I fully agree with Silence and I don't see where there was any mention of POV pushing in the article. Nobody has said this is what has happened. I think that the article had not been accesses as much as the main Evolution article and so it had not received the same degree of scrutiny. The article may have been stable at the time of the FA review - forgive me for not putting a proper time line to the events. However, now that it has been opened up for discussion to a wider audience I feel that some of its deficiencies are coming to light. Given my review and understanding of the material - I completely disagree with Wassupwestcoast, the article does not meet FA standards. There are too many mistakes in the article and it is not very well written. I agree with Silence that too little has changed in the article. Moreover, I wrote JimmyButler to let him know that he did not make me feel ostracized at all - in fact I found his comments useful. This is a very difficult subject matter to be contending with and this is why this debate is taking place. In my expert opinion on the subject matter at hand - this article does not qualify for FA status because:

1. It is not introductory - it is complex.

2. It makes conceptual errors by trying to squeeze a difficult topic into simple language.

3. The quality writing hardly qualifies for FA standards.

Thompsma (talk) 18:50, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

This article went through a very thorough FAC: it meets FA criteria. Sorry it doesn't meet your personal FA criteria. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 19:13, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any "personal FA criteria" above. Thompsa is using the same criteria as you. We simply disagree about whether the article meets those criteria. -Silence (talk) 19:17, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

What I mean is that the community - Wikipedia - engaged in a thorough debate. Some editors thought that it didn't and some thought that it did. Concensus was reached that the article did meet FA criteria. This doesn't mean that it will satisify everyone's personal FA criteria. An FA article isn't supposed to be the definitive article on a subject: there will always be room for improvement and disagreement. All articles are a work in progress. The FA star doesn't indicate 'done'. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 19:29, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification! I agree with you on all counts.

However, I will give you one more chance to qualify your recommendations that I be bold and just start improving the article with my proposed changes. I do not think this would have the effect you expect :) I have stated that the proposed changes would render the article unrecognizable, compared to its status ante-FAR. This is why I do not think "just fix it!" is a valid option for keeping FA status. "Accept criticism + don't make improvements" and "Accept criticism + make improvements" will both result in delisting, for different reasons. The line defenders of this article's FA status should take up instead is: "Reject criticism" (+ make other, unrelated improvements, and/or leave it as-is). For example, if you can explain why my understanding of the role of an 'introduction to evolution' is wrong, my objection to over 2/3 of the article will evaporate. -Silence (talk) 19:40, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't really know how to answer. Wikipedia is a community where consensus - policy - is the guiding principle. I guess if your 'sweeping' changes don't have the tacit agreement of the community then they would be reverted. Personally, I don't see why they would be. You don't seem to be a vandal :-) Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 19:47, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

My critique of the article with respect to Wassupwestcoast suggestion that it does not meet my 'personal' FA satisfaction is incorrect. I am not presenting my argument according to my personal views - I am a scientist and I have published on the subject of evolution in peer-reviewed journals. In my expert opinion, after studying on the topic of evolution, and teaching the subject matter for many years I can see that there are MANY conceptual errors on the page. An FA article must meet professional writing standards and this article does not meet this criteria because it fails to present the correct information. The first few sentences of the article make an immediate error on what natural selection is - how much worse can it get? I read through the extensive review - many of the reviewers admitted that they could not comment on the scientific accuracy and would defer this to others to comment on this. There were a few comments on the science - but few that I would qualify as expert on the subject. I am an expert on this subject and I am giving it my review in this context - the page as it stands does not give an accurate portrayal of evolution - it is filled with propositions that differ from the peer-reviewed published scientific explanations. If an FA article is going to introduce the topic - it better get it right. This article needs to be de-listed from the FA status because it is not factual. It is a quasi-scientific article that uses many of the terms found in evolution publications - it sounds scientific and it sounds correct, but does not put the pieces together correctly. It needs to be removed because it does not give a proper review and/or understanding of evolution.Thompsma (talk) 20:30, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, if you are an expert then be bold and add content to the article. I'm not certain that you understand that 'delisting' the article has but one result: the little bronze star disappears from the article page. The article itself is still accessible. And, I doubt very many readers of Wikipedia notice or understand what the star means. If you are concerned with the content of the article: contribute by editing and revising the article. You are expending a lot of effort in finding fault. No one is going to do the revision for you. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 20:48, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I say this with no intent to inflame. Respect for expertise on Wikipedia is gained through your contribution history as judged by others. Real world attributes - in isolation - hold no credibility. For one, they can be falsified (I do not for a moment think that is the case here). It is important that with respect all editors contributions on equal footing and not use our credentials to strengthen our case. It may in fact, intimidate potential contributors who may feel inadequate when we use, as merit to out argument - our expertise. Again, I know that is not your intent; however, the listing of your credentials in the opening statement may give undue credence to one individuals point of view. I am very sensitive to this, in that I have a group of high school students editing Wikipedia and at present their biggest fear are the potential experts. (Insert request for all to join us here: Wikipedia:WikiProject AP Biology 2009! Cheers!--JimmyButler (talk) 21:20, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment. For an example of major revisions occurring to an FA article without the article being delisted, consider the case of The Hardy Boys; a seemingly innocuous article that was thoroughly reviewed at FA. Within a short time after being listed, a couple of new editors wanted to do some major revisions. The affair was heated. Just looking at Talk:The Hardy Boys/Archive 2 will melt your eyeballs a la Indian Jones. But the revisions gained consensus. The changes were made. And, the article maintained its FA status throughout. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 21:42, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

All good points. After thinking this through - I agree with Wassupwestcoast - it is open to revision and perhaps the time would be better spent doing this. There is much of the article that I do like, by they way - but feel the FA review is premature. There are some sections that need help - I'll do what I can to help out, but I think I'm going to take a little time-out and come back to this when my thoughts are clearer. Perhaps we can find a good compromise - I do like the work that Silence is doing on his sandbox - he has some great ideas.Thompsma (talk) 04:47, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment. I strongly agree with Wassupwestcoast too. There are some very good points here about weaknesses in the article, and some good suggestions for improvements, and if someone – especially someone with expertise in the subject and experience of making such a subject accessible to beginners – is able to spend some time working on it, then that is to be applauded and encouraged. What I completely fail to understand is why it is necessary to indulge in a discussion about whether the present version is worthy of FA status. If work is done to improve the article, the "present version" rapidly becomes irrelevant. The rubber-stamping of "FA status" is equally irrelevant. If the article isn't up to standard, then improve it, tinker with it, rewrite it from scratch, whatever it takes! SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 06:17, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

• Comment the article did well for its time, as the main evolution article has improved it has exposed weaknesses in this article, and Silence's proposals which are currently being implemented appear to be bringing significant improvements. Welcome attention to an article which has been a bit neglected. . . dave souza, talk 19:11, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
• Comment The article has been restructured to the point that the original FA in no longer relevant. It should be de-listed immediately and renominated at a later date.--JimmyButler (talk) 17:13, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
  • There is no need to delist the article immediately and nominate it later. On the contrary, it is common for articles to be edited substantially while being reviewed, and then to be kept. As Wikipedia:Featured article review says, "The aim is to improve articles rather than to demote them." Eubulides (talk) 20:29, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
    • I guess I mis-understand the process. Is the commentary on this page an evaluation of the original article or the new version? If the new version - then none of the comments above are relevant to this discussion and in fact make no sense. If the old - then the old is gone. It just seemed that the FA status listed at the top of the article is no longer applicable - in the sense that it was a highly discussed "battle" over an article that is now gone. It seemed logical to resubmit an entirely different article for an FA review process on its own merits; once the editors feel they have a product worthy of such an attempt. The FA status that is currently placed there clearly is based on a product that no longer exist. Its not being edited substantially - its been completely replaced. Perhaps this page is the FA review - sort of a nominated for removal from FA approach; where you really hope it stays? I'm only familiar with the path where you offer up your work to the community for FA listing not de-listing. Sorry for my confusion -seriously.--JimmyButler (talk) 23:20, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
      • No problem. Your last comment is correct: this is an featured article review (see WP:FAR) and each comment on this page typically refers to the version of the article that was in place when the comment was made. It is normal during FAR for an article to (ahem) evolve and for review comments to become obsolete. There's no rush in removing the star; on the contrary the goal is to fix any problems and keep the star. Eubulides (talk) 23:36, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are prose (1a), comprehensiveness (1b), referencing (1c), neutrality (1d), and focus (4). Marskell (talk) 22:10, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Please make concise declarations on whether the article should retain status. Marskell (talk) 22:10, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

• Delist. Neither the old version nor the new version qualifies; old one has radically nonintroductory scope, new one is incomplete, inconsistently and inadequately referenced, and should go through more rigorous community-wide review in any case. -Silence (talk) 22:18, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
• Delist, per FA criteria concerns. Cirt (talk) 21:03, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The article was removed by YellowAssessmentMonkey 01:29, 9 October 2009 [32].

---

Arrested Development (TV series)

Review commentary

Notified: Brian0918, Arrested Development Taskforce

This article was promoted in 2005, and it doesn't look like it has had a review since. The most obvious problem with the article is its lack of citations throughout the "Themes" section (1c). I also have my doubts about how many non-free images are used (3). I believe many of them are unneeded and are unjustified. --Torsodog^Talk 19:13, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. Images need alt text as per WP:ALT. Eubulides (talk) 01:27, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

• File:GOB on stage.jpg should definitely be removed; an image doesn't help readers understand that a particular song was used. The other images, except for the logo, appear decorative; they illustrate the text but don't aide in understanding it. Is the logo actually copyrighted? I know it's trademarked, but it's typeface and a pen-marking, could be ineligible. Jay32183 (talk) 03:08, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concern are citations, images. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 03:14, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

• Delist - Per my review --Torsodog^Talk 13:20, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delist, per FA criteria concerns. Cirt (talk) 20:59, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The article was removed by Marskell 20:59, 8 October 2009 [33].

---

Sheffield

Review commentary

Wikiprojects notified. Nominator retired

This article has an extreme lack of citations in some place, while other places are well covered. Secondly, it has accumulated an extremely large amount of examples of notable people, groups over the years, probably due to a large amount of drive-by additions of examples, due to vanity, advertising etc YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 06:28, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

You are correct that much of the material added to this article since it became feature is not properly referenced, and some gives no appearance of notability. But I disagree that it has an "extreme lack of citations" - it has a reasonable number, and the core material is referenced. It shouldn't be too difficult to look over the additions and either reference them or remove them for lack of notability. It may, however, be a good chance to utilise more of the information available in paper publications concerning the city - the vast majority of current references are to websites. Warofdreams talk 13:29, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Clarified YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 06:51, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concern are citations. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. FAQ? YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 02:10, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

• Delist, per FA criteria concerns. Cirt (talk) 13:26, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delist Still issues with citations, and there doesn't appear to be a lot of work on fixing these issues. Aaroncrick^{(Tassie Boy talk)} 02:59, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delist per own statement YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 02:06, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
• Comment 3 refs aren't working. Aaroncrick^{(Tassie Boy talk)} 10:58, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I have now checked the references and fixed any problems I found. —Jeremy (talk) 21:14, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delist. It's in need of an overhaul by someone with the dedication to do it right, and it hasn't gotten it since the article was proposed for FAR. The citations are poor (some are dead, lack the correct formatting, or simply aren't very comprehensive), it lacks significant information about the utilities systems, and is generally lacking in some areas when compared with Caversham, New Zealand, one of the latest town FAs -- and the latter location is less than one percent the population of Sheffield. JKBrooks85 (talk) 07:05, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

• It's definitely improved, but there's still some prose and citation issues. Forex, starting a sentence with a percentage figure is frowned upon. Also, "five are Grade I listed. 42 are Grade II*, the rest being Grade II listed" isn't clear to me. Is the asterisk a note that should be referenced, or is "Grade II*" a classification? I've added a smattering of citation needed tags that should be addressed. Good luck! It's been getting better, and I'd encourage Yellow Monkey to not close this as long as progress is being made. JKBrooks85 (talk) 23:32, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

• Grades I, II*, and II is the scheme used for listed buildings in England and Wales. I'm not sure how to make this clearer in the article. We already link to Listed buildings in Sheffield, perhaps also a link to listed building would help? —Jeremy (talk) 18:51, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

• Nah. It's just something I should know. JKBrooks85 (talk) 12:04, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

• Also, that statistic needs to be updated. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:57, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

• Hold. Looks pretty good, but there are two places I think should be cited a little better: the first paragraph of the geography section (maybe refer to a map?) and the sport section (particularly the various minor teams that have child articles. I'd also point out that many places and terms are linked multiple times in the article, occasionally several times in the same section. I removed a few of them, but I think there are others ... the neighborhoods feel like chronic offenders. But these are fairly minor things. The article has been improved a great deal. Kudos to everyone who worked on it. JKBrooks85 (talk) 23:36, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment I think that I have made good progress towards addressing many of the issues raised above. Please re-review the article before deciding on whether or not to delist. Thanks, —Jeremy (talk) 01:06, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

• Hold Progress is being made. I'll go through and add citation needed tags. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:05, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your help. I have dealt with most of your citation requests either by adding citations or by copyediting the text. There are six remaining for which I can't find citations or I am unsure what to do with--in all of these cases I would not object to the removal of the uncited material. —Jeremy (talk) 03:25, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Sorry for taking so long to get back to you. Suggest commenting out any uncited content. I see a few things to which I myself could add easy cites, which I will work on later today and tomorrow. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:59, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
• Comment: I still see some citations needed issues. Cirt (talk) 19:19, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Getting closer... I couldn't find anything about the University of Sheffield being a major music venue. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:46, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

• Whoever added that probably meant the Octagon Centre. I'll look for something on it. —Jeremy (talk) 23:59, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

• I think a primary source is fine. The article doesn't say anything about it having to be "major". Dabomb87 (talk) 00:08, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

• OK... added. —Jeremy (talk) 00:10, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Good work - But there is absolutely nothing on Sheffield's climate apart from a small table - that also probably needs expanding. Aaroncrick (talk) 07:16, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

• Note, this article still needs a good deal of work before it's in keep territory. I saw awkward prose throughout and copyedit needs; will list examples if needed as work progresses. Mixed uses of upper and lower case throughout, and WP:DASH work needed (it's east–west, not east-west, for example). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:39, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

• It looks like work here has stalled; I see no significant process since my post of a week ago. Has there been a review of sources and images? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:40, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

• I'm travelling a lot at the moment, so don't have much time for editing. If this FARC is still ongoing when I return I will be able to offer more help then. —Jeremy (talk) 13:54, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Comments

• The population statistics in the infobox should have sources as it is counter-intuitive to suppose that the population of the entire county of Yorkshire is less than the population of Sheffield's city region.
• Geoffrey Chaucer isn't from Sheffield. I don't think the picture is particularly pertinent. The Abbey isn't mentioned in the History, so why is it depicted?
• The climate section needs attention. Sheffield gets 1218 DAYS of frost from December to March? That is obviously impossible. Most of the section isn't even about Sheffield. Talking of a "rain shadow" implies that it is a dry city, when surely it is actually one of the wettest places in Britain? I thought that was one of the reasons the steel industry grew up there, because of the plentiful and constant supply of water (steel production requires thousands of gallons).
• Mention of Museums Sheffield's climate change exhibit is trivial. I would remove it and merge the section in with a reduced climate section. DrKiernan (talk) 14:35, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Delist unless a copy-edit is conducted soon. Here are problems just in the lead. Redundancy is in strong evidence. Good attributes, so let's try to save this one.

• "The population of the City of Sheffield is estimated at 530,300 people (2007 est.)"—Estimate twice; I'd remove "estimated at".
• Why is "steel" linked, particularly when two types of steel are linked two seconds later?
• Remove "eventually"?
• has increased by 60 per cent in recent years.
• What is the "overall" economy, as opposed to the economy?
• "averaging around five per cent annually and, as such, has been growing at a higher rate than has been experienced in Yorkshire and the Humber in general."
• Remove "located".
• Noun plus -ing—sometimes OK, but awkward here, as almost always when it's "with + noun + -ing": with much of the city having been built on hillsides. Three "withs" within that many seconds, too. Tony (talk) 05:04, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I've been through and copyedited the entire article as it currently stands although I've not touched the dashes. I've also corrected the figure regarding ground frost (67 days is far more realistic than 1218!). The Economy section could do with some more citations. Thryduulf (talk) 12:31, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Note Malleus Fatuorum (talk · contribs) will go through the prose within a few days. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:36, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

• Comments
  • There's clearly something missing in this sentence from the Carbon footprint and climate change action section: "Through a combination of educational events, a portable exhibit, and community town meetings, developed and promoted a variety of action awareness programs to help Sheffield residents respond to and cope with climate change", but I'm uncertain what it is.
  • The citations need to be formatted consistently; some are formatted manually, and describe the last access date as "Accessed 13 September 2009", whereas others use "Retrieved 2009-08-016"—which obviously ought to be 2009-08-16 anyway. Probably better to consistently use either the {{cite}} template or manual formatting.
    • (I believe that the MoS has changed now, and that YYYY-MM-DD style dates are deprecated except when used as hidden fields to enable sorting.) --Malleus Fatuorum 11:54, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
  • From the climate section: "The area's western and eastern boundaries influence its climate." The article explains that the Pennines to the west create a rain shadow, but says nothing about how Sheffield's eastern boundary shapes its climate.

--Malleus Fatuorum 21:48, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Status? This is long overdue but there was work just a few days ago and it has seen substantial improvement. Is anyone still working on it? Any of the opposers have further comment? Marskell (talk) 22:13, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

• Much of the climate section is unreferenced, and images have not been checked. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:58, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Comments. Revisiting: spot check reveals that more thorough sifting is required. It's nearly there. Independent copy-edit, fairly quick job, I think.

• Why is "sea level" linked?
• "It has over 170 woodlands (covering 10.91 sq mi/28.3 km2),"—I think "It has over 170 woodlands covering 10.91 sq mi (28.3 km2). See top here. But then "square miles" is given in full a few seconds later: please decide for the primary units. Should area be switched from the prevailing metric primary units? Is it a road distance?
• 10-15. See MoS. Tony (talk) 14:15, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Geez, this can't seem to get done. I'll ask someone to look at the images if that's one of the last two things to do. Marskell (talk) 16:45, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

The images are fine. The one of the old football team doesn't have an absolutely solid provenance or license but it's so old (and poor quality) I can't imagine anyone claiming copyright. I still have problems with the population statistic for the City Region (which is uncited) and the Climate sections (which need trimming down as they include information which is either trivial or not about Sheffield). These would prevent me from supporting the article at a FAC, but are not sufficient for me to "!vote" to delist on a FAR. DrKiernan (talk) 08:54, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment - Great work to everyone who has cleaned up the article. However, as Dabomb87 has said, the climate section is in the most park unreferenced. Without going through the article, other bits and pieces are without sources. I suggest the article gets removed as a FA and when everything is sourced and copy edited, nominated for FA. Aaroncrick (talk) 09:28, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - Unsourced bits under sections Climate and Sport. Cirt (talk) 12:29, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, it seems a shame to remove after all this time. But worked has stopped and concerns remain, so off it goes. Marskell (talk) 20:51, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

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