Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Unreviewed featured articles/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Good to go

From above, Pulaski Skyway seems fine for citations and can be removed. Matthew Brettingham has one big chunk without citations under the architect section. With the Polish commander I wonder about over reliance on a single source.

A random glance led me to helium, which has taken citations—not perfect, but for the purposes of this list I think it brought to standard. Marskell 07:44, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Moved Pulaski, I'm going to do a bit of cleanup on Helium today and then move it; might as well shine it up while I'm looking at it. Marskell, did you look at Du Fu? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:41, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
I spent some time in Helium; the ref and prose cleanup needs are more than I want to take on, not sure the sources are all reliable, the prose rambles all over the place, and there are MOS issues. Mav has indicated he doesn't mind having his articles come up at FAR, and that he works on them when they do ... this looks like a candidate to me. It's not in good shape. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:50, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
The three cite tags I added to Du Fu (direct quotes and hard data) were removed without citations added. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:53, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I looked in on Du Fu to see how it was coming; cite needed tags removed again.[1] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:05, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Q

Sandy, can you take a look over Abbey Theatre. I think it is more or less there for removal from this list, would like another openion. Thanks. Ceoil (talk) 16:51, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Might not get to it until later; busy all afternoon. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
That was fast. No worries and no hurry with this one. Ceoil (talk) 16:56, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm thinking I might take this to FAR, who knows it might draw work. Ceoil (talk) 22:55, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Could you also take a look at Matthew Brettingham? Strike that I see now that it was mentioned above.--Peter Andersen (talk) 17:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Good gosh, man, you're amazing ! Will wait for Marskell to have a look. Can this be cited?
  • By her own estimate, she had spent £10,350 (worth roughly $1 million in 2004 US currency) of her own money on the project, a considerable sum for the time.
SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Second crusade

Second Crusade has had 40 refs added to it do people think it should be removed from the 'too few citations' list? Tom (talk) 15:55, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

No, I suggest instead that it needs to be brought to FAR, as the article is not in good shape (evidenced early on by the massive white space in the lead and misplaced portal). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:57, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
ugh. Isn't this article what MOS:FLAG is all about? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:58, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Start some sort of talk archive for this page

As it appears that there is opposition to bot-archival for this talk page, it would probably be a good idea for some sort of manual archival to be setup. The page is getting a bit long and contains discussion threads with zero or new activity for literally years. Alternatively - if we simply setup the bot-archival for a much longer period of inactivity in each discussion thread (say one year?) then perhaps that might be a better way to go. Cirt (talk) 18:31, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Curious, because I also note that Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates uses a bot-archival setup already. Cirt (talk) 18:35, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

In any event, I manually archived older material - discussion threads with zero new posts or activity since October 2007 - to the archival subpage /Archive 1. June 2006 - October 2007 is probably a good time period for the first archive, so I started a second page at /Archive 2 for future manual archival. Cirt (talk) 18:44, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

  1. This page is almost out of business, so an archival system isn't needed.
  2. The example at WT:FAC is exactly where I discovered how much I dislike bot archiving. I wish I could turn back the hands of time on that decision, but it's too late now, and finding anything chrononologically in archives there now is a nightmare. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:21, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
I respect your opinion on this, manual archiving seems fine as I agree that this talk page is relatively inactive. Cirt (talk) 21:00, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Removal of shortcut link - WP:FAWCP

[2] - I do not quite understand - if Marskell (talk · contribs) created WP:FAWCP then clearly he felt there was a need for the shortcut/redirect. However if we are not going to acknowledge that this redirect page even exists, then IMO the redirect page should be nominated for deletion and discussed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion. It is silly to have this redirect exist, and not acknowledge it in the top of the page in a {{shortcut}} box. Cirt (talk) 18:54, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

See above. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:22, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
I do not understand - your above comment referred to archiving formats (auto versus manual), not to usage of a shortcut link at the top of the page. In any event I will start a WP:RfD to gain input from the community. Cirt (talk) 21:01, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Please see the Redirects for discussion subsection for further discussion of the usage of the redirect page WP:FAWCP. Cirt (talk) 21:05, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

John Millington Synge

Copied from User talk:SandyGeorgia. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:30, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

John Millington Synge is on your FA without citations list. I went through and added 5k worth of information. The citations were expanded from 4 separate entries with 4 total citations to 20 separate entries with 34 total citations. I hope that is enough to temporarily remove this article from the list. It is not "fixed", but I hope my adding of this finger to the dike will plug it for a little longer. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:54, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Cool beans, I'll have a look tonight and consult Marskell on citations talk (I don't unilaterally remove from the list, we wait to hear input from others). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:04, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
I can add more, but Synge has been someone I haven't worked on in a while, so I'd need to dig up more. Just leave me a message, or I'll try to look out for a response, on what else would be needed. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:17, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Marskell, I haven't had a chance to look at this yet; putting it here so I won't forget, as I'm archiving my talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:30, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I wanted to note - I can add more information, resources, etc. My only concern was the citations. The rest of the issues, I don't have much of a say about. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:02, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Very close. Legacy, and a few odds and ends here and there, needs to be cited. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:33, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
I'll walk into the Irish Studies library tomorrow and see what I can find. I don't have too much time to devote, so, I'll only be able to look at three or four biographies, so if anyone complains about my range/selection of sourcing.... :) Ottava Rima (talk) 02:18, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
I added a citation to Mercier, added some items about his personality. What else needs to be cited? I think each paragraph is cited now. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:10, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

It looks good to move to me; I've left a note for Marskell. Unless he disagrees, I'll move it in a few days. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:57, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I think taking to FAR would be a good move tbh (after Moore closes though!) as the article seems a little slight on content yet. Wider focus might benifit the page. Ceoil sláinte 23:10, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Wider focus on what? It covers his major plays. He had a short life. He did not have many biographies written about him. If there is something missing, I can add it. But I could not find much missing that I didn't already add. Few people read about Synge these days, let alone know about him. Its unfortunate, but true. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:14, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

This page is not a proxy for FAR; the article is fully cited. Unless someone strongly disagrees, I'll move it tomorrow. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:02, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Added back shortcut link to top of page - WP:FAWCP

Archived discussion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

There was a WP:RFD discussion on the redirect WP:FAWCP which closed as Keep. Please see the closed discussion. I have added back the shortcut of this redirect to the top of the page, per comments from the Redirects for discussion assessment including [3] by Brougham96 (talk · contribs), and [4] by -Midorihana- (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 02:16, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Every time I have had to click my watchlist to view this issue I've been reminded what a complete waste of time this issue was. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:21, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
I thought it best to seek out input from the community in order to resolve the disagreement about the value of that redirect. Cirt (talk) 02:22, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
If you were seeking input from the community, why didn't you follow procedure by posting a notice here? I would have liked to participate in the issue, as would other regulars here. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:16, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
I did post a notice here, when I started the discussion. Please see the above subsection - Wikipedia_talk:Featured_articles_with_citation_problems#Removal_of_shortcut_link_-_WP:FAWCP, or alternatively [5]. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 20:50, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Thats really poor form. You area always supposed to open up a new subsection and make it clear what the discussion is. I don't see anything from your posting that would tip people off that there was a review going on. The fact that only five people responded and only two from here is further reinforcement to this. There is no discussion, no actual consensus built, and no real notice. This needs to be reopened with proper procedure. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:30, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

"Please see the Redirects for discussion subsection for further discussion of the usage of the redirect page WP:FAWCP." The notice could not have been any clearer than that. And at the time, this was the bottom-most subsection on this page, therefore the notice was prevalent. Cirt (talk) 21:39, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Ottava Rima (talk · contribs) - You area always supposed to open up a new subsection and make it clear what the discussion is. -- Where is it stated that a new subsection must be opened? And also you say This needs to be reopened with proper procedure. - You really want to reopen a discussion about whether or not WP:FAWCP has value or should be deleted? Cirt (talk) 21:41, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes, this needs to be reopened. Why? See this, proof that the redirect is not used, and therefore, unneeded. Furthermore, you are always supposed to open up a new subsection when contacting those to inform them of a related deletion review, which the redirects for discuss is. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:51, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

If you wish to start another WP:RFD discussion on WP:FAWCP, feel free to go ahead and do so. I believe ample notice was already given for the first one. I do not know of anywhere where it says that a new subsection must be started to give notice, as opposed to the subsection (which happened to be the bottom-most one on the page) which is already discussing that exact matter. Cirt (talk) 21:55, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Except that you put it in the least obvious way, which is not procedurally correct. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:00, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Respectfully disagree. It was made quite clear at the time, there were no other discussions at the bottom of the page, therefore no need to start a new subsection. Cirt (talk) 22:01, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
We obviously disagree, but you have not cited anything to back up your claim that notices must be given in a new subsection as opposed to in the subsection where the ongoing discussion is taking place. In any event, since this particular discussion is most likely not productive at this point, no need to continue it. If you feel a need to have a second WP:RFD discussion on WP:FAWCP, feel free to start a second one. Cirt (talk) 22:03, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
I'll let the active members of this page decide on if they want to reopen it or not. However, I stand by the evidence provided above that this redirect is not used and qualifies for a speedy delete under such. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:47, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
A speedy delete would be out of process, most certainly, especially given that there was a discussion which took place. Cirt (talk) 22:50, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
(ec) Nobody uses the redirect, almost nobody reads the page, the page has just about served whatever usefulness it had on the path to turning into a statistic about how many FAs were brought to standard after Wiki citations standards changed (and a record of the editors who helped restore those articles), and the active members who do use the page have already said they don't care. We should all sleep well now that the community has taken an abundance of time to weigh in on a redirect that no one cares about and that should have qualified for some sort of simple maintenance delete. All I want is for this page to stop popping up on my watchlist when I'm only trying to stay abreast of my watchlist while I travel :-) I have never seen so much ado over so little. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:53, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Sandy's above point would fall under "Recently created redirects from implausible typos or misnomers. " for CSD. This has been done before for redirects "without a purpose", i.e. not used on multiple pages. They have to be "useful", which implies used. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:57, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
In any event, perhaps no one used it because they had previously been unaware it had existed because previously there was no link to the shortcut at the top of the page, as multiple editors mentioned in the WP:RFD discussion. Cirt (talk) 22:58, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Ohmigod. This is truly insane. With due respect Cirt, I can't believe you have wasted this much time (and forced others to waste theirs) over an issue so completely irrelevant. Marskell (talk) 09:31, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I get it, I am sorry I wasted peoples' time. I was not the only one participating in this back and forth discussion. Done. Cirt (talk) 09:32, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Proposed moves

Blnguyen proposed that these article be moved: [6] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:44, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I thought that the list was just there to keep tabs on weakly referenced articles - I didn't understand your edit summary. Do we have to get a consensus before it is put on the "endangered" list? Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:45, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
The Total Stats on the page always= 523 (see the chart at the top), which was the number at the time the citation requirements changed and the list was first generated. We never remove an article; we move it to the appropriate section if there is talk page concurrence here that the article is now cited (and I also try, when possible, to indicate who cited the article). We need to check them one by one, and then we can move them to the correct section unless someone disagrees. If an article has some citations, but still is significantly lacking and would benefit from FAR, we don't move them off the list. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Oh, I see we aren't supposed to simply add new articles that weren't on the original endangered list? Because nothing was removed in the first place, I just added some articles that weren't on the orignal list but didn't have many refs. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Ah, yes I see that now; you weren't removing, you were adding. See the description at the top of this page; it only tracks the 523 articles that met certain criteria when the list was generated. You are saying all of those articles need to go to FAR, which isn't what this page tracks. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Oh ok, nvm, I can't FAR them all. But I'm surprised Malwa got through in its June 06 status, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:00, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes, that one appears to be in dire need of FAR. So many older articles are. But the arbitrary cutoff when this list was generated was ten citations: how times have changed, no? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:26, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Of course. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:27, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

(Copying over from my talk)

We need to discuss what to do with this page now that it's shrunk so much. Blnguyen, I'd like to avoid individuals adding things as it would turn the list into something it was not meant to be.

Sandy, maybe we should rename it Unreviewed Featured Articles. I notice you've already hidden everything from '05 and previous. I'd like to bump this up to end-June '06 (if Drpda doesn't mind) because FAR and FARC were merged that month. Then we'd keep the no citations/few citations sections and add an "other unreviewed" section. The only question is your notifications. I don't want to recreate a monster.

Alternatively, we could create an Unreviewed Featured Articles page independently of the FAWCP. That would have certain advantages. Marskell (talk) 10:35, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Glad you brought this up. I hid the unreviewed on this page for one reason only: I can maintain the two lists simultaneously, flagging them as they come up in one place. That, from my end, would be a big priority (not having to maintain two different pages); in fact, I deleted duplicates, removing from Dr pda's list of unreviwed articles those that were already in the citations list. What you suggest (above) works fine for me. I'm sure Dr pda will have no problem bumping it to include mid-2006; I'll go ahead and ask him. I suggest we should ditch the entire list of notifications/Projects; I don't believe anyone ever really used it except me (for Medicine articles), and it just increases the page size. Unless someone disagrees, I'd go ahead and delete that info. So, the suggestions are:
  1. Rename the page to Unreviewed featured articles
  2. Maintain the historical Citations sections, and unhide the "Other unreviewed" articles
  3. Increase the "Other unreviewed" section to include thru end June 2006 (I'll ask Dr pda to generate that list)
  4. Eliminate By Project listings (Do we keep by author?)

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:01, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Note to B1nguyen, this proposal will miss only one of the articles you suggest for review, Muhammad Iqbal, promoted in July 2006. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
As a passerby to this entire conversation, is what is being proposed similar to GA sweeps in that old FA's are reviewed to make sure they meet present FA criteria? Because I'd be all for it if that's what's going down- it could help avoid FAR's imo. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 15:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
No. Absolutely not. The result of GA sweeps is binary; an article is delisted or not. One of the aims of FAR is to hopefully restore as many articles as possible, so the idea is not to run them through all at once, rather to allow time for each article to process through FAR. The proposal is just to have a list so that editors know which articles might need review, but by no means is the idea similar to a GA sweep. We have taken more than two years to process the citations list, saving about a third of them in the process. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:35, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
David, this would essentially be rearranging things in the window so that we get a better view of what needs processing. Nothing would change in the actual FAR processing. Note that old FAs are being reviewed to make sure they meet current standards—that's why this page exists. It's just that at FAR we decided to do it really slowly, giving each article sufficient time to improve. This would basically add to the visible pool of articles that need to be gone through.
Sandy, I would keep "by author" as it's useful to know who has what left. And let's not rope "Other unreviewed" into the stats for now. This could be done in all of ten minutes once Drpda provides the extra articles (the only thing that would take work is alphabetizing the new ones, but that's not really essential). Should we bring this up somewhere else? I suppose we should at talk:FAR at least.
(A bigger idea I've had is a time-bound FAR/C: going to a straight up-and-down vote for everything after June '06. This will take some thinking through, however.) Marskell (talk) 15:40, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
I would keep the two lists on this page, including their stats, entirely separate. The only reason to have both lists on the same page is for ease of maintenance, flagging, checking what needs review, but I would essentially maintain them as two separate lists with separate stats. As to timing on FAR, don't want to go as far as a straight up-or-down vote yet, but I've long thought it's time to go to a one-week, two-week process. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:44, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I asked Dr pda if he could do a ref density calculation for me. Obviously it can be misleading, as you can have lots of references which are packed in one area of the article, or lots of inefficient refs, but it would show up the really unreferenced articles. I did a manual sample on about 160 articles and basically all articles with less than 2 footnotes per kb of prose have unsourced paragraphs, usually lots of them. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 02:59, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

That concept opens a can of worms that might best be avoided at FAC and FAR. Medical articles, for example, often have two citations per sentence, where literary articles may have one per paragraph. For this reason, many editors are uncomfortable with the notion of citation density. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:27, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Oh of course; just for non-official use of course. I can just stick it in userspace. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 03:54, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Chagas disease

Medicine Project members have been at work on this one; can we determine consensus for moving it off the list? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:58, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

If you remove some of the redlinks, then you have my support. There is about one every other section. Its not a big deal, though. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:43, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Red links are a desired Wiki feature, as they stimulate article creation, and we should never delete redlinks to articles that could attain notability. All of the redlinks there look appropriate to me; articles that could eventually be created. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:58, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
But they are also one of the strikes against an FA. You can remove that little bit if you want. I don't think its too important either way (but I also don't think "blue" is that important, but some people obsess about that too). Ottava Rima (talk)
No, they aren't; that meme takes hold occassionally,[7] and I have to sweep through FAC and fight it back :-) Red links are desired; they are an invalid oppose and unactionable item at FAC, unless it is shown that the article is lacking comprehensiveness or lacking definitions because red links aren't completed. For example, Chagas defines all the redlinks within the Chagas article so they're fine. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:18, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't know what the meme is or anything really. However, I remember quoting a piece of the MoS with a link in the Candide page. I cleaned up a lot of the redlinks myself. I see this and this. I don't recognize them. Meh. I don't know. Now I kind of feel bad for mentioning it before during a FAC, but I don't think I mentioned it in any that were denied.... I'll go hide in my hole now. ;/ Ottava Rima (talk) 01:34, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
I think I catch every mention of it at FAC and FAR with a disclaimer; if I miss one, give me a holler ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:43, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't want to beat a dead horse, so don't see this as the above topic. In case anyone wants to pursue filling in the links later = I couldn't find Silveira Dias on the internet. It appears to be a town in Brazil, though. Possible wrong name? (i.e. ___ de Silveira Dias instead of Silveira Dias). Trypanosoma cruzi has a page, and trypomastigotes seem to be worth including as a sub topic to the page, or linking to the page in some way, as it seems to be an important aspect of the former. Chagoma has a simple definition here. Should it have its own page or merely just a small entry to define the term on Chagas with a redirect created for Chagoma to link to Chagas? Xenodiagnosis seems to have a large connection to Chagas, but its title would suggest a broader use (which I couldn't find). A wikitionary entry should be created on this and an interwikilink should be made. Possible same thing to be done with Chagoma. I provided both entries in Webster for possible ideas on what to write. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:01, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I moved Chagas. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:51, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Lead

Because the page is now titled "Unreviewed featured articles", should the lead sentence change to reflect this?

Current: "The following is a list of articles which do not feature inline citations, or which feature only a few. Featured article criteria have changed since 2005, and inline citations are now required for new featured articles; ideally, all older FAs will add inline citations where appropriate"

Suggestion: "This page was originally a list of articles which do not feature inline citations, or which feature only a few. Since featured article criteria have changed, this list has been expanded to include all featured articles that have not been reviewed to determine if they have met the new criteria with a special emphasis on those who fail to meet the current citation guidelines; ideally, all older FAs will add inline citations and be adjusted to meet the new Featured Article criteria where appropriate."

- Ottava Rima (talk) 19:59, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I am waiting for Marskell to work on the lead. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:00, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
I wanted to note that I just moved the page archives to match this page (and fixed the red links in the archive box). Ottava Rima (talk) 20:02, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Thank you :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:04, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

FAR Unneeded

Clearly, many from '06 and at least some from '05 are still in good enough shape that they won't need a FAR. I will slowly audit them and wait for second and third opinions here.

Moved, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:25, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Cochineal. Seems OK. Lead somewhat long relative to the body. Should be audited for low value bluelinks.
  • I started to clean up, but stopped; not happy with the sourcing. Dead links, non-reliable sources, and considering the quality of the sourcing, I'm worried about 1b. And that overlinking. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:44, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Belton House. Relative to Giano's early ones, this has quite a few references. (Don't even want to go there.)
Moved, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:49, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

That's six of the bottom ten. Note, I haven't taken an MoS magnifying glass to this. I'll leave that to Sandy. Marskell (talk) 15:55, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll get to them little by little; if I concur, and no one disagrees, should I go ahead and move them ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:20, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Ya, go ahead. Remember it's not canonical; they'd still be eligible for FAR if someone wanted to nominate. I figure we'll cut that 300+ to about 200 this way. Marskell (talk) 16:52, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Can Astrophysics Data System come off the list ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:24, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I would say no, as your edit summaries to the article indicated that there was quite a lot wrong with it, after User:Malleus Fatuorum worked on it extensively and I added some references. So, unless you are an expert on the subject, I think someone who is should review it. Looking at your edits compared with the last version of User:Malleus Fatuorum, they were quite minor. considering your edit summaries were stating things like PEAKCOCY and "more redundancy". But your actual edits did not address these issues. So someone who can should review it. —Mattisse (Talk) 03:46, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
This page is not a proxy for FAR; pls read the instructions. I think the article is close enough for the purposes of this list. I'm unconcerned that I removed one word of peacockery. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:48, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Please see article talk page before you make your decision. —Mattisse (Talk) 17:02, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
I still cannot see that this article is in dire need of a FAR, particularly when considering all of the outstanding problems at Wikipedia:Featured articles/Cleanup listing. Unless someone intends to submit to to FAR, I suggest it's a good candidate to come off of this list, which is not a proxy for FAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:00, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what to do with Du Fu; it still has some unattributed opinion and direct quotes. I tagged about three statements needing citation a year ago, but the main editor removed the tags. Is this close enough to move off? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:42, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not really comfortable with this one; there are many, many paragraphs that are uncited and that one direct quote in particular needs citation, IMO. Maralia (talk) 00:01, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Moved, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:14, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Saffron may be good to move off the list. History of saffron also, perhaps with an audit of WP:OVERLINKing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:00, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I gave both of these a quick once-over, mainly tweaking for overlinking and adding upright tags on tall images. They both look okay to me. Maralia (talk) 00:01, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Considering the mess of FAs needing review at Wikipedia:Featured articles/Cleanup listing, I'm anxious to get this list whittled down to those most in need of review. Mongo's at work on Redwood National and State Parks, so it should be close (considering this list is not a proxy for FAR), and can someone else pls give an opinion on the two Saffron articles? I think they're good for the purposes of this list. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:50, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Redwood is good to close in my openion. Ceoil (talk) 06:23, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Redwood is moved: we should review a whole 'nother batch to see if we can locate some that are good enough to come off of this list. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:01, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Augusta, Lady Gregory, Pulaski Skyway, Quatermass and the Pit, and USS Missouri (BB-63) were discussed here previously and moved. I would support another such move in these four cases. Other articles, such as Restoration spectacular, may also fall in this category. DrKiernan (talk) 10:51, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Restoration spectacular is certainly worth considering taking off the list. May the ref formating is a little untidy, but like... Ceoil (talk) 00:06, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
I've moved three. Quatermass may be a little trivial in the final section, but it isn't worth keeping these articles on our radar. With Lady Gregory there are a couple of places I'd like to see cites. It wouldn't be worth taking it to FAR for that, so should we move it anyway? DrKiernan (talk) 17:36, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to move George III of the United Kingdom off the list. DrKiernan (talk) 17:45, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Lord's Resistance Army

Does not appear to have ever been an FA. I can't figure out why it's listed. DrKiernan (talk) 10:22, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

DrK, I'll check with Dr pda on what might have happened here, and look at the rest of these tonight. (We usually a wait a few days to see if no one disagrees before moving one off the list.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:04, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Found a piece, appears related to a move at Talk:Lord's Resistance Army insurgency. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:19, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes, that's it; the move wasn't reflected, now corrected. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:21, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Diamond

The article currently has 48 inline refs. A quick skim through doesn't show any major referencing problems, but in any case it is up for A-class review at WP:CHEM (review page here). Maybe the article isn't the highest priority for this page! Physchim62 (talk) 02:48, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Thomas Pynchon

Looks to have never had any inline citations, Tom B (talk) 12:07, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Aren't they Harvard style? DrKiernan (talk) 15:27, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
doh yes, thanks. i've seen h style before but not this variant. downside is that page numbers not always specified e.g. reference to foster 2000, Tom B (talk) 17:58, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


Schabir Shaik Trial

I've just had a look back through the original list I generated in September 2008 to try to work out why this was included in the first place. I eventually traced it back to a difference in upper case/lower case in the two lists I was comparing to find FAs without FAR. There appears to be only one other article which was affected by this bug—Chola Dynasty. Thus there should really only have been 313 on the pre-June 30,2006 list, not 315. Dr pda (talk) 05:18, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Dr! I'm thinking rather than re-do the entire table, I may just footnote the issue to incorporate the new tally; what do you think? If I retroactively adjust the numbers, they won't agree with historical diffs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:48, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
How's this? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:02, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
You can revert me if you like, but I'd prefer just to amend the table with an edit summary to this discussion. I doubt whether anyone will ever look at the history of the page. The percentages are so close as not to require amendment. DrKiernan (talk) 16:03, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
The percentages are not the concern (I doubt that they change); the concern is that the table numbers always tallied to 315, that's how we know they are correct, and after March they will change to 313. This will be unclear in the future. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:22, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Ack ok, I see you changed all the numbers instead. The problem with that is that now if anyone has to ever go back and verify those numbers, they won't match with what was on the page at the time. Particulary with no footnote that explains why the numbers changed: I think the way I had done it covered all future issues best. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:24, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Archive note

Archived some threads with zero activity for over one year. :) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 15:22, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Update

I've just updated the section titled Other unreviewed featured articles to June 30, 2006. I checked each article talk page to confirm if it had been through FAR, or whether a talk page notice had been left. I found one article kept at FAR (I made a note) and six delisted articles (I used strikethrough and a comment to indicate each). I haven't used this page in quite a while and wasn't sure if the counts had some other purpose, so I did not alter counts or move any listings to the status removed or status retained subsections. Maralia (talk) 18:27, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Unreviewed_featured_articles/Archive_2&oldid=1137400273"