Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Eveline Hańska/archive1

Discussion moved from main page (A)

There is nothing wrong with the reference after each sentence, in fact as the comment above shows, lack of such references can lead to confusion, as potentially strong or controversial claims look unreferenced. Please improve the density of references for such claims; otherwise the article may soon see a good meaning editor adding citation needed templates. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:22, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Such citation-needed templates could be quickly removed when they're placed next to material that is cited. Citation density is not part of the FA criteria. That being said, having a footnote next to controversial material is a good idea not because it's otherwise uncited, but because such material frequently requires multiple citations. Again, though, even that is not technically required. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:39, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:V would suggest that we should remove the uncited content, not the citations that request it. Each sentence without a citation is potentially unreferenced, as it could've been added by a different author using a different source (or not at all). Upon successful verification, a citation should be added to that sentence to remove any doubt about the source. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:08, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By all means, remove uncited content. The content in question, however, isn't uncited. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:05, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is uncited - I don't see the citations following it. If you have verified it is cited, please add appropriate citations to those sentences to prevent editors like Ahj above or myself from being confused. PS. At least several times I have seen cases where end-of-para ref was not covering the entire para; just few weeks ago I asked for an in-para cite for a DYK hook, assuming that end-of-para will be copied, but the creator had to add another cite because as he admitted he used many sources for a para, but just referenced the last sentence (whether it was "for looks" or for some other reason, I am still not sure). And this was a situation where the article had one author, think about more developed articles with many authors, where content is moved, added, split, and so on. Bottom line is that end-of-para ref cannot be trusted to reference the entire para. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:14, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion moved from main page (B)

How is this process been difficult? I think it's a well written article, but it needs to tweaking. There's a reason why the B-Class and GA-Class reviews exist - they help iron out the article with the help of additional reviewers. I think I've been rather constructive in my questions, TRYING to help improve the readability and sourcing of the article. I know absolutely ZERO about the subject matter covered in the article, so I'm trying to sit in the shoes of John Q. Public who might be interested in reading about the topic in a way that they can understand it. An FA is supposed to represent the pinnacle of quality articles on EN:WP, look at the ratio of FAs to the total article space. Please don't take the comments PERSONAL, it's just an article review - please take a look at Wikipedia:WORLD. Ajh1492 (talk) 00:49, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, very few projects are active enough to have B-class reviews. WP:POLAND, I am proud to say, is one of them, and we invite all editors to take opportunity from that extra level of review we offer. At the same time, I realize most editors do not expect us to be active and to hold those reviews, and they are of course not obligatory. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:57, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FACs are not easy. With regards to "I don't intend to go back and do all the research for this article all over again (which would be required)" please don't take it the wrong way but... "tough". I say this having written ~20 FAs, many of which date far back (2005-2007), an era where we did not use inline cites. Something like a dozen of my FAs from that era got defeatured ("tough" - for me), and one of the principal reasons for that was lack of (or insufficient number of) inline cites. I am slowly getting some of them back to the modern standards (check the history of Max Weber or Stanisław Koniecpolski for example, or just look at my userpage for defatured FAs and see what happened to them). It requires, yes, going back to the old sources, rereading them and others (again, "tough", but I can say this having "been there and done that"). This is what modern Featured Article is about (and to a big degree, Good Articles and above). I learned years ago to reference every sentence to avoid this problem with my future articles (even if they are not likely to be GA+ anythime soon, it makes it easier for myself and others when expanding them in the future). With all due respect to your hard and quite excellent work in this article, if you want to reach GA-FA standards, I suggest you learn the same "tough" lesson with regards to referencing as I had to. On an end note, I do come from the group of editors who are quite demanding with regards to citations. It is possible you may be able to get your work passed despite my objections, but for what it counts, I do demand review GA+ articles to a very high standard of referencing. PS. Please note I am not demanding that you add cites to all sentences, I am however asking that you do so for the sentences mentioned above, and consider doing so for the all sentences (even if it is not a clear FA requirement, think of it as going above and beyond current standards - and I quite expect the official standards to reach mine in a year or two; just like few years back people where complaining that I demand "any" inline cites...). PPS. It was much easier to write a FA few years back, now I count myself lucky if I find time to write 1/year. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:57, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi everyone, Scartol asked me to weigh in on the inline citation debate going on here. Personally, I think that some editors, Scartol with his thirteen FAs being one of them, should get a pass when their articles come up for FAC. Or at least, based upon his track record, more good faith being assumed than what he's getting here. Some articles need a heavy density of citations--either articles that tend have a great deal of collaboration or those, like the ones I tend to write (I only have 8 FAs), which continue to have new sources created about them. This article doesn't fall into either category. Scartol is this article's lone editor (as is his tendency, since he tends to write articles that are obscure), and the scholarship about them tends to be established. For those reasons, I find no problem with the current version of this article's citations, which are well-done and very extensive. It's obvious to me that this article is one of WP's best articles, and should be passed to FA. Christine (talk) 17:27, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others. So that should apply to editors also? Is it the new Wikipedia Commandment? So just because a single editor writes articles on esoteric subjects, we collectively should just accede to the greatness of their writing skills and just submit without resistance? I know of other editors that have produced more than 13 FAs, so should we just rubber-stamp their articles? What is wrong with constructive criticism? Ajh1492 (talk) 17:56, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I deserve a free pass, and I think Christine was joking there. I'm going to keep quiet for a little bit here and see what other folks have to say about all of this. Scartol • Tok 18:08, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Joking? When you state your opinion in such a manner, Personally, I think that some editors, Scartol with his thirteen FAs being one of them, should get a pass when their articles come up for FAC., it does not sound to me like she is being flippant with her comment. Ajh1492 (talk) 18:19, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would assume that this a joke, because it is too ridiculous to be taken seriously. But FACs are not the best place for such jokes... also, Wikipedia:Sarcasm is really helpful... :> --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:23, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, I'm only being partially factitious. No, I don't think that Scartol or any other editor should get a free pass, but what they should get is an assumption of good faith and that hasn't been happening here, at least not as much as it should. Forgive the sarcasm, please. I also think that an editor's track record should say something, at least in the way his articles are reviewed, and that the kind of article being reviewed should also be taken into account. Those were the points I was attempting to make above. I regret that my hyperbole has detracted from the reason we're all here, and that's the recognition of excellent articles and their editors. Christine (talk) 21:01, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]