The article was kept by User:Marskell 09:57, 30 September 2008 [1].
Article fails to meet the requirements for all Wikipedia articles, namely it fails WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary.
Encyclopedia articles are not on the different meanings of a term.
This article is a mixture of definitions:
Encyclopedia articles only have a single definition, and are not on a term. The wiktionary is a project which is about terms, and the different meanings of terms.
It's not about how big the article is the article doesn't go 'beyond a dicdef', on the contrary it goes beyond an encyclopedia definition by being about the different usages of the term.
Thus this article fails this policy.- ( User) Wolfkeeper ( Talk) 21:55, 29 September 2008 (UTC) reply
The article was kept by User:Marskell 09:57, 30 September 2008 [2].
4. the Article is very short don't have Template:VG Review.don't have system requirement for PC don't have information of engine,series mode and input on Infobox 3.have few images and images are small and on left 2(c).don't have a section for Awards and a section for Guns (see: Assassin's Creed) Amir ( talk) 14:22, 20 September 2008 (UTC) reply
These all seem pretty trivial, if a bit confusing due to poor grammar:
Recommend closing this shortly unless any other serious complaints can come. -- Lenin and McCarthy | ( Complain here) 14:40, 20 September 2008 (UTC) reply
The article was kept by User:Marskell 07:03, 29 September 2008 [3].
The article was approved to FA in 2005, when standards were much lower, and it shows. It currently has one inline citation which makes verification of facts by readers nearly impossible. -- Falcorian (talk) 16:11, 6 August 2008 (UTC) reply
In addition, it when the article was assessed in 2006, the review stated "needs inline citations and lead should conform to WP:LEAD". -- Falcorian (talk) 16:22, 6 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Image:St Augustine's. Waimate. NZ.jpg says it depicts St. Patrick's Catholic Church. If so, why is it called Augustine's and why does it look totally different from the 1919 picture of St. Patrick's by F. G. Radcliffe in the collection of the Alexander Turnbull Library (Reference number: 1/2-006870-G)? DrKay ( talk) 09:29, 16 August 2008 (UTC) reply
This high-profile commission may seem surprising, bearing in mind Mountfort's history of design in New Zealand. However, the smaller buildings he and Luck had erected the previous year had impressed the city administrators and there was a dearth of available architects. The resultant acclaim of the building's architecture marked the beginning of Mountfort's successful career.
Regarding Image:St Augustine's. Waimate. NZ.jpg, the lych gate was not added until in 1902, after Mountfort's death. The belltower was added in 1903. DrKay ( talk) 09:08, 10 September 2008 (UTC) reply
As the person who brought the article to FAR, here are my thoughts on Nouser's fixes:
I'll leave issues of Lead, and formating, and nit picking like that to others. -- Falcorian (talk) 22:03, 21 September 2008 (UTC) reply
The article was kept by User:Marskell 16:42, 25 September 2008 [6].
After seeing this article as a Featured Article for the past few months, I can't help but to get a few things out of my mind. Some language and layout issues are at hand here, ones which I think have been generously ignored somehow. As much of a secondary fan of Scotland as I am, I must point out some of these things. There are numerous cases of POV, grammar and others! Its a shock seeing this as a Featured Article after thoroughly reading it. This also further arouses the possibility that it obviously hasn't been stable, a clear FA criteria!
Are you serious? I dont know if this was in here when this article was promoted, but it surely wont pass now or maybe even ever! First of all, on the smaller of issues, it should be written in consistent prose. If they beat New Zealand, they wouldnt 'beating' or 'drawing' against USSR, they would 'draw' to USSR. So basically, It should read - "They beat New Zealand 5–2, drew with the USSR 2–2 and lost 4–1...".
Furthermore, a magical Brazilian side? Thats Clear POV without excuse! Brazil may be good, and their team may have been world beaters, but stating that they were a magical side in an encyclopedia is insane! If in any case it was accepted, I dont know how it got by the fact that there is an unnecessary space after each comma. It, should, be, listed, like, this -- not , like , this!
Please follow the instructions at WP:FAR to complete the notifications and post them back to here; as a sample, see Wikipedia:Featured article review/Bank of China (Hong Kong). Also, Jmorrison230582, your interruptions of the FAR declaration make it hard to read; refactoring might help. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 16:47, 17 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Image comments
comment The infobox lists World and Euro Cup, surely for a team like Scotland the BHC would be of more improtance, it was the primary copmpetition for 70 years, and the other competitions have only been of interest for 60, this seems like recentism Fasach Nua ( talk) 10:27, 18 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Further comments on the article:
And my initial points still stand until further fixed up! Domiy ( talk) 11:24, 18 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Final comments
The article looks and sounds MUCH better now. Please note that even though reliable news stories may call something 'famous', its still no excuse to use it in an encyclopedia. Reliable sources gain attention for their creative, if not biased language, all the time. Its how they earn recognition. A lot of reliable sites will call a goal or a team famous, but it is still POV even with references. You should search for alternatives as much as possible, although it's not much of a problem now as I see such has already been done. 'Famous' is only in there a couple of times on my estimated count, thats good to know. Please note that it can give away POV so you should be wary of it.
Other than that, I like the way it is written now. Well done. If possible however, I would change one last thing. In the final paragraph of the lead section, you start the sentence and paragraph with 'England'. This can give away the wrong idea, most sentences, especially in the lead, should restrain from subjecting another article. I would start the sentence with 'Scotland' first and then go from there to stating the rivalry. This would be much better and appropriate.
If that's done, then I will have no more objections. Please also note that FA criteria requires the article to be stable. I've seen a lot of things being changed and added even before this review was bought up. If your worried about vandalism, then I suggest you request protection for some time. Otherwise, there are many bots you can use to restore previous versions in case of vandalism. Well done again btw, hope the Croatian team makes it to FA soon :) Domiy ( talk) 23:31, 18 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Also note Fasach Nua that FIFA and UEFA very rarely use national flags to represent the football teams. This is commonly only seen on foreign broadcasting channels which have little to do with FIFA or UEFA. But the official programs of the governing football bodies will most times just use the abbreviations such as 'CRO', 'SCO', 'ITA', 'SER', 'GER' and etc. Also, the official websites represent the nations with the logo's as well, so I would think more thoroughly on the situation before you go around proclaiming that "the national flags are good enough for FIFA and UEFA". Domiy ( talk) 04:20, 31 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Prose Comments:
I've noticed that the paragraph in the lead section still starts with 'England'. This is a really bad idea, it even confuses me sometimes no matter how many times I read it. A lead section paragraph starting with a different national team subject is VERY BAD! Start this paragraph differently! Domiy ( talk) 05:26, 30 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Oppose removal, Support keeping this aricle! My issues have been fixed up now, and I would hate to be responible for an actually worthy article to be removed from FA because of some other unfair and NA arguments! I would just quickly reccomend filling in the citation tag required and fixing up the references very quickly. Other than that, I personally see no other issues. (how does it feel to see that an article is being treated in a 'possibly invisible' biased manner now? Taste of your own medicine is good for you.) Domiy ( talk) 04:20, 31 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Comment - I formatted the references myself. There are actually two cite tags, including one for their nickname in the infobox. Giants2008 ( 17-14) 21:27, 31 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Clearly I don't see the difference between this article and the Croatia national football team. Rightfully, if the latter article has failed 3 times now, this one should also rightfully have failed or be removed right now due to the fact that it has similar or even worse issues than Croatia. It uses similar references and was using a clearly copyrighted image. Really, until these two articles are at the same rating level, I won't stop thinking that WP or in particular this review project is largely based on preference which leads to biased comments. Domiy ( talk) 10:57, 5 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Altered comments - further review needed Supporting removal! - I just finished adding major fixups to the Croatia team article as per opposing suggestions from its last FAC. My main concern are the references. I now agree, publisher names should be listed in full. This included FIFA, UEFA, BBC etc. The full domain names should be listed just as this article has done. Do this consistently throughout the references. RSSSF etc shouldn't be seen! And I'm somewhat concerned at the references reliability. Why exactly is The Scotsman reliable? Similarly, Planet World Cup is NOT reliable at all. Also, current refs 59 and 61 are dead links! What makes 'Hampden Scotland's National Stadium' a reliable source anyway? Some sources lack author or even publisher information, I have opened a few references and already seen author names listed on the page, yet it is not given in the references. Some data is in the wrong field as well. Chick Young is the author of the page, the publisher is BBC. This has to be filled out properly. It goes on like this. References need a major fixup to reach good standards!
I'm just enforcing the need for author info. It seems that the article editors have gained a personal idea that author name is not needed if it is a common or already known article. Rubbish! First of all, such can never be assumed. Secondly, author information is part of the reference template which helps identify the creator of the source. I'm just saying that the author information should be included where possible and all other citation issues be fixed up. Thats all! Lets not get into flaming debates again. I still maintain that article comments are indeed biased at times, whether it be for one reason or another. Thats why I intend to crack down on articles which passed FAC a long time ago (when it was very, VERY lenient). This is one of many. So, until the present issues are addressed, I'll be making sure this article gets the same treatment as mine did. Specifically, I had some reliable sources challenged as 'unreliable' as well. And the idea of spelling out abbreviations in full came from FAC anyway! I was told to get rid of things like BBC, UEFA, FIFA etc and put the full domain name. Despite how uncommon this is, I was cracked heavily and asked to do it like such. I personally do feel its much better this way now anyway. Domiy ( talk) 06:41, 17 September 2008 (UTC) reply
The toolbox shows one iffy link and one article that is a dab link. Pls check.
SandyGeorgia (
Talk)
14:32, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
reply
Can we get an update here? How do people feel about it now? Marskell ( talk) 11:05, 23 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Updated comments - still a few issues I think diminish the article.
The article was kept by User:Marskell 16:42, 25 September 2008 [9].
Despite the fact that I love Moore (one of my WP:GAs is Man Enters the Cosmos and I created Nuclear Energy (Henry Moore sculpture) and Large Interior Form), this article no longer is up to snuff. It would be classified as a C-Class article now upon independent review, IMO. Even though I love Moore, I prefer to research topics I can research fairly completely over the internet. My experience with art is that to properly research things I have had to take many trips to the library. I have a lot on my plate and hope someone else will step forward and improve this article. The article has very few inline citations and many are not in modern footnote format. Some images may be questionably licensed, but that is not my area.-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTM) 21:38, 15 August 2008 (UTC) reply
"Under UK copyright law, there is specific statutory provision made for sculptures permanently situated in a public place or to which the public has access. It is one of the clearest exceptions to the basic copyright position (that no-one can reproduce copyright work without the express consent of the copyright owner). Just like works of architecture under UK and US copyright law, outdoor sculptures under UK law can be reproduced two-dimensionally, even be filmed or broadcast/transmitted, without the copyright owner’s consent; and such reproductions can also be used commercially without consent." in a blog here - seems sound. Also see here. Clearly the citations are not up to today's standards. Johnbod ( talk) 22:12, 15 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Can someone please complete the notifications correctly? The correct message is obtained via {{subst:FARMessage/Henry Moore}}; see the FAR instructions. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 03:34, 16 August 2008 (UTC) reply
I suspect that my original contributions still form the majority of this article, but I haven't spent much effort in editing Wikipedia for the last two years and haven't kept track of any changes to this article either.
I think that it is a good thing that Wikipedia's standards improve over time, but I won't be taking the time to go through every article I've written in order to add citations. It used to be claimed that editors shouldn't worry about spelling mistakes and the like. If an article was deficient in some way, other editors would come along and fix it up. Some years ago, that was kind of true, but it seems to be far less true these days. So good luck with making any changes that you think are necessary.
One other point of concern, with the article stands at the moment it is rather confusing not to show an example of Moore's sculpture near the head of the article. There used to be one as the lead image but it has been moved to make way for the portrait of Moore himself. Its good to have the portrait, but its not so good that a reader has to get past a Michelangelo, a Nok sculpture and a Toltec-Maya figure before seeing anything that is recognisably a Henry Moore. Most readers don't get as far as paging down past the head of the article, so most readers won't have a clue what a Henry Moore looks like. -- Solipsist ( talk) 15:09, 26 August 2008 (UTC) reply
I agree with the appropriateness of this FAR nom discussion by TonyTheTiger ( talk · contribs). I also agree with TonyTheTiger that this article would not pass a WP:GA review in its present state, and is also not up to current WP:FA standards and would most certainly encounter difficulty at a WP:FAC discussion. Cirt ( talk) 18:00, 26 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Grand: Accepted. Ceoil sláinte 12:16, 20 September 2008 (UTC) reply
I just added a couple of refs, hmm gotta consider some moore now...I agree about short paragraphs being MTV like, the text is improving, quality matters...to be moore clear I agree with Ceoil about the paragraphs and the arbitrary marching orders....seem somewhat contrived. Modernist ( talk) 12:05, 20 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Actually no - the refs are to the Tate and they speak for themselves..... Modernist ( talk) 12:12, 20 September 2008 (UTC) reply
The article was kept by User:Marskell 10:42, 24 September 2008 [10].
Fails featured article criterion 1a because it's not well written. 66.68.23.41 ( talk) 18:42, 6 September 2008 (UTC) reply
While it's here, I corrected several issues that got by FAC: WP:ACCESSIBILITY, WP:MOS#Images, WP:LAYOUT and mixed citation styles. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 03:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC) reply
I am going to shut this FAR down, which I probably should have done earlier. Any other prose concerns can be taken up on article talk. Marskell ( talk) 10:38, 24 September 2008 (UTC) reply
The article was kept by User:Marskell 10:42, 24 September 2008 [11].
This article, promoted in 2005, has not a single inline citation. I think that is the primary issue. Judgesurreal777 ( talk) 05:37, 24 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Agree with above comments by Judgesurreal777 ( talk · contribs) and H-stt ( talk · contribs). This article is not up to snuff in accordance with current WP:FA standards. Cirt ( talk) 17:16, 26 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Convoluted sentence alert:
"Located in south-central Idaho midway between Boise and Yellowstone National Park, the monument includes 53,545 acres (217 km2) in the Developed Area (the extent of the national monument before the preserve was added) and the visitor center is 5,900 feet (1,800 m) above sea level."
"...the extent of the national monument before the preserve was added..." seems to imply that there's more acreage that isn't being mentioned. And why tack on the sea level point rather than have a separate sentence? I'll go through the rest of the prose. Marskell ( talk) 13:00, 18 September 2008 (UTC) reply
I just completed a section-by-section copyedit and deletion of some still-uncited sentences that aren't needed. I'm now pretty happy with the article. -- mav ( talk) 02:18, 21 September 2008 (UTC) reply
I am reasonably pleased with the prose now. Given above comments, this can go. Marskell ( talk) 10:22, 24 September 2008 (UTC) reply
The article was kept by User:Marskell 10:25, 21 September 2008 [12].
Notified: WikiProject Italy, WikiProject Architecture, Giano_II
previous FAR (17:21, 13 January 2008)
Extremely short on references. A topic like this is likely to be researched and many claims are made, yet very rarely referenced. There are quite a few references to books here so excuse my inability to check their verifiability or relevance to particular statements. However, here are a few visible examples:
It goes on and on. It's useless to list examples, they are blatantly obvious. There are numerous paragraphs which go into fine detail but are not sourced at all! How can the verifiability of this article be possibly considered with so few sources? This needs extensive amounts of more references! Surprisingly enough, this article has already passed a FAR for the exact same reason. I wouldn't really agree with the article being kept as it seems that a lot of users pointed out numerous issues which didn't seem to be completely resolved. It was really only the last two comments from the previous review that supported keeping the article, and one of them was from SandyGeorgia. I think this was a little lenient (or a lot!). Despite any opinions, more refereces are desperately needed for this article! Domiy ( talk) 05:15, 19 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Umm, no. This is one of the statements which can just as easily lead to the conclusion that Wikipedia is a ridiculous website. Read some further guidelines. For example, WP states you need to explain technical jargon relating to your article. This is just one of many instances withinin WP which states that you cannnot assume knowledge of the reader. If we were to start making assumptions, then that would mean I can just make the assumption that a larger portion of people in the world already know what the WP articles are about. So, in technicality terms, WP should immediately cease to exist due to it serving no purpose. Doesn't work this way. I'm sorry. The FA criteria clearly states that sources must be included where necessary. Have you forgotten the use of WP? RESEARCH! This is a website mainly used for research! There can be many instances where somebody has to submit a paper based on a subject they know really little about. Don't mock this. I will tell you, as a student myself, this happens very frequently in life. Furthermore, interested readers may want to use WP to increase their knowledge on a particular subject. If your going to assume that sources aren't needed regularly because the majority of people should/would already know the historical facts, then you aren't a very satisfying editor. Think of the article users!
So basically, your argument is nowhere near sufficient. At times, one can claim that references aren't needed because the statement is very basic and well known. An example of such a statement is 'the grass is green', or 'the sun is hot'. But to assume that the majority of readers already know specific historical facts based on very old subjects is not sufficient at all! Sorry, this is a clear cop-out. Follow the FA rules! I can just as easily call you an unreliable liar when you state something without a reference. For the second time, consider this statement --"By that time it had already been converted to a museum, but a suite of rooms (now the Gallery of Modern Art) was reserved for them when visiting Florence officially." Do you honestly believe that researchers can assume this statement as 'true' even though it has not a single source to it? Sorry, you can't make such an assumption. Thats not what WP is about.
Ignoring the risk of another blast from Sandy, I will once again direct you to this article. Notice how many statements are not referenced once, but twice, and even three times! Mind you as well, they are some basic facts. The large amount of references in that article as solely due to advice given from Peer reviews and FAC's. I tried to bring up the cop-out argument as well. And you must admit, it is much more stronger in my case. I was asked to provide references to the fact that a national football team have fan songs. Sheesh, what a waste of time that was...yet I did it anyway. It goes on. I have provided references for the most simple of statements. You wont find many unreferenced statements in that article because I don't make assumptions - I actually follow WP's objectives and guidelines. So once again, I'm truly sorry, but if you don't have verifiable sources to back up the fact that certain buildings were refurbished in particular ways, styles, formats etc, then you have what WP calls original research. Certainly not FA quality. I'm really still trying to get over the laughable assumption you made on the majority of people already knowing about such extreme history. In case you haven't noticed, history articles are one of the most common read ones for a reason. Its because people need to read them to gain information on them. Domiy ( talk) 15:24, 19 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Oohh, I'm really scared. (The truth is I'm terrified. When someone reverts my edits I feel as if I am not good enough, and that I should just quit at life). Please don't make wikithreats (new word of the day!). You need to clearly recognise the meaning of POV in order to make a comment on it. No matter how great something is, an encyclopedia is not supposed to proclaim such. We all know how delicious chocolate is, but if the article states "chocolate is amongst the best-tasting solids developed within the last 10 centuries and it's extremely sweet taste is an amazing treasure of life which truly exemplifies its awesome taste" - then instances of POV come in. Consider this example. Chocolate actually is, to about 98% of people on earth, the best-tasting wrapper food available. Yes, it is nice and sweet and it just puts a smile on your face because its taste is just so darn great. However, as per WP:POV, we are not here to make assumptions. We musn't leave out the remaining 2% of people who don't like chocolate. Also, WP is NOT a descriptive or appraisal page, like a forum or anything. It's an encyclopedia. In other words, the palazzi may be great and have true beauty, but unless it is part of a verifiable quote, you cannot describe it as such in an encyclopedia. I can go on with examples all day. Within the last two years, Croatia's national football team have beaten England, Germany and Italy at least once; these are 3 top footballing nations. However, the article page cannot proclaim that "Croatia have been an amazingly succesful side from 2006 as they have dominated their respective fixtures against England, Germany and Italy. No other nation has come close to reaching their rapid rise in football power". While this may be true, and even backed up with references, its clear POV, just like some statements in this palazzi article. If you fail to comply with these guidelines, then I will ensure that the article goes through a lot more of these reviews for removal as they clearly don't follow WP's guidelines, which is an obvious aspect of the criteria. Domiy ( talk) 08:33, 20 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Closing. 'Nuff said. Marskell ( talk) 10:14, 21 September 2008 (UTC) reply
The article was kept by User:Marskell 12:56, 19 September 2008 [15].
![]() | Power-tripping admin warning I don't know how FAR's usually proceed, if they're usually as hotheaded as AFD's, or if they're usually civilized. But this is a warning that I will enforce the edit warring, civility, and personal attack provisions of Talk:Barack Obama/Article probation on this page as well. The gloves do not come off because you've discovered a new page to argue on. Act like grownups. -- barneca ( talk) 00:31, 19 September 2008 (UTC) reply |
This article has become a piece of Barack Obama campaign literature. As User:WorkerBee74 commented on the Talk page, "What we're seeing here, in this article, is a campaign to exclude or diminish any material that would tend to wipe a smile off anyone's face at Obama campaign HQ. Even a link to Obama-Ayers controversy is forbidden." Negative material about the candidate is immediately deleted whenever it appears. This triggers a long, drawn-out battle on the Talk page.
Certain editors are homesteading on the article to prevent the introduction of any such material, or diminish it in both size and visibility: subheaders mentioning eminiently notable controversies about the candidate are routinely deleted. Even material that does not reflect negatively on the candidate, but merely indicates that it's possible he might lose, is routinely deleted. Featured Article status requires neutrality of content. This article miserably fails that test. I'm a supporter of the Barack Obama campaign, I've donated money to the campaign, I'm a volunteer for the campaign, but this is ridiculous.
Also, the content of this article is not stable. There is an ongoing presidential campaign, and the subject of this biography is locked in a very tight race. Featured Article status requires stability of content. This article fails that test. Curious bystander ( talk) 23:16, 18 September 2008 (UTC) reply
No way does this meet Wikipedia:Featured_article_criteria if the Sarah_Palin page is representative of what should and shouldn't be included - comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral. Either the Sarah_Palin page needs some serious attention by administrators or the Obama page is nothing but a propaganda piece. Theosis4u ( talk) 00:02, 19 September 2008 (UTC) reply
(ec X2) I certainly agree wit GoodDamon on a content basis. We have gone through an excruciating, thoughtful, serious, long process to arrive at a real consensus on exactly how to describe several matters that may be seen as negative for Obama, and having done so to maintain stability and all the while deal with the many dozens of vandals, sockpuppets, trolls, POV editors, etc., who are on the article every day. I was keeping a log on the article probation page of every account that was blocked or banned but at some point I gave up and just started covering the significant ones. The list is now at thirty. Watching over such an important article takes the cooperation of a number of dedicated, diligent editors and the natural tendency when someone wants to add for the nth time - n would probably be several hundred by now - that Obama is a closet Muslim, Arab, friend of unrepentant terrorists, communist, birth certificate forger, not really African-American, under investigation for this or that, and every possible variation of the N-word, is to revert and dismiss out of hand. And if they persist and revert, tell them to read the FAQ, point them to the article probation terms and their "welcome to wikipedia" greeting, and go find consensus on the talk page. A class of editors, equally persistent but somewhat more skilled in their efforts, have been bombarding the article for the past few months as well. Hence we have article probation. I can sympathize with anyone who is trying to keep peace on the Sarah Palin article. It doesn't have the mean streak of racism and vandalism like we do here but the POV edits and the number of people who want to insert random trivial disparaging material, rumors, campaign criticism, etc., is at least as bad as anything we ever had here. I doubt that article could ever reach featured status before the election but perhaps the editors there could learn from the editors here that hard work, a no-nonsense approach, refusal to tolerate incivility and edit warring, and so on, can greatly calm an article. The Obama article is a very good article. I won't offer an opinion as to whether it is truly FA level of not - it got its designation a few years ago when Wikipedia had lower standards. But this is not the place and time to review that decision, certainly not on the question of whether we do or don't adequately disparage him for his contacts with a 1960s radical bomb-thrower and a real estate fraud. Wikidemon ( talk) 00:48, 19 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Closing. If editors would like to debate further, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. It is beyond the capacity and purpose of the Featured Article Review to deal with most of the comments here.
As for stability (1e), dealing with trolls, vandals or single purpose edit warriors does not make for an unstable FA. If it did, we'd never be able to feature controversial or widely covered subjects: instability would become self-fulfilling and trolls would exploit the fact. The question is whether there is a competently written, neutral article, that neglects no major details beneath (so to speak) the warring and vandals. Here there is. I see no convincing case to leave this open.
I will copy Sandy's and DrKiernan's comments to article talk as they provide some specific clean-up concerns for people to address. Marskell ( talk) 12:51, 19 September 2008 (UTC) reply
The article was kept by User:Marskell 12:35, 17 September 2008 [17].
This article needs a lot more inline citations to verify the content of the article, which is very lightly referenced at the moment. Judgesurreal777 ( talk) 17:47, 13 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Can anyone verify that Image:John Dudley.jpg is a picture of a portrait in Penshurst Place? Can anyone close the deletion debate on Image:Edward VI Scrots c1550.jpg [18]? DrKiernan ( talk) 12:59, 19 August 2008 (UTC) reply
I am going away from tomorrow, 1 September, until Friday or Saturday, and won't be touching a computer in the meantime. This is not a loss of interest or momentum, and I will resume promptly on return. The task is about three quarters done now: the main sections that remain to be completed are on religious reform and on the succession crisis—complex matters that will take about another week. I will also need to develop the lead and carry out an overall tidy-up and copyedit. qp10qp ( talk) 16:08, 31 August 2008 (UTC) reply
SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 08:22, 9 September 2008 (UTC) reply
The article was kept by User:Marskell 13:18, 13 September 2008 [19].
Still working on this...slowly. Dr pda ( talk) 11:22, 5 August 2008 (UTC) reply
The article was kept by User:Marskell 12:46, 12 September 2008 [20].
This article was promoted to FA status in April 2005. However, it does not meet current FA standards, namely criterion 1c (references). Nishkid64 ( Make articles, not wikidrama) 13:43, 24 July 2008 (UTC) reply
The prose needs tidying up. Some points don't appear to make any sense. For example, the boiling points depend on "the concentration or molarity of HCl in the acid solution. They can range from those of water at 0% HCl" Huh? Surely 0% HCl is water? DrKiernan ( talk) 10:52, 25 July 2008 (UTC) reply
The referencing system has been brough up to date. The 2005/FA requirement did allow for all references to be grouped in the References section. I have now moved the references into the text, updating them to in-line refs. The pointed out phrases that should be clarified, and some obvious unclarity in the lead section has been updated too. In my humble opinion, the (1c) criteria has been met in the style of today. If others recommendations remain, feel free to suggest here. Wim van Dorst (talk) 16:12, 24 August 2008 (UTC). reply
With help of several other editors of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemicals, I think we have now well taken care of the above-mentioned 1C criterion (no in-line reference). This article was one of the first FA articles of WP, and the first FA of the Wikiproject as general effort. The referencing in 2005 wasn't a major concern, and although the references were not written in-line then, it was very well-resourced and edited. I hope with this latest effort to re-do the work of three years ago, the FAR can now be closed. With special thanks to WP:Chem. Wim van Dorst (talk) 22:12, 1 September 2008 (UTC). reply
I see some cleanup needs here and there, and will try to help after I catch up from travel. Can someone solve the text squeeze in the first section (see WP:MOS#Images). SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 05:05, 5 September 2008 (UTC) reply
The article was kept by User:Marskell 13:51, 10 September 2008 [21].
Not a single inline citation. Some MoS issues, and the prose could use some copyediting. Wouldn't pass GA as it is. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 15:04, 11 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Many inline cites added; more to come. -- mav ( talk) 02:00, 13 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Yet more cites added. I also started to expand the article using some great PD text from the NPS that was published a couple years after this article was FAd. -- mav ( talk) 03:04, 14 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Expansion from PD NPS text complete. I still need to do another reference pass once I find the Tufts, Leach and Zion Map sources. If I have time, I'd also like to confirm and directly use the hidden inline cites to Biek et al. 2000, which were what the PD text cited. Biek et al. 2000 is in a book I purchased after this article became FA. -- mav ( talk) 02:20, 20 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Nice work, article has improved significantly since initial comment by Juliancolton ( talk · contribs). Cirt ( talk) 17:24, 26 August 2008 (UTC) reply
I've added nonbreaking spaces between numerals and units of measure; prioritized US units first, and added commas in a few large numbers. I have not copyedited, as the subject matter is far beyond my comprehension at my current level of margaritization.(That should totally be a word.) Maralia ( talk) 04:52, 4 September 2008 (UTC) reply
I've only time for a quick glance, but work remains; not ready to keep yet. Check
WP:MSH re: "The", and I saw a lot of lacking hyphenation. I'll look more closely tomorrow. Also,
WP:OVERLINKing and some confusing prose (look at the first paragraph of the article, after the lead. Is it "The Grand Staircase" or "Grand Staircase". First we hear of the Grand Canyon, confusing, how we got there from here. Is the hyphenation correct on the 240 million year old? A whole lot of verbiage before Grand Staircase is introduced. Why are words like
mountain linked? The entire section is confusing in terms of which park is which and how they all got introduced suddenly under The Grand Staircase. I think north-south has to be north–south when it means north to south. Copyedit needed, and hyphenation issues everywhere: to form the 1,800 foott (550 m) thick Moenkopi Formation. and of the resulting 100 foot thick (30 m) Dakota Sandstone ... too many parenthetical inserts to "See" another article, should be templates at the top of sections or worked into the prose. This is just a quick pass, but I think this article needs more than just citation: it needs another prose look and smoothing out of some of the prose and copyediting glitches, and auditing for clarity for the uninitiated.
SandyGeorgia (
Talk)
07:29, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
reply
The article was kept by User:Marskell 13:51, 10 September 2008 [22].
I count five sections without any sources, and the rest are desperately in need of citations (I could litter it with {{ cn}}, but that seems counter-productive.) Goes into unnecessary game detail, and lacks information on development, failing comprehensiveness criteria. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk) 00:18, 14 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Please notify significant contributers as well as associated wikipedia projects and post these notifications at the top of this FAR (see the instructions at WP:FAR. Thanks! -- Regents Park ( paddle with the ducks) 16:20, 15 August 2008 (UTC) reply
What information on development does it lack? Phil Sandifer ( talk) 19:53, 15 August 2008 (UTC) reply
What issues are actually outstanding here? Phil Sandifer ( talk) 14:09, 19 August 2008 (UTC) reply
The article was kept by User:Gimmetrow 11:07, 9 September 2008 [23].
This article has an excess of non-free images, Image:Calgary_Flames_logo_1980-1994.png and Image:Calgary Flames logo.svg are in violation of minimal usage, we dont need a non-free image to describe a black outline. Multiple instances of copyrighted team uniforms, when one is only needed, or even the free Image:JaromeIginla.jpg could be used. Fasach Nua ( talk) 12:11, 8 September 2008 (UTC) reply
I am closing this. What's at issue can perfectly easily be resolved on article talk. FAR is not dispute resolution. Marskell ( talk) 10:23, 9 September 2008 (UTC) reply
The article was kept by User:Marskell 14:19, 8 September 2008 [24].
I am nominating this Featured Article for further review. The Pathology section is one sentence and is tagged for improvement. The writing is no longer FA quality. It is very poorly referenced. For an article on this particular bacteria, I'd expect to see twice as many references as are there. Moreover, many of the statements just aren't referenced. The external links are way overboard (I know that's a judgement call, but it reads like a link farm). Therefore, I would say this article is no longer well-written, properly sourced, or consistently structured. It needs a rewrite before it is FA quality. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 02:07, 2 August 2008 (UTC) reply
I have to go for now but I'll be back with more. delldot talk 14:37, 2 August 2008 (UTC) reply
The unreferenced section had been added after the FAC, it was a repeat of info covered more in the previous section, Colonization, so I integrated it into that section.
More later. delldot talk 17:00, 2 August 2008 (UTC) reply
I've removed the experimental treatments in the Rx section; I think that section should discuss only established treatments. Those could be included in a Research directions section, but not by themselves. I removed the {{ unbalanced}} tag, as I thought that fixed the problem. Re-tag if not. More comments:
More to follow. delldot talk 20:03, 2 August 2008 (UTC) reply
More:
That's it from me. delldot talk 20:45, 2 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Here are my issues:
Hopefully more editors will get involved so more people will watch the articles. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 17:11, 2 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Is there an MOS for microbiology articles? OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 05:12, 3 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Comments It's not a bad article but it is below the current FA standard. As mentioned above, there should be more, (up-to-date) citations. There are problems with the structure; the section headed Microbiology, is in fact a discussion on pathogenesis and there is little microbiology in the article. There is a bad error of fact in the all too short lead: H. pylori does not infect more people than any other bacterium, and the reference given does not support this claim. The article needs to make clear the important differences of bacterial colonisation, asymptomatic infection, (carriage), and symptomatic infection. Many more people are infected with Staphylococcus aureus than H. pylori. There is some poor prose too, in the History section for example: The community began to come round.... And, that image of the urease structure is purely decorative. The article can be rescued, but someone needs to spend a lot of time on it. Graham Colm Talk 14:52, 6 August 2008 (UTC) reply
The article was kept by User:Marskell 10:38, 1 September 2008 [26].
Contains numerous vague, unattributed and unreferenced claims. Some sections are not supported by sources at all. Fails criterion 1c - verifiability. Passed FA candidacy in 2005, but today it wouldn't. -- Eleassar my talk 14:59, 22 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Comment: At least to a cursory scan, it seems to me that most the information is verifiable in the existing citations. In many cases it is not presented with the more recently popular inline citation method, however. The acceptable style of citation standard evolved during 2006- for examples, see several discussions about inline citations in the good article criteria talk page [ [27]]. In 2005 it was more common (particularly in physical science articles) to reference the end of a section or of the entire article rather than inline. This was adequate for an interested reader to explore the details and thereby verify, but was more difficult for those who wanted to quickly judge verifiability without reading through all the references. It appears to me that the problem is with the format of referencing rather than a failure of criterion 1c. I added modern style inline references to the section to which Eleassar had recently added in a reference request template. Are there other sections in which there are verifiability concerns? -- Noren ( talk) 17:23, 22 June 2008 (UTC) reply
So, there's work to be done on the prose throughout. TONY (talk) 03:22, 25 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Given that some work was done, I am going to hold this a little while longer. Tomorrow I will look to see if I can improve it myself. Marskell ( talk) 13:12, 7 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Still willing to leave this up a while. I added a couple of refs, Yanni took care of some really boring formatting, and an anon took care of Yahoo groups. (I think the happy ghost of WorldTraveller is still with us.) Marskell ( talk) 17:11, 18 August 2008 (UTC) reply
The article was removed by User:Marskell 09:57, 30 September 2008 [28].
Cathedral of Magdeburg was promoted in 2004 - No inline citations, WP:LEAD is a bit short, mixed styles of listing versus paragraph formats, flow of the article could be better. Primarily 1c issues, (though 1a and 1b could probably do with reexamination) and also this image Image:DomzuMagdeburg.jpg needs more info filled out. Cirt ( talk) 02:45, 29 August 2008 (UTC) reply
The article was removed by User:Marskell 09:57, 30 September 2008 [29].
No inline citations, lead is very short, and a lot of peacock terms flying about. Blnguyen ( bananabucket) 00:48, 29 August 2008 (UTC) reply
The article was removed by User:Marskell 07:03, 29 September 2008 [30].
The article appears to fail criteria 1a) being well written. The overlong plot summary is past tense which is unconventional, not to say unprofessional, and is littered with other grammatical strangenesses. The article fails 1b) being comprehensive. There is no discussion of the works literary style or the major themes found in the work and should cite the huge amounts of critical and academic literature which addresses the work in order to cover those issues. The article would then encompass the many significant published viewpoints on the subject. Resolving these criteria would bring the article up to FA. Davémon ( talk) 08:34, 18 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Please notify significant contributers as well as associated wikipedia projects and post these notifications at the top of this FAR (see the instructions at WP:FAR. Thanks! -- Regents Park ( count the magpies) 11:38, 17 August 2008 (UTC)--Regents Park (paddle with the ducks) 16:19, 15 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Someone who has more experience with this wikiproject should probably weigh in on this as I'm still pretty new to this whole wiki thing, but within the article there is the following comment:
I'm not sure whether this is the forum for people that have opinions & information on the topic, but from what I know of the subject, there is a certain sense in which Tolkien is claiming to write something in a historical/mythological vein rather than a fictional vein. However, many Tolkien scholars typically distinguish between Tolkien's works that are meant to be "artifacts" of his world, and therefore have their place in that history, and simply "stories" synthesized from the history itself. I have misplaced the very nice article that discusses the distinction, but I will edit my comment accordingly once I find it (and if this is the appropriate place to post such information. Astraflame ( talk) 16:19, 17 August 2008 (UTC) reply
I have to agree with Carcharoth, I find the article generally rather weak and uninspired. The plot synopsis is too long and the discussion of "Reception" and publication history are rather weak. It generally reflects the take on the LotR taken by nerds, as opposed to literary critics or bibliophiles. I.e.,focus on pop culture, adaptations, later fantasy literature etc. Is it FA worthy? I don't know. I am not aware of a better encyclopedic article on the work available online, and I feel we have to measure the quality of our articles against what else there is out there, not against what quality they could ideally have in theory. I also don't care two bits if an article has a bronze star at the top. What we need to do is simply try and keep improving the article, FA or no FA. Carcharoth is pointing the way to go, the LotR article can only ever become excellent if we first produce excellent Themes of The Lord of the Rings and Tolkien studies articles it can rely on. So, anyone interested, why not just cut the discussion and sit down for a couple of hours' work on those. -- dab (𒁳) 09:45, 18 August 2008 (UTC) reply
(𒁳) 12:16, 18 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Image For Image:Middle-earth.jpg, the source [31] gives permission for anyone to use the map for their personal or classroom use, but I don't see where it's released under GFDL. DrKiernan ( talk) 14:21, 19 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Comments from Awadewit I agree with the nominator. I have thought myself about nominating this article for FAR for just these reasons, but I have never had the time to devote to improving it. I can commit to copyediting at this point, but no extensive research.
I hope these suggestions are helpful. Awadewit ( talk) 17:16, 19 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Comments from Davémon having nominated the article for review, I think it only fair I elaborate on what I think must be done to the article to bring it up to the level I'd expect from a wikipedia Featured article on "[ the greatest book of the 20th century]".
Is that the sort of thing people are looking for? Carcharoth ( talk) 14:46, 6 September 2008 (UTC) replySince the publication of The Lord of the Rings by J. R. R. Tolkien, a wealth of secondary literature has been published discussing the literary themes and archetypes present in the story. Themes that have been identified and analysed include friendship and sacrifice, forgiveness, power, temptation and addiction. In Tolkien's works as a whole, death and immortality feature strongly. In a quote from a letter written in 1958, Tolkien said of his work "It is mainly concerned with Death, and Immortality; and the 'escapes': serial longevity, and hoarding memory." (Letter 211). Tolkien wrote about other themes in his book in letters to friends, family and fans, and also in the book itself. However, in his Foreword to the Second Edition, Tolkien said that he "disliked allegory in all its forms" (using the word applicability instead). Tolkien's work also deals with a love of nature and the problems of technology and industrialisation. Tolkien also wrote about how his religion (Catholicism) affected the work, and this is a point taken up by many subsequent writers who have examined the book in detail looking for parallels and influences. Tolkien's work as a philologist, Anglo-Saxonist and medievalist heavily influenced the book, with his languages and detailed backstory setting his work apart from those by later authors. The concepts of fate and doom in his works emerge from the older, pagan, worldview he was exposed to by his studies of ancient languages. The passage of time is an enduring theme, with moments of loss and and farewell present at many levels. <yadda, yadda, yadda, add sources, etc>
Make of that what you will. Tolkien was talking about allegory there, and he did also express distaste at those people who deconstructed works and tried to make links to an author's life experiences (I'll try and find that quote as well), but equally he had strong views on his work and his reasons and motivations for writing it, and that can't be ignored. Quite how to get the balance right is, again, difficult. Carcharoth ( talk) 08:35, 7 September 2008 (UTC) reply"I think that many confuse 'applicability' with 'allegory'; but the one resides in the freedom of the reader, and the other in the purposed domination of the author"
Closing. I accidentally let this go three weeks with no updates. Much is said above, but the article remains largely as it was when the FARC period started. The removes seem to take this. Carcharoth has some ideas for it and subsidiary articles. Perhaps something can be taken back to FAC; in the meantime, removing. Marskell ( talk) 06:55, 29 September 2008 (UTC) reply
The article was removed by User:Marskell 16:42, 25 September 2008 [33].
The number of unreviewed FAs with zero inline citations is now down to about ten. Here is one from early '04. (Looking at the FAC I can't tell who originally nommed.) Along with the obvious 1c issue, I was hoping someone who understands the image rules could go through this as it has a great many pics. The ToC headlines need to be shortened and made less conversational. Marskell ( talk) 14:54, 26 August 2008 (UTC) reply
See above list of images currently used in this article. Cirt ( talk) 17:38, 26 August 2008 (UTC) reply
The article was removed by User:Marskell 16:42, 25 September 2008 [34].
1(c) Lacks inline citations, in fact has none. Tom ( talk) 14:42, 26 August 2008 (UTC) reply
The article was removed by User:Marskell 16:42, 25 September 2008 [36].
Coconut crab is a 2004 promotion, lacking citations, mixed citation styles, numerous ciation needed tags, WP:LEAD underdeveloped, and MoS cleanup needed. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 04:07, 27 August 2008 (UTC) reply
The article was removed by User:Marskell 16:42, 25 September 2008 [37].
Cricket is one of those featured articles that was promoted ages ago, on 4 September 2004. While it may have met the criteria then, I believe it extensively fails today's criteria 1(a)(c), 2(b)(c), and 3.
I know the FAR instructions indicate I'm supposed to propose some remedies to correct these problems, but I believe nothing short of a total rewrite would suffice. Maybe I'm being too critical, but I imagine any editor who nominated this article for FA today would be pistol whipped and sent to the corner. I don't think this one can be saved. - auburnpilot talk 02:31, 27 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Comments - Is it allowable to change an article's rating before the FAR process concludes? Keep in mind that FARC hasn't even started yet. Remove declarations are not supposed to be made during this period. That being said, the article did need revamping. As I look at this now, it isn't comprehensive enough for an FA. Of course, chopping almost half the article for rewriting doesn't help in that regard. More in-line citations are sorely needed throughout. Giants2008 ( 17-14) 01:02, 29 August 2008 (UTC) reply
The article was removed by User:Marskell 16:42, 25 September 2008 [38].
Though informative, this article has a few issues:
This article was promoted back in 2005, when the standards were lower, so it needs a major rewrite to bring it up to 2008 FA quality. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:56, 7 August 2008 (UTC) reply
The article was removed by User:Marskell 13:25, 19 September 2008 [39].
This article, promoted in March 2005, needs a radical overhaul to be considered among Wikipedia's best work today. Allow me to run down a list of problems:
There is some unencyclopedic language mixed in as well. One example: "Ideally, they would not have spent so much time batting..." Comes off as POV. I'd also like a photo in the lead, but there are more vital issues to take care of first. Overall, this does not compare to modern cricket FAs in my view, and would not even pass a good article nomination today. Giants2008 ( 17-14) 22:54, 22 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Please notify significant contributers as well as associated wikipedia projects and post these notifications at the top of this FAR (see the instructions at WP:FAR). Thanks! -- Regents Park ( count the magpies) 23:09, 22 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Agree with Giants2008 ( talk · contribs) and BlackJack ( talk · contribs) (though not sure this article should be AfDed). The article in its present state is most certainly not up to current WP:FA standards (or WP:GA standards for that matter). Cirt ( talk) 17:29, 26 August 2008 (UTC) reply
The article was removed by User:Marskell 12:35, 17 September 2008 [40].
I have nothing to do with this article, but it is really bothering me that this article remains an FA when it fails many parts, if not all of them, of the criteria. -- Jɑɱǐε Jcɑ 21:47, 16 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Please notify significant contributers as well as associated wikipedia projects and post these notifications at the top of this FAR (see the instructions at WP:FAR. Thanks! -- Regents Park ( count the magpies) 11:40, 17 August 2008 (UTC)--Regents Park (paddle with the ducks) 16:19, 15 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Supporting Removal! - Reference numbers 10 and 11 are deadlinks and lead to a 'page cannot be displayed' in the browser. Additionally, the article is extremely short (could include more background info on the show since it is the first episode) and lacks any form of media which are both Featured Article requirements. As much as I love this show, I cannot believe this is a Featured Article. This needs to be fixed up and improved dramatically. Images are an almost 'must' as per the criteria, same goes for sufficient sources. I support this removal/review completely. Domiy ( talk) 06:20, 27 August 2008 (UTC) reply
As David says, length is not an issue. Comprehensiveness is. Clearly people are concerned about that with this article; Gimme puts it quite well above. As no one has stepped forward to work, removing now. Marskell ( talk) 12:33, 17 September 2008 (UTC) reply
The article was removed by User:Marskell 12:35, 17 September 2008 [41].
There appear to be many statements lacking citations, including two entire sections without any citations. This article seems to have been promoted when the standards for featured articles were more lax, but this article seems hardly featured-worthy with the current standards. Xnux the Echidna 16:07, 11 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Image problems
Judging the history, I assume Vb was working as an non. There was some good improvement but this is still not there and work has ceased. (Musical articles on genres, as opposed to specific bands, are difficult and usually require a team.) Removing now. Marskell ( talk) 12:28, 17 September 2008 (UTC) reply
The article was removed by User:Marskell 13:18, 13 September 2008 [42].
Most of the main body is unsourced, thus against WP:WIAFA criteria #1c. D.M.N. ( talk) 15:57, 15 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Please notify significant contributers as well as associated wikipedia projects and post these notifications at the top of this FAR (see the instructions at WP:FAR. Thanks! -- Regents Park ( paddle with the ducks) 16:19, 15 August 2008 (UTC) reply
What evidence is there that Image:Ido.jpg and Image:Ido Kongreso en Desau 1922.jpg are released by the copyright holder? While it is possible that Alfred Neussner is alive today and took a photograph in 1922, it seems unlikely. DrKiernan ( talk) 14:09, 19 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Nothing happening on the article and clearly deficient in terms of referencing. Will remove now. Marskell ( talk) 12:54, 13 September 2008 (UTC) reply
The article was removed by User:Marskell 13:18, 13 September 2008 [43].
1c. There are 27 footnotes in the article. Let's break them down:
-- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk) 01:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC) reply
I would also note, I object strenuously to the use of FAR for a problem like "too many non-free images." That's trivial to fix - go remove the images and challenge the fair use rationales. FAR is not an appropriate response to easily fixable issues. Phil Sandifer ( talk) 18:02, 14 August 2008 (UTC) reply
May I remind those who keep defending this embarrassment that featured articles are meant to exemplify our very best work? Look at the sources. Actually look. Read them. All of them. Here's one example: Rusty0918 of the Jedi Council Forums writes "Yes, this is Spoo Space, keep going down..." in a message board post, so that means "spoo space" is a verifiably widespread term. This scholarship exemplifies our very best work? Really?
Here's another: the fan-made Lurker's Guide to Babylon 5 notes "The price of spoo is highly volatile." This has been expanded into some crackpot highschool lesson on economics in the Wikipedia article: "As a widely consumed food product, like coffee or beef, spoo is a traded commodity, where the price of the product at the consumer level is dictated by the price on common exchanges." This exemplifies our very best work? Are you kidding me?
Another: A Wikipedian found "[Deleted Spoo]" in some 1989 sci.physics post, so that apparently means it is the first recorded instance of the word on USENET; linguistic researchers are apparently out of a job. Paradigmatic cases of original research represent our very best work? You're joking, right? Punctured Bicycle ( talk) 21:49, 24 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Ah Spoo. Please keep the declarations short and sweet. Marskell ( talk) 11:24, 26 August 2008 (UTC) reply
List of objections
One of the most important rules, as I understnad it, at FAC is the idea of actionable criticisms. That is, an objection to a FA nomination must be something that can be fixed. As it stands, the objections here are not actionable. When specific objections have been raised they have been, without fail, easy to fix. But beyond that the objections have amounted to "there's... stuff that's not good." This is not fair, and should not be counted. To better clarify this discussion, I would appreciate if the specific, actionable objections to this article's featured status are compiled so that actual response and editing is possible. As a gesture of good faith, perhaps the vote could be suspended for a few days while this process goes on. As it is currently a straight-up deadlock, this ought not be terribly controversial - it is not as though this is a tactic to block a vote that is currently going against the article).
I've added the three actionable objections that I am aware of - all of which are now fixed. Will others please note the specific flaws in the article so that a better idea of what needs to be fixed can be obtained? Phil Sandifer ( talk) 16:35, 27 August 2008 (UTC) reply
You need to show that the Babylon Park and Luke Ski uses of spoo are notable, or that they themselves are reliable sources for fandom (or, for example, replace the current 1st-part sources with, say, a New York Times article mentioning Luke Ski's contributions to fan music and the spoo shindig.) You need to clean up the prose, which is not brilliant ("After several years of speculation from Babylon 5 fandom, Straczynski finally offered an extensive, humorous explanation of the origins and nature of spoo. [...] After several years of cryptic answers, Straczynski finally made a post explaining what Spoo was.", et al). And then we need more content, because I'm not sure if 800-something words can qualify as an FA. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk) 18:29, 27 August 2008 (UTC) reply
@Phil, my WP:N concerns haven't entirely been allayed, but I think we should try and avoid the repetitiveness of you and me beating our heads on opposite sides of the same wall and try and inject some fresher blood into this discussion. Perhaps some of the FAC wigs (Ealdgyth, if she's willing) might be able to help move this in a more constructive direction? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk) 19:35, 27 August 2008 (UTC) reply
In light of Phil's comments, I have removed all questionable sources and their corresponding statements, edited out trite detail, rewrote entire sections, restructured the article, and copyedited for stylistic consistency. I've tried as hard as I can to make the article as good as possible given the subject. And yet it still isn't featured quality. It fails WP:V and WP:RS, which both say the same thing very clearly: articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. The article is not based on third-party sources. It is based on first-party sources: recollections from the show's creator, TV episodes, songs, and film shorts. Similarly, it fails WP:OR: for example, no reliable, third-party, published source notes that spoo is referenced in the film short or song; these are true, but "unpublished facts."
There has been talk of merging above. I actually think that if this was boiled down some more it could be a decent entry in an article like Babylon 5 universe. It seems common practice to merge minor fictional elements into one main article, rather than have individual articles for each. But before any merging can happen the article must be defeatured. Punctured Bicycle ( talk) 20:17, 27 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Closing. First off, I am going to remove this because it's more than two to one in that direction. But I would be remiss if I did not comment on the above trainwreck. While I tend toward deletionism myself and have long had concerns about pop cult sourcing (including with Phil on ATT) I have also sympathized with inclusionists: they have so often been treated as a kind of abhorrent Wiki sect concerned only with Pokemon and sci-fi. I've seen that with this article. Attitudes toward it have often bordered on the vindictive and I don't quite understand why. The Wikipedia house will not come tumbling down because of our Spoo article, notwithstanding Jimbo's comment on it. So the star goes. And let's just leave the damn thing in peace after that. Marskell ( talk) 13:14, 13 September 2008 (UTC) reply
The article was removed by User:Marskell 14:19, 8 September 2008 [45].
Lacking inline citations, outdated (most as of dates are dated), and MoS cleanup needed. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 01:01, 11 August 2008 (UTC) reply
The article was removed by User:Marskell 10:57, 5 September 2008 [46].
This was raised per concerns on IRC. Looking over the article, I notice very many problems which definitely make it far below FA class, especially given how much stricter FA has gotten since this was passed in '06:
Overall, I think these make it clear that this is no longer FA-class. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 21:44, 6 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Images Are there too many fair-use images, especially considering that there are a couple of free ones in the article? DrKiernan ( talk) 09:58, 19 August 2008 (UTC) reply
The article was removed by User:Marskell 10:38, 1 September 2008 [47].
A 2005 promotion, this article badly needs a tuneup. Inline URL citations need to be formatted, it is lacking citations, it has a long list under references that may have grown to an external link farm, listy prose, external jumps in the text, and MoS cleanup is needed. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 11:47, 30 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Image problems
The article was removed by User:Marskell 10:38, 1 September 2008 [48].
I am not a gem person but I do know an article that contains few referenced citations when I see one (fails 1c). There are turely no notes or citations with the exception of noting it as the official rock of Lethbridge, Alberta.
Promoted in 2005, does not look like it had been reviewed since. Could likely stay FA if citation work was done but it does not appear that there are any active editors on the article (only a couple edits conducted in the last year) Labattblueboy ( talk) 19:20, 25 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Images Image:Ammolite mining.jpg, Image:Ammolite mining2.jpg and Image:Ammolite jewellery.jpg should have OTRS tickets, or more definite evidence that Korite International has released them under GFDL. (Though, they probably did because it's a free advert for them.) DrKiernan ( talk) 13:04, 15 August 2008 (UTC) reply
The article was removed by User:Marskell 10:38, 1 September 2008 [49].
Have Notified:
factually accurate Article needs a lot of work to keep up with current historical thinking. Specifically, Ed Gray and John Dean have both argued that Mark Felt could not possibly have been the only person to be Deep Throat, Gray even names another person that must have contributed to the Deep Throat we see in All The President's Men. For a summary of what I'm talking about, you can see the "composite character theory" section on the Deep Throat page. For details, you can look here [50] and here [51].
In this light, we see that much of this article depends on the idea the Felt = Deep Throat. At the very least, the sections on how Felt and Woodward stayed in contact need to be re-worked to recognize at least the possibility that when Woodward writes in All the Preseident's Men about how he contacted Deep Throat, he is not necessarily talking about Felt. And I think a new section should be added to talk about how Felt may not necessarily be the only Deep Throat out there. ( Morethan3words ( talk) 04:43, 25 July 2008 (UTC)) reply
One other thought that should go under FA criterion 1b, I'm also concurrently trying to get a related biography to GA status, and one of the criticisms I've gotten recently for that article is that there is not enough on the individual's family. So I took a look at this article to see what types of things should be included, and saw that the "family" section in this article is barely a sentence long. If this is an issue that is preventing an article from reaching GA status, then I certainly think it is an issue that should be addressed here given what we have currently. ( Morethan3words ( talk) 04:35, 6 August 2008 (UTC)) reply
The article was kept by User:Marskell 09:57, 30 September 2008 [1].
Article fails to meet the requirements for all Wikipedia articles, namely it fails WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary.
Encyclopedia articles are not on the different meanings of a term.
This article is a mixture of definitions:
Encyclopedia articles only have a single definition, and are not on a term. The wiktionary is a project which is about terms, and the different meanings of terms.
It's not about how big the article is the article doesn't go 'beyond a dicdef', on the contrary it goes beyond an encyclopedia definition by being about the different usages of the term.
Thus this article fails this policy.- ( User) Wolfkeeper ( Talk) 21:55, 29 September 2008 (UTC) reply
The article was kept by User:Marskell 09:57, 30 September 2008 [2].
4. the Article is very short don't have Template:VG Review.don't have system requirement for PC don't have information of engine,series mode and input on Infobox 3.have few images and images are small and on left 2(c).don't have a section for Awards and a section for Guns (see: Assassin's Creed) Amir ( talk) 14:22, 20 September 2008 (UTC) reply
These all seem pretty trivial, if a bit confusing due to poor grammar:
Recommend closing this shortly unless any other serious complaints can come. -- Lenin and McCarthy | ( Complain here) 14:40, 20 September 2008 (UTC) reply
The article was kept by User:Marskell 07:03, 29 September 2008 [3].
The article was approved to FA in 2005, when standards were much lower, and it shows. It currently has one inline citation which makes verification of facts by readers nearly impossible. -- Falcorian (talk) 16:11, 6 August 2008 (UTC) reply
In addition, it when the article was assessed in 2006, the review stated "needs inline citations and lead should conform to WP:LEAD". -- Falcorian (talk) 16:22, 6 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Image:St Augustine's. Waimate. NZ.jpg says it depicts St. Patrick's Catholic Church. If so, why is it called Augustine's and why does it look totally different from the 1919 picture of St. Patrick's by F. G. Radcliffe in the collection of the Alexander Turnbull Library (Reference number: 1/2-006870-G)? DrKay ( talk) 09:29, 16 August 2008 (UTC) reply
This high-profile commission may seem surprising, bearing in mind Mountfort's history of design in New Zealand. However, the smaller buildings he and Luck had erected the previous year had impressed the city administrators and there was a dearth of available architects. The resultant acclaim of the building's architecture marked the beginning of Mountfort's successful career.
Regarding Image:St Augustine's. Waimate. NZ.jpg, the lych gate was not added until in 1902, after Mountfort's death. The belltower was added in 1903. DrKay ( talk) 09:08, 10 September 2008 (UTC) reply
As the person who brought the article to FAR, here are my thoughts on Nouser's fixes:
I'll leave issues of Lead, and formating, and nit picking like that to others. -- Falcorian (talk) 22:03, 21 September 2008 (UTC) reply
The article was kept by User:Marskell 16:42, 25 September 2008 [6].
After seeing this article as a Featured Article for the past few months, I can't help but to get a few things out of my mind. Some language and layout issues are at hand here, ones which I think have been generously ignored somehow. As much of a secondary fan of Scotland as I am, I must point out some of these things. There are numerous cases of POV, grammar and others! Its a shock seeing this as a Featured Article after thoroughly reading it. This also further arouses the possibility that it obviously hasn't been stable, a clear FA criteria!
Are you serious? I dont know if this was in here when this article was promoted, but it surely wont pass now or maybe even ever! First of all, on the smaller of issues, it should be written in consistent prose. If they beat New Zealand, they wouldnt 'beating' or 'drawing' against USSR, they would 'draw' to USSR. So basically, It should read - "They beat New Zealand 5–2, drew with the USSR 2–2 and lost 4–1...".
Furthermore, a magical Brazilian side? Thats Clear POV without excuse! Brazil may be good, and their team may have been world beaters, but stating that they were a magical side in an encyclopedia is insane! If in any case it was accepted, I dont know how it got by the fact that there is an unnecessary space after each comma. It, should, be, listed, like, this -- not , like , this!
Please follow the instructions at WP:FAR to complete the notifications and post them back to here; as a sample, see Wikipedia:Featured article review/Bank of China (Hong Kong). Also, Jmorrison230582, your interruptions of the FAR declaration make it hard to read; refactoring might help. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 16:47, 17 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Image comments
comment The infobox lists World and Euro Cup, surely for a team like Scotland the BHC would be of more improtance, it was the primary copmpetition for 70 years, and the other competitions have only been of interest for 60, this seems like recentism Fasach Nua ( talk) 10:27, 18 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Further comments on the article:
And my initial points still stand until further fixed up! Domiy ( talk) 11:24, 18 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Final comments
The article looks and sounds MUCH better now. Please note that even though reliable news stories may call something 'famous', its still no excuse to use it in an encyclopedia. Reliable sources gain attention for their creative, if not biased language, all the time. Its how they earn recognition. A lot of reliable sites will call a goal or a team famous, but it is still POV even with references. You should search for alternatives as much as possible, although it's not much of a problem now as I see such has already been done. 'Famous' is only in there a couple of times on my estimated count, thats good to know. Please note that it can give away POV so you should be wary of it.
Other than that, I like the way it is written now. Well done. If possible however, I would change one last thing. In the final paragraph of the lead section, you start the sentence and paragraph with 'England'. This can give away the wrong idea, most sentences, especially in the lead, should restrain from subjecting another article. I would start the sentence with 'Scotland' first and then go from there to stating the rivalry. This would be much better and appropriate.
If that's done, then I will have no more objections. Please also note that FA criteria requires the article to be stable. I've seen a lot of things being changed and added even before this review was bought up. If your worried about vandalism, then I suggest you request protection for some time. Otherwise, there are many bots you can use to restore previous versions in case of vandalism. Well done again btw, hope the Croatian team makes it to FA soon :) Domiy ( talk) 23:31, 18 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Also note Fasach Nua that FIFA and UEFA very rarely use national flags to represent the football teams. This is commonly only seen on foreign broadcasting channels which have little to do with FIFA or UEFA. But the official programs of the governing football bodies will most times just use the abbreviations such as 'CRO', 'SCO', 'ITA', 'SER', 'GER' and etc. Also, the official websites represent the nations with the logo's as well, so I would think more thoroughly on the situation before you go around proclaiming that "the national flags are good enough for FIFA and UEFA". Domiy ( talk) 04:20, 31 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Prose Comments:
I've noticed that the paragraph in the lead section still starts with 'England'. This is a really bad idea, it even confuses me sometimes no matter how many times I read it. A lead section paragraph starting with a different national team subject is VERY BAD! Start this paragraph differently! Domiy ( talk) 05:26, 30 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Oppose removal, Support keeping this aricle! My issues have been fixed up now, and I would hate to be responible for an actually worthy article to be removed from FA because of some other unfair and NA arguments! I would just quickly reccomend filling in the citation tag required and fixing up the references very quickly. Other than that, I personally see no other issues. (how does it feel to see that an article is being treated in a 'possibly invisible' biased manner now? Taste of your own medicine is good for you.) Domiy ( talk) 04:20, 31 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Comment - I formatted the references myself. There are actually two cite tags, including one for their nickname in the infobox. Giants2008 ( 17-14) 21:27, 31 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Clearly I don't see the difference between this article and the Croatia national football team. Rightfully, if the latter article has failed 3 times now, this one should also rightfully have failed or be removed right now due to the fact that it has similar or even worse issues than Croatia. It uses similar references and was using a clearly copyrighted image. Really, until these two articles are at the same rating level, I won't stop thinking that WP or in particular this review project is largely based on preference which leads to biased comments. Domiy ( talk) 10:57, 5 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Altered comments - further review needed Supporting removal! - I just finished adding major fixups to the Croatia team article as per opposing suggestions from its last FAC. My main concern are the references. I now agree, publisher names should be listed in full. This included FIFA, UEFA, BBC etc. The full domain names should be listed just as this article has done. Do this consistently throughout the references. RSSSF etc shouldn't be seen! And I'm somewhat concerned at the references reliability. Why exactly is The Scotsman reliable? Similarly, Planet World Cup is NOT reliable at all. Also, current refs 59 and 61 are dead links! What makes 'Hampden Scotland's National Stadium' a reliable source anyway? Some sources lack author or even publisher information, I have opened a few references and already seen author names listed on the page, yet it is not given in the references. Some data is in the wrong field as well. Chick Young is the author of the page, the publisher is BBC. This has to be filled out properly. It goes on like this. References need a major fixup to reach good standards!
I'm just enforcing the need for author info. It seems that the article editors have gained a personal idea that author name is not needed if it is a common or already known article. Rubbish! First of all, such can never be assumed. Secondly, author information is part of the reference template which helps identify the creator of the source. I'm just saying that the author information should be included where possible and all other citation issues be fixed up. Thats all! Lets not get into flaming debates again. I still maintain that article comments are indeed biased at times, whether it be for one reason or another. Thats why I intend to crack down on articles which passed FAC a long time ago (when it was very, VERY lenient). This is one of many. So, until the present issues are addressed, I'll be making sure this article gets the same treatment as mine did. Specifically, I had some reliable sources challenged as 'unreliable' as well. And the idea of spelling out abbreviations in full came from FAC anyway! I was told to get rid of things like BBC, UEFA, FIFA etc and put the full domain name. Despite how uncommon this is, I was cracked heavily and asked to do it like such. I personally do feel its much better this way now anyway. Domiy ( talk) 06:41, 17 September 2008 (UTC) reply
The toolbox shows one iffy link and one article that is a dab link. Pls check.
SandyGeorgia (
Talk)
14:32, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
reply
Can we get an update here? How do people feel about it now? Marskell ( talk) 11:05, 23 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Updated comments - still a few issues I think diminish the article.
The article was kept by User:Marskell 16:42, 25 September 2008 [9].
Despite the fact that I love Moore (one of my WP:GAs is Man Enters the Cosmos and I created Nuclear Energy (Henry Moore sculpture) and Large Interior Form), this article no longer is up to snuff. It would be classified as a C-Class article now upon independent review, IMO. Even though I love Moore, I prefer to research topics I can research fairly completely over the internet. My experience with art is that to properly research things I have had to take many trips to the library. I have a lot on my plate and hope someone else will step forward and improve this article. The article has very few inline citations and many are not in modern footnote format. Some images may be questionably licensed, but that is not my area.-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTM) 21:38, 15 August 2008 (UTC) reply
"Under UK copyright law, there is specific statutory provision made for sculptures permanently situated in a public place or to which the public has access. It is one of the clearest exceptions to the basic copyright position (that no-one can reproduce copyright work without the express consent of the copyright owner). Just like works of architecture under UK and US copyright law, outdoor sculptures under UK law can be reproduced two-dimensionally, even be filmed or broadcast/transmitted, without the copyright owner’s consent; and such reproductions can also be used commercially without consent." in a blog here - seems sound. Also see here. Clearly the citations are not up to today's standards. Johnbod ( talk) 22:12, 15 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Can someone please complete the notifications correctly? The correct message is obtained via {{subst:FARMessage/Henry Moore}}; see the FAR instructions. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 03:34, 16 August 2008 (UTC) reply
I suspect that my original contributions still form the majority of this article, but I haven't spent much effort in editing Wikipedia for the last two years and haven't kept track of any changes to this article either.
I think that it is a good thing that Wikipedia's standards improve over time, but I won't be taking the time to go through every article I've written in order to add citations. It used to be claimed that editors shouldn't worry about spelling mistakes and the like. If an article was deficient in some way, other editors would come along and fix it up. Some years ago, that was kind of true, but it seems to be far less true these days. So good luck with making any changes that you think are necessary.
One other point of concern, with the article stands at the moment it is rather confusing not to show an example of Moore's sculpture near the head of the article. There used to be one as the lead image but it has been moved to make way for the portrait of Moore himself. Its good to have the portrait, but its not so good that a reader has to get past a Michelangelo, a Nok sculpture and a Toltec-Maya figure before seeing anything that is recognisably a Henry Moore. Most readers don't get as far as paging down past the head of the article, so most readers won't have a clue what a Henry Moore looks like. -- Solipsist ( talk) 15:09, 26 August 2008 (UTC) reply
I agree with the appropriateness of this FAR nom discussion by TonyTheTiger ( talk · contribs). I also agree with TonyTheTiger that this article would not pass a WP:GA review in its present state, and is also not up to current WP:FA standards and would most certainly encounter difficulty at a WP:FAC discussion. Cirt ( talk) 18:00, 26 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Grand: Accepted. Ceoil sláinte 12:16, 20 September 2008 (UTC) reply
I just added a couple of refs, hmm gotta consider some moore now...I agree about short paragraphs being MTV like, the text is improving, quality matters...to be moore clear I agree with Ceoil about the paragraphs and the arbitrary marching orders....seem somewhat contrived. Modernist ( talk) 12:05, 20 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Actually no - the refs are to the Tate and they speak for themselves..... Modernist ( talk) 12:12, 20 September 2008 (UTC) reply
The article was kept by User:Marskell 10:42, 24 September 2008 [10].
Fails featured article criterion 1a because it's not well written. 66.68.23.41 ( talk) 18:42, 6 September 2008 (UTC) reply
While it's here, I corrected several issues that got by FAC: WP:ACCESSIBILITY, WP:MOS#Images, WP:LAYOUT and mixed citation styles. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 03:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC) reply
I am going to shut this FAR down, which I probably should have done earlier. Any other prose concerns can be taken up on article talk. Marskell ( talk) 10:38, 24 September 2008 (UTC) reply
The article was kept by User:Marskell 10:42, 24 September 2008 [11].
This article, promoted in 2005, has not a single inline citation. I think that is the primary issue. Judgesurreal777 ( talk) 05:37, 24 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Agree with above comments by Judgesurreal777 ( talk · contribs) and H-stt ( talk · contribs). This article is not up to snuff in accordance with current WP:FA standards. Cirt ( talk) 17:16, 26 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Convoluted sentence alert:
"Located in south-central Idaho midway between Boise and Yellowstone National Park, the monument includes 53,545 acres (217 km2) in the Developed Area (the extent of the national monument before the preserve was added) and the visitor center is 5,900 feet (1,800 m) above sea level."
"...the extent of the national monument before the preserve was added..." seems to imply that there's more acreage that isn't being mentioned. And why tack on the sea level point rather than have a separate sentence? I'll go through the rest of the prose. Marskell ( talk) 13:00, 18 September 2008 (UTC) reply
I just completed a section-by-section copyedit and deletion of some still-uncited sentences that aren't needed. I'm now pretty happy with the article. -- mav ( talk) 02:18, 21 September 2008 (UTC) reply
I am reasonably pleased with the prose now. Given above comments, this can go. Marskell ( talk) 10:22, 24 September 2008 (UTC) reply
The article was kept by User:Marskell 10:25, 21 September 2008 [12].
Notified: WikiProject Italy, WikiProject Architecture, Giano_II
previous FAR (17:21, 13 January 2008)
Extremely short on references. A topic like this is likely to be researched and many claims are made, yet very rarely referenced. There are quite a few references to books here so excuse my inability to check their verifiability or relevance to particular statements. However, here are a few visible examples:
It goes on and on. It's useless to list examples, they are blatantly obvious. There are numerous paragraphs which go into fine detail but are not sourced at all! How can the verifiability of this article be possibly considered with so few sources? This needs extensive amounts of more references! Surprisingly enough, this article has already passed a FAR for the exact same reason. I wouldn't really agree with the article being kept as it seems that a lot of users pointed out numerous issues which didn't seem to be completely resolved. It was really only the last two comments from the previous review that supported keeping the article, and one of them was from SandyGeorgia. I think this was a little lenient (or a lot!). Despite any opinions, more refereces are desperately needed for this article! Domiy ( talk) 05:15, 19 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Umm, no. This is one of the statements which can just as easily lead to the conclusion that Wikipedia is a ridiculous website. Read some further guidelines. For example, WP states you need to explain technical jargon relating to your article. This is just one of many instances withinin WP which states that you cannnot assume knowledge of the reader. If we were to start making assumptions, then that would mean I can just make the assumption that a larger portion of people in the world already know what the WP articles are about. So, in technicality terms, WP should immediately cease to exist due to it serving no purpose. Doesn't work this way. I'm sorry. The FA criteria clearly states that sources must be included where necessary. Have you forgotten the use of WP? RESEARCH! This is a website mainly used for research! There can be many instances where somebody has to submit a paper based on a subject they know really little about. Don't mock this. I will tell you, as a student myself, this happens very frequently in life. Furthermore, interested readers may want to use WP to increase their knowledge on a particular subject. If your going to assume that sources aren't needed regularly because the majority of people should/would already know the historical facts, then you aren't a very satisfying editor. Think of the article users!
So basically, your argument is nowhere near sufficient. At times, one can claim that references aren't needed because the statement is very basic and well known. An example of such a statement is 'the grass is green', or 'the sun is hot'. But to assume that the majority of readers already know specific historical facts based on very old subjects is not sufficient at all! Sorry, this is a clear cop-out. Follow the FA rules! I can just as easily call you an unreliable liar when you state something without a reference. For the second time, consider this statement --"By that time it had already been converted to a museum, but a suite of rooms (now the Gallery of Modern Art) was reserved for them when visiting Florence officially." Do you honestly believe that researchers can assume this statement as 'true' even though it has not a single source to it? Sorry, you can't make such an assumption. Thats not what WP is about.
Ignoring the risk of another blast from Sandy, I will once again direct you to this article. Notice how many statements are not referenced once, but twice, and even three times! Mind you as well, they are some basic facts. The large amount of references in that article as solely due to advice given from Peer reviews and FAC's. I tried to bring up the cop-out argument as well. And you must admit, it is much more stronger in my case. I was asked to provide references to the fact that a national football team have fan songs. Sheesh, what a waste of time that was...yet I did it anyway. It goes on. I have provided references for the most simple of statements. You wont find many unreferenced statements in that article because I don't make assumptions - I actually follow WP's objectives and guidelines. So once again, I'm truly sorry, but if you don't have verifiable sources to back up the fact that certain buildings were refurbished in particular ways, styles, formats etc, then you have what WP calls original research. Certainly not FA quality. I'm really still trying to get over the laughable assumption you made on the majority of people already knowing about such extreme history. In case you haven't noticed, history articles are one of the most common read ones for a reason. Its because people need to read them to gain information on them. Domiy ( talk) 15:24, 19 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Oohh, I'm really scared. (The truth is I'm terrified. When someone reverts my edits I feel as if I am not good enough, and that I should just quit at life). Please don't make wikithreats (new word of the day!). You need to clearly recognise the meaning of POV in order to make a comment on it. No matter how great something is, an encyclopedia is not supposed to proclaim such. We all know how delicious chocolate is, but if the article states "chocolate is amongst the best-tasting solids developed within the last 10 centuries and it's extremely sweet taste is an amazing treasure of life which truly exemplifies its awesome taste" - then instances of POV come in. Consider this example. Chocolate actually is, to about 98% of people on earth, the best-tasting wrapper food available. Yes, it is nice and sweet and it just puts a smile on your face because its taste is just so darn great. However, as per WP:POV, we are not here to make assumptions. We musn't leave out the remaining 2% of people who don't like chocolate. Also, WP is NOT a descriptive or appraisal page, like a forum or anything. It's an encyclopedia. In other words, the palazzi may be great and have true beauty, but unless it is part of a verifiable quote, you cannot describe it as such in an encyclopedia. I can go on with examples all day. Within the last two years, Croatia's national football team have beaten England, Germany and Italy at least once; these are 3 top footballing nations. However, the article page cannot proclaim that "Croatia have been an amazingly succesful side from 2006 as they have dominated their respective fixtures against England, Germany and Italy. No other nation has come close to reaching their rapid rise in football power". While this may be true, and even backed up with references, its clear POV, just like some statements in this palazzi article. If you fail to comply with these guidelines, then I will ensure that the article goes through a lot more of these reviews for removal as they clearly don't follow WP's guidelines, which is an obvious aspect of the criteria. Domiy ( talk) 08:33, 20 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Closing. 'Nuff said. Marskell ( talk) 10:14, 21 September 2008 (UTC) reply
The article was kept by User:Marskell 12:56, 19 September 2008 [15].
![]() | Power-tripping admin warning I don't know how FAR's usually proceed, if they're usually as hotheaded as AFD's, or if they're usually civilized. But this is a warning that I will enforce the edit warring, civility, and personal attack provisions of Talk:Barack Obama/Article probation on this page as well. The gloves do not come off because you've discovered a new page to argue on. Act like grownups. -- barneca ( talk) 00:31, 19 September 2008 (UTC) reply |
This article has become a piece of Barack Obama campaign literature. As User:WorkerBee74 commented on the Talk page, "What we're seeing here, in this article, is a campaign to exclude or diminish any material that would tend to wipe a smile off anyone's face at Obama campaign HQ. Even a link to Obama-Ayers controversy is forbidden." Negative material about the candidate is immediately deleted whenever it appears. This triggers a long, drawn-out battle on the Talk page.
Certain editors are homesteading on the article to prevent the introduction of any such material, or diminish it in both size and visibility: subheaders mentioning eminiently notable controversies about the candidate are routinely deleted. Even material that does not reflect negatively on the candidate, but merely indicates that it's possible he might lose, is routinely deleted. Featured Article status requires neutrality of content. This article miserably fails that test. I'm a supporter of the Barack Obama campaign, I've donated money to the campaign, I'm a volunteer for the campaign, but this is ridiculous.
Also, the content of this article is not stable. There is an ongoing presidential campaign, and the subject of this biography is locked in a very tight race. Featured Article status requires stability of content. This article fails that test. Curious bystander ( talk) 23:16, 18 September 2008 (UTC) reply
No way does this meet Wikipedia:Featured_article_criteria if the Sarah_Palin page is representative of what should and shouldn't be included - comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral. Either the Sarah_Palin page needs some serious attention by administrators or the Obama page is nothing but a propaganda piece. Theosis4u ( talk) 00:02, 19 September 2008 (UTC) reply
(ec X2) I certainly agree wit GoodDamon on a content basis. We have gone through an excruciating, thoughtful, serious, long process to arrive at a real consensus on exactly how to describe several matters that may be seen as negative for Obama, and having done so to maintain stability and all the while deal with the many dozens of vandals, sockpuppets, trolls, POV editors, etc., who are on the article every day. I was keeping a log on the article probation page of every account that was blocked or banned but at some point I gave up and just started covering the significant ones. The list is now at thirty. Watching over such an important article takes the cooperation of a number of dedicated, diligent editors and the natural tendency when someone wants to add for the nth time - n would probably be several hundred by now - that Obama is a closet Muslim, Arab, friend of unrepentant terrorists, communist, birth certificate forger, not really African-American, under investigation for this or that, and every possible variation of the N-word, is to revert and dismiss out of hand. And if they persist and revert, tell them to read the FAQ, point them to the article probation terms and their "welcome to wikipedia" greeting, and go find consensus on the talk page. A class of editors, equally persistent but somewhat more skilled in their efforts, have been bombarding the article for the past few months as well. Hence we have article probation. I can sympathize with anyone who is trying to keep peace on the Sarah Palin article. It doesn't have the mean streak of racism and vandalism like we do here but the POV edits and the number of people who want to insert random trivial disparaging material, rumors, campaign criticism, etc., is at least as bad as anything we ever had here. I doubt that article could ever reach featured status before the election but perhaps the editors there could learn from the editors here that hard work, a no-nonsense approach, refusal to tolerate incivility and edit warring, and so on, can greatly calm an article. The Obama article is a very good article. I won't offer an opinion as to whether it is truly FA level of not - it got its designation a few years ago when Wikipedia had lower standards. But this is not the place and time to review that decision, certainly not on the question of whether we do or don't adequately disparage him for his contacts with a 1960s radical bomb-thrower and a real estate fraud. Wikidemon ( talk) 00:48, 19 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Closing. If editors would like to debate further, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. It is beyond the capacity and purpose of the Featured Article Review to deal with most of the comments here.
As for stability (1e), dealing with trolls, vandals or single purpose edit warriors does not make for an unstable FA. If it did, we'd never be able to feature controversial or widely covered subjects: instability would become self-fulfilling and trolls would exploit the fact. The question is whether there is a competently written, neutral article, that neglects no major details beneath (so to speak) the warring and vandals. Here there is. I see no convincing case to leave this open.
I will copy Sandy's and DrKiernan's comments to article talk as they provide some specific clean-up concerns for people to address. Marskell ( talk) 12:51, 19 September 2008 (UTC) reply
The article was kept by User:Marskell 12:35, 17 September 2008 [17].
This article needs a lot more inline citations to verify the content of the article, which is very lightly referenced at the moment. Judgesurreal777 ( talk) 17:47, 13 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Can anyone verify that Image:John Dudley.jpg is a picture of a portrait in Penshurst Place? Can anyone close the deletion debate on Image:Edward VI Scrots c1550.jpg [18]? DrKiernan ( talk) 12:59, 19 August 2008 (UTC) reply
I am going away from tomorrow, 1 September, until Friday or Saturday, and won't be touching a computer in the meantime. This is not a loss of interest or momentum, and I will resume promptly on return. The task is about three quarters done now: the main sections that remain to be completed are on religious reform and on the succession crisis—complex matters that will take about another week. I will also need to develop the lead and carry out an overall tidy-up and copyedit. qp10qp ( talk) 16:08, 31 August 2008 (UTC) reply
SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 08:22, 9 September 2008 (UTC) reply
The article was kept by User:Marskell 13:18, 13 September 2008 [19].
Still working on this...slowly. Dr pda ( talk) 11:22, 5 August 2008 (UTC) reply
The article was kept by User:Marskell 12:46, 12 September 2008 [20].
This article was promoted to FA status in April 2005. However, it does not meet current FA standards, namely criterion 1c (references). Nishkid64 ( Make articles, not wikidrama) 13:43, 24 July 2008 (UTC) reply
The prose needs tidying up. Some points don't appear to make any sense. For example, the boiling points depend on "the concentration or molarity of HCl in the acid solution. They can range from those of water at 0% HCl" Huh? Surely 0% HCl is water? DrKiernan ( talk) 10:52, 25 July 2008 (UTC) reply
The referencing system has been brough up to date. The 2005/FA requirement did allow for all references to be grouped in the References section. I have now moved the references into the text, updating them to in-line refs. The pointed out phrases that should be clarified, and some obvious unclarity in the lead section has been updated too. In my humble opinion, the (1c) criteria has been met in the style of today. If others recommendations remain, feel free to suggest here. Wim van Dorst (talk) 16:12, 24 August 2008 (UTC). reply
With help of several other editors of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemicals, I think we have now well taken care of the above-mentioned 1C criterion (no in-line reference). This article was one of the first FA articles of WP, and the first FA of the Wikiproject as general effort. The referencing in 2005 wasn't a major concern, and although the references were not written in-line then, it was very well-resourced and edited. I hope with this latest effort to re-do the work of three years ago, the FAR can now be closed. With special thanks to WP:Chem. Wim van Dorst (talk) 22:12, 1 September 2008 (UTC). reply
I see some cleanup needs here and there, and will try to help after I catch up from travel. Can someone solve the text squeeze in the first section (see WP:MOS#Images). SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 05:05, 5 September 2008 (UTC) reply
The article was kept by User:Marskell 13:51, 10 September 2008 [21].
Not a single inline citation. Some MoS issues, and the prose could use some copyediting. Wouldn't pass GA as it is. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 15:04, 11 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Many inline cites added; more to come. -- mav ( talk) 02:00, 13 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Yet more cites added. I also started to expand the article using some great PD text from the NPS that was published a couple years after this article was FAd. -- mav ( talk) 03:04, 14 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Expansion from PD NPS text complete. I still need to do another reference pass once I find the Tufts, Leach and Zion Map sources. If I have time, I'd also like to confirm and directly use the hidden inline cites to Biek et al. 2000, which were what the PD text cited. Biek et al. 2000 is in a book I purchased after this article became FA. -- mav ( talk) 02:20, 20 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Nice work, article has improved significantly since initial comment by Juliancolton ( talk · contribs). Cirt ( talk) 17:24, 26 August 2008 (UTC) reply
I've added nonbreaking spaces between numerals and units of measure; prioritized US units first, and added commas in a few large numbers. I have not copyedited, as the subject matter is far beyond my comprehension at my current level of margaritization.(That should totally be a word.) Maralia ( talk) 04:52, 4 September 2008 (UTC) reply
I've only time for a quick glance, but work remains; not ready to keep yet. Check
WP:MSH re: "The", and I saw a lot of lacking hyphenation. I'll look more closely tomorrow. Also,
WP:OVERLINKing and some confusing prose (look at the first paragraph of the article, after the lead. Is it "The Grand Staircase" or "Grand Staircase". First we hear of the Grand Canyon, confusing, how we got there from here. Is the hyphenation correct on the 240 million year old? A whole lot of verbiage before Grand Staircase is introduced. Why are words like
mountain linked? The entire section is confusing in terms of which park is which and how they all got introduced suddenly under The Grand Staircase. I think north-south has to be north–south when it means north to south. Copyedit needed, and hyphenation issues everywhere: to form the 1,800 foott (550 m) thick Moenkopi Formation. and of the resulting 100 foot thick (30 m) Dakota Sandstone ... too many parenthetical inserts to "See" another article, should be templates at the top of sections or worked into the prose. This is just a quick pass, but I think this article needs more than just citation: it needs another prose look and smoothing out of some of the prose and copyediting glitches, and auditing for clarity for the uninitiated.
SandyGeorgia (
Talk)
07:29, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
reply
The article was kept by User:Marskell 13:51, 10 September 2008 [22].
I count five sections without any sources, and the rest are desperately in need of citations (I could litter it with {{ cn}}, but that seems counter-productive.) Goes into unnecessary game detail, and lacks information on development, failing comprehensiveness criteria. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk) 00:18, 14 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Please notify significant contributers as well as associated wikipedia projects and post these notifications at the top of this FAR (see the instructions at WP:FAR. Thanks! -- Regents Park ( paddle with the ducks) 16:20, 15 August 2008 (UTC) reply
What information on development does it lack? Phil Sandifer ( talk) 19:53, 15 August 2008 (UTC) reply
What issues are actually outstanding here? Phil Sandifer ( talk) 14:09, 19 August 2008 (UTC) reply
The article was kept by User:Gimmetrow 11:07, 9 September 2008 [23].
This article has an excess of non-free images, Image:Calgary_Flames_logo_1980-1994.png and Image:Calgary Flames logo.svg are in violation of minimal usage, we dont need a non-free image to describe a black outline. Multiple instances of copyrighted team uniforms, when one is only needed, or even the free Image:JaromeIginla.jpg could be used. Fasach Nua ( talk) 12:11, 8 September 2008 (UTC) reply
I am closing this. What's at issue can perfectly easily be resolved on article talk. FAR is not dispute resolution. Marskell ( talk) 10:23, 9 September 2008 (UTC) reply
The article was kept by User:Marskell 14:19, 8 September 2008 [24].
I am nominating this Featured Article for further review. The Pathology section is one sentence and is tagged for improvement. The writing is no longer FA quality. It is very poorly referenced. For an article on this particular bacteria, I'd expect to see twice as many references as are there. Moreover, many of the statements just aren't referenced. The external links are way overboard (I know that's a judgement call, but it reads like a link farm). Therefore, I would say this article is no longer well-written, properly sourced, or consistently structured. It needs a rewrite before it is FA quality. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 02:07, 2 August 2008 (UTC) reply
I have to go for now but I'll be back with more. delldot talk 14:37, 2 August 2008 (UTC) reply
The unreferenced section had been added after the FAC, it was a repeat of info covered more in the previous section, Colonization, so I integrated it into that section.
More later. delldot talk 17:00, 2 August 2008 (UTC) reply
I've removed the experimental treatments in the Rx section; I think that section should discuss only established treatments. Those could be included in a Research directions section, but not by themselves. I removed the {{ unbalanced}} tag, as I thought that fixed the problem. Re-tag if not. More comments:
More to follow. delldot talk 20:03, 2 August 2008 (UTC) reply
More:
That's it from me. delldot talk 20:45, 2 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Here are my issues:
Hopefully more editors will get involved so more people will watch the articles. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 17:11, 2 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Is there an MOS for microbiology articles? OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 05:12, 3 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Comments It's not a bad article but it is below the current FA standard. As mentioned above, there should be more, (up-to-date) citations. There are problems with the structure; the section headed Microbiology, is in fact a discussion on pathogenesis and there is little microbiology in the article. There is a bad error of fact in the all too short lead: H. pylori does not infect more people than any other bacterium, and the reference given does not support this claim. The article needs to make clear the important differences of bacterial colonisation, asymptomatic infection, (carriage), and symptomatic infection. Many more people are infected with Staphylococcus aureus than H. pylori. There is some poor prose too, in the History section for example: The community began to come round.... And, that image of the urease structure is purely decorative. The article can be rescued, but someone needs to spend a lot of time on it. Graham Colm Talk 14:52, 6 August 2008 (UTC) reply
The article was kept by User:Marskell 10:38, 1 September 2008 [26].
Contains numerous vague, unattributed and unreferenced claims. Some sections are not supported by sources at all. Fails criterion 1c - verifiability. Passed FA candidacy in 2005, but today it wouldn't. -- Eleassar my talk 14:59, 22 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Comment: At least to a cursory scan, it seems to me that most the information is verifiable in the existing citations. In many cases it is not presented with the more recently popular inline citation method, however. The acceptable style of citation standard evolved during 2006- for examples, see several discussions about inline citations in the good article criteria talk page [ [27]]. In 2005 it was more common (particularly in physical science articles) to reference the end of a section or of the entire article rather than inline. This was adequate for an interested reader to explore the details and thereby verify, but was more difficult for those who wanted to quickly judge verifiability without reading through all the references. It appears to me that the problem is with the format of referencing rather than a failure of criterion 1c. I added modern style inline references to the section to which Eleassar had recently added in a reference request template. Are there other sections in which there are verifiability concerns? -- Noren ( talk) 17:23, 22 June 2008 (UTC) reply
So, there's work to be done on the prose throughout. TONY (talk) 03:22, 25 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Given that some work was done, I am going to hold this a little while longer. Tomorrow I will look to see if I can improve it myself. Marskell ( talk) 13:12, 7 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Still willing to leave this up a while. I added a couple of refs, Yanni took care of some really boring formatting, and an anon took care of Yahoo groups. (I think the happy ghost of WorldTraveller is still with us.) Marskell ( talk) 17:11, 18 August 2008 (UTC) reply
The article was removed by User:Marskell 09:57, 30 September 2008 [28].
Cathedral of Magdeburg was promoted in 2004 - No inline citations, WP:LEAD is a bit short, mixed styles of listing versus paragraph formats, flow of the article could be better. Primarily 1c issues, (though 1a and 1b could probably do with reexamination) and also this image Image:DomzuMagdeburg.jpg needs more info filled out. Cirt ( talk) 02:45, 29 August 2008 (UTC) reply
The article was removed by User:Marskell 09:57, 30 September 2008 [29].
No inline citations, lead is very short, and a lot of peacock terms flying about. Blnguyen ( bananabucket) 00:48, 29 August 2008 (UTC) reply
The article was removed by User:Marskell 07:03, 29 September 2008 [30].
The article appears to fail criteria 1a) being well written. The overlong plot summary is past tense which is unconventional, not to say unprofessional, and is littered with other grammatical strangenesses. The article fails 1b) being comprehensive. There is no discussion of the works literary style or the major themes found in the work and should cite the huge amounts of critical and academic literature which addresses the work in order to cover those issues. The article would then encompass the many significant published viewpoints on the subject. Resolving these criteria would bring the article up to FA. Davémon ( talk) 08:34, 18 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Please notify significant contributers as well as associated wikipedia projects and post these notifications at the top of this FAR (see the instructions at WP:FAR. Thanks! -- Regents Park ( count the magpies) 11:38, 17 August 2008 (UTC)--Regents Park (paddle with the ducks) 16:19, 15 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Someone who has more experience with this wikiproject should probably weigh in on this as I'm still pretty new to this whole wiki thing, but within the article there is the following comment:
I'm not sure whether this is the forum for people that have opinions & information on the topic, but from what I know of the subject, there is a certain sense in which Tolkien is claiming to write something in a historical/mythological vein rather than a fictional vein. However, many Tolkien scholars typically distinguish between Tolkien's works that are meant to be "artifacts" of his world, and therefore have their place in that history, and simply "stories" synthesized from the history itself. I have misplaced the very nice article that discusses the distinction, but I will edit my comment accordingly once I find it (and if this is the appropriate place to post such information. Astraflame ( talk) 16:19, 17 August 2008 (UTC) reply
I have to agree with Carcharoth, I find the article generally rather weak and uninspired. The plot synopsis is too long and the discussion of "Reception" and publication history are rather weak. It generally reflects the take on the LotR taken by nerds, as opposed to literary critics or bibliophiles. I.e.,focus on pop culture, adaptations, later fantasy literature etc. Is it FA worthy? I don't know. I am not aware of a better encyclopedic article on the work available online, and I feel we have to measure the quality of our articles against what else there is out there, not against what quality they could ideally have in theory. I also don't care two bits if an article has a bronze star at the top. What we need to do is simply try and keep improving the article, FA or no FA. Carcharoth is pointing the way to go, the LotR article can only ever become excellent if we first produce excellent Themes of The Lord of the Rings and Tolkien studies articles it can rely on. So, anyone interested, why not just cut the discussion and sit down for a couple of hours' work on those. -- dab (𒁳) 09:45, 18 August 2008 (UTC) reply
(𒁳) 12:16, 18 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Image For Image:Middle-earth.jpg, the source [31] gives permission for anyone to use the map for their personal or classroom use, but I don't see where it's released under GFDL. DrKiernan ( talk) 14:21, 19 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Comments from Awadewit I agree with the nominator. I have thought myself about nominating this article for FAR for just these reasons, but I have never had the time to devote to improving it. I can commit to copyediting at this point, but no extensive research.
I hope these suggestions are helpful. Awadewit ( talk) 17:16, 19 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Comments from Davémon having nominated the article for review, I think it only fair I elaborate on what I think must be done to the article to bring it up to the level I'd expect from a wikipedia Featured article on "[ the greatest book of the 20th century]".
Is that the sort of thing people are looking for? Carcharoth ( talk) 14:46, 6 September 2008 (UTC) replySince the publication of The Lord of the Rings by J. R. R. Tolkien, a wealth of secondary literature has been published discussing the literary themes and archetypes present in the story. Themes that have been identified and analysed include friendship and sacrifice, forgiveness, power, temptation and addiction. In Tolkien's works as a whole, death and immortality feature strongly. In a quote from a letter written in 1958, Tolkien said of his work "It is mainly concerned with Death, and Immortality; and the 'escapes': serial longevity, and hoarding memory." (Letter 211). Tolkien wrote about other themes in his book in letters to friends, family and fans, and also in the book itself. However, in his Foreword to the Second Edition, Tolkien said that he "disliked allegory in all its forms" (using the word applicability instead). Tolkien's work also deals with a love of nature and the problems of technology and industrialisation. Tolkien also wrote about how his religion (Catholicism) affected the work, and this is a point taken up by many subsequent writers who have examined the book in detail looking for parallels and influences. Tolkien's work as a philologist, Anglo-Saxonist and medievalist heavily influenced the book, with his languages and detailed backstory setting his work apart from those by later authors. The concepts of fate and doom in his works emerge from the older, pagan, worldview he was exposed to by his studies of ancient languages. The passage of time is an enduring theme, with moments of loss and and farewell present at many levels. <yadda, yadda, yadda, add sources, etc>
Make of that what you will. Tolkien was talking about allegory there, and he did also express distaste at those people who deconstructed works and tried to make links to an author's life experiences (I'll try and find that quote as well), but equally he had strong views on his work and his reasons and motivations for writing it, and that can't be ignored. Quite how to get the balance right is, again, difficult. Carcharoth ( talk) 08:35, 7 September 2008 (UTC) reply"I think that many confuse 'applicability' with 'allegory'; but the one resides in the freedom of the reader, and the other in the purposed domination of the author"
Closing. I accidentally let this go three weeks with no updates. Much is said above, but the article remains largely as it was when the FARC period started. The removes seem to take this. Carcharoth has some ideas for it and subsidiary articles. Perhaps something can be taken back to FAC; in the meantime, removing. Marskell ( talk) 06:55, 29 September 2008 (UTC) reply
The article was removed by User:Marskell 16:42, 25 September 2008 [33].
The number of unreviewed FAs with zero inline citations is now down to about ten. Here is one from early '04. (Looking at the FAC I can't tell who originally nommed.) Along with the obvious 1c issue, I was hoping someone who understands the image rules could go through this as it has a great many pics. The ToC headlines need to be shortened and made less conversational. Marskell ( talk) 14:54, 26 August 2008 (UTC) reply
See above list of images currently used in this article. Cirt ( talk) 17:38, 26 August 2008 (UTC) reply
The article was removed by User:Marskell 16:42, 25 September 2008 [34].
1(c) Lacks inline citations, in fact has none. Tom ( talk) 14:42, 26 August 2008 (UTC) reply
The article was removed by User:Marskell 16:42, 25 September 2008 [36].
Coconut crab is a 2004 promotion, lacking citations, mixed citation styles, numerous ciation needed tags, WP:LEAD underdeveloped, and MoS cleanup needed. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 04:07, 27 August 2008 (UTC) reply
The article was removed by User:Marskell 16:42, 25 September 2008 [37].
Cricket is one of those featured articles that was promoted ages ago, on 4 September 2004. While it may have met the criteria then, I believe it extensively fails today's criteria 1(a)(c), 2(b)(c), and 3.
I know the FAR instructions indicate I'm supposed to propose some remedies to correct these problems, but I believe nothing short of a total rewrite would suffice. Maybe I'm being too critical, but I imagine any editor who nominated this article for FA today would be pistol whipped and sent to the corner. I don't think this one can be saved. - auburnpilot talk 02:31, 27 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Comments - Is it allowable to change an article's rating before the FAR process concludes? Keep in mind that FARC hasn't even started yet. Remove declarations are not supposed to be made during this period. That being said, the article did need revamping. As I look at this now, it isn't comprehensive enough for an FA. Of course, chopping almost half the article for rewriting doesn't help in that regard. More in-line citations are sorely needed throughout. Giants2008 ( 17-14) 01:02, 29 August 2008 (UTC) reply
The article was removed by User:Marskell 16:42, 25 September 2008 [38].
Though informative, this article has a few issues:
This article was promoted back in 2005, when the standards were lower, so it needs a major rewrite to bring it up to 2008 FA quality. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:56, 7 August 2008 (UTC) reply
The article was removed by User:Marskell 13:25, 19 September 2008 [39].
This article, promoted in March 2005, needs a radical overhaul to be considered among Wikipedia's best work today. Allow me to run down a list of problems:
There is some unencyclopedic language mixed in as well. One example: "Ideally, they would not have spent so much time batting..." Comes off as POV. I'd also like a photo in the lead, but there are more vital issues to take care of first. Overall, this does not compare to modern cricket FAs in my view, and would not even pass a good article nomination today. Giants2008 ( 17-14) 22:54, 22 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Please notify significant contributers as well as associated wikipedia projects and post these notifications at the top of this FAR (see the instructions at WP:FAR). Thanks! -- Regents Park ( count the magpies) 23:09, 22 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Agree with Giants2008 ( talk · contribs) and BlackJack ( talk · contribs) (though not sure this article should be AfDed). The article in its present state is most certainly not up to current WP:FA standards (or WP:GA standards for that matter). Cirt ( talk) 17:29, 26 August 2008 (UTC) reply
The article was removed by User:Marskell 12:35, 17 September 2008 [40].
I have nothing to do with this article, but it is really bothering me that this article remains an FA when it fails many parts, if not all of them, of the criteria. -- Jɑɱǐε Jcɑ 21:47, 16 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Please notify significant contributers as well as associated wikipedia projects and post these notifications at the top of this FAR (see the instructions at WP:FAR. Thanks! -- Regents Park ( count the magpies) 11:40, 17 August 2008 (UTC)--Regents Park (paddle with the ducks) 16:19, 15 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Supporting Removal! - Reference numbers 10 and 11 are deadlinks and lead to a 'page cannot be displayed' in the browser. Additionally, the article is extremely short (could include more background info on the show since it is the first episode) and lacks any form of media which are both Featured Article requirements. As much as I love this show, I cannot believe this is a Featured Article. This needs to be fixed up and improved dramatically. Images are an almost 'must' as per the criteria, same goes for sufficient sources. I support this removal/review completely. Domiy ( talk) 06:20, 27 August 2008 (UTC) reply
As David says, length is not an issue. Comprehensiveness is. Clearly people are concerned about that with this article; Gimme puts it quite well above. As no one has stepped forward to work, removing now. Marskell ( talk) 12:33, 17 September 2008 (UTC) reply
The article was removed by User:Marskell 12:35, 17 September 2008 [41].
There appear to be many statements lacking citations, including two entire sections without any citations. This article seems to have been promoted when the standards for featured articles were more lax, but this article seems hardly featured-worthy with the current standards. Xnux the Echidna 16:07, 11 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Image problems
Judging the history, I assume Vb was working as an non. There was some good improvement but this is still not there and work has ceased. (Musical articles on genres, as opposed to specific bands, are difficult and usually require a team.) Removing now. Marskell ( talk) 12:28, 17 September 2008 (UTC) reply
The article was removed by User:Marskell 13:18, 13 September 2008 [42].
Most of the main body is unsourced, thus against WP:WIAFA criteria #1c. D.M.N. ( talk) 15:57, 15 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Please notify significant contributers as well as associated wikipedia projects and post these notifications at the top of this FAR (see the instructions at WP:FAR. Thanks! -- Regents Park ( paddle with the ducks) 16:19, 15 August 2008 (UTC) reply
What evidence is there that Image:Ido.jpg and Image:Ido Kongreso en Desau 1922.jpg are released by the copyright holder? While it is possible that Alfred Neussner is alive today and took a photograph in 1922, it seems unlikely. DrKiernan ( talk) 14:09, 19 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Nothing happening on the article and clearly deficient in terms of referencing. Will remove now. Marskell ( talk) 12:54, 13 September 2008 (UTC) reply
The article was removed by User:Marskell 13:18, 13 September 2008 [43].
1c. There are 27 footnotes in the article. Let's break them down:
-- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk) 01:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC) reply
I would also note, I object strenuously to the use of FAR for a problem like "too many non-free images." That's trivial to fix - go remove the images and challenge the fair use rationales. FAR is not an appropriate response to easily fixable issues. Phil Sandifer ( talk) 18:02, 14 August 2008 (UTC) reply
May I remind those who keep defending this embarrassment that featured articles are meant to exemplify our very best work? Look at the sources. Actually look. Read them. All of them. Here's one example: Rusty0918 of the Jedi Council Forums writes "Yes, this is Spoo Space, keep going down..." in a message board post, so that means "spoo space" is a verifiably widespread term. This scholarship exemplifies our very best work? Really?
Here's another: the fan-made Lurker's Guide to Babylon 5 notes "The price of spoo is highly volatile." This has been expanded into some crackpot highschool lesson on economics in the Wikipedia article: "As a widely consumed food product, like coffee or beef, spoo is a traded commodity, where the price of the product at the consumer level is dictated by the price on common exchanges." This exemplifies our very best work? Are you kidding me?
Another: A Wikipedian found "[Deleted Spoo]" in some 1989 sci.physics post, so that apparently means it is the first recorded instance of the word on USENET; linguistic researchers are apparently out of a job. Paradigmatic cases of original research represent our very best work? You're joking, right? Punctured Bicycle ( talk) 21:49, 24 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Ah Spoo. Please keep the declarations short and sweet. Marskell ( talk) 11:24, 26 August 2008 (UTC) reply
List of objections
One of the most important rules, as I understnad it, at FAC is the idea of actionable criticisms. That is, an objection to a FA nomination must be something that can be fixed. As it stands, the objections here are not actionable. When specific objections have been raised they have been, without fail, easy to fix. But beyond that the objections have amounted to "there's... stuff that's not good." This is not fair, and should not be counted. To better clarify this discussion, I would appreciate if the specific, actionable objections to this article's featured status are compiled so that actual response and editing is possible. As a gesture of good faith, perhaps the vote could be suspended for a few days while this process goes on. As it is currently a straight-up deadlock, this ought not be terribly controversial - it is not as though this is a tactic to block a vote that is currently going against the article).
I've added the three actionable objections that I am aware of - all of which are now fixed. Will others please note the specific flaws in the article so that a better idea of what needs to be fixed can be obtained? Phil Sandifer ( talk) 16:35, 27 August 2008 (UTC) reply
You need to show that the Babylon Park and Luke Ski uses of spoo are notable, or that they themselves are reliable sources for fandom (or, for example, replace the current 1st-part sources with, say, a New York Times article mentioning Luke Ski's contributions to fan music and the spoo shindig.) You need to clean up the prose, which is not brilliant ("After several years of speculation from Babylon 5 fandom, Straczynski finally offered an extensive, humorous explanation of the origins and nature of spoo. [...] After several years of cryptic answers, Straczynski finally made a post explaining what Spoo was.", et al). And then we need more content, because I'm not sure if 800-something words can qualify as an FA. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk) 18:29, 27 August 2008 (UTC) reply
@Phil, my WP:N concerns haven't entirely been allayed, but I think we should try and avoid the repetitiveness of you and me beating our heads on opposite sides of the same wall and try and inject some fresher blood into this discussion. Perhaps some of the FAC wigs (Ealdgyth, if she's willing) might be able to help move this in a more constructive direction? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk) 19:35, 27 August 2008 (UTC) reply
In light of Phil's comments, I have removed all questionable sources and their corresponding statements, edited out trite detail, rewrote entire sections, restructured the article, and copyedited for stylistic consistency. I've tried as hard as I can to make the article as good as possible given the subject. And yet it still isn't featured quality. It fails WP:V and WP:RS, which both say the same thing very clearly: articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. The article is not based on third-party sources. It is based on first-party sources: recollections from the show's creator, TV episodes, songs, and film shorts. Similarly, it fails WP:OR: for example, no reliable, third-party, published source notes that spoo is referenced in the film short or song; these are true, but "unpublished facts."
There has been talk of merging above. I actually think that if this was boiled down some more it could be a decent entry in an article like Babylon 5 universe. It seems common practice to merge minor fictional elements into one main article, rather than have individual articles for each. But before any merging can happen the article must be defeatured. Punctured Bicycle ( talk) 20:17, 27 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Closing. First off, I am going to remove this because it's more than two to one in that direction. But I would be remiss if I did not comment on the above trainwreck. While I tend toward deletionism myself and have long had concerns about pop cult sourcing (including with Phil on ATT) I have also sympathized with inclusionists: they have so often been treated as a kind of abhorrent Wiki sect concerned only with Pokemon and sci-fi. I've seen that with this article. Attitudes toward it have often bordered on the vindictive and I don't quite understand why. The Wikipedia house will not come tumbling down because of our Spoo article, notwithstanding Jimbo's comment on it. So the star goes. And let's just leave the damn thing in peace after that. Marskell ( talk) 13:14, 13 September 2008 (UTC) reply
The article was removed by User:Marskell 14:19, 8 September 2008 [45].
Lacking inline citations, outdated (most as of dates are dated), and MoS cleanup needed. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 01:01, 11 August 2008 (UTC) reply
The article was removed by User:Marskell 10:57, 5 September 2008 [46].
This was raised per concerns on IRC. Looking over the article, I notice very many problems which definitely make it far below FA class, especially given how much stricter FA has gotten since this was passed in '06:
Overall, I think these make it clear that this is no longer FA-class. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 21:44, 6 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Images Are there too many fair-use images, especially considering that there are a couple of free ones in the article? DrKiernan ( talk) 09:58, 19 August 2008 (UTC) reply
The article was removed by User:Marskell 10:38, 1 September 2008 [47].
A 2005 promotion, this article badly needs a tuneup. Inline URL citations need to be formatted, it is lacking citations, it has a long list under references that may have grown to an external link farm, listy prose, external jumps in the text, and MoS cleanup is needed. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 11:47, 30 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Image problems
The article was removed by User:Marskell 10:38, 1 September 2008 [48].
I am not a gem person but I do know an article that contains few referenced citations when I see one (fails 1c). There are turely no notes or citations with the exception of noting it as the official rock of Lethbridge, Alberta.
Promoted in 2005, does not look like it had been reviewed since. Could likely stay FA if citation work was done but it does not appear that there are any active editors on the article (only a couple edits conducted in the last year) Labattblueboy ( talk) 19:20, 25 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Images Image:Ammolite mining.jpg, Image:Ammolite mining2.jpg and Image:Ammolite jewellery.jpg should have OTRS tickets, or more definite evidence that Korite International has released them under GFDL. (Though, they probably did because it's a free advert for them.) DrKiernan ( talk) 13:04, 15 August 2008 (UTC) reply
The article was removed by User:Marskell 10:38, 1 September 2008 [49].
Have Notified:
factually accurate Article needs a lot of work to keep up with current historical thinking. Specifically, Ed Gray and John Dean have both argued that Mark Felt could not possibly have been the only person to be Deep Throat, Gray even names another person that must have contributed to the Deep Throat we see in All The President's Men. For a summary of what I'm talking about, you can see the "composite character theory" section on the Deep Throat page. For details, you can look here [50] and here [51].
In this light, we see that much of this article depends on the idea the Felt = Deep Throat. At the very least, the sections on how Felt and Woodward stayed in contact need to be re-worked to recognize at least the possibility that when Woodward writes in All the Preseident's Men about how he contacted Deep Throat, he is not necessarily talking about Felt. And I think a new section should be added to talk about how Felt may not necessarily be the only Deep Throat out there. ( Morethan3words ( talk) 04:43, 25 July 2008 (UTC)) reply
One other thought that should go under FA criterion 1b, I'm also concurrently trying to get a related biography to GA status, and one of the criticisms I've gotten recently for that article is that there is not enough on the individual's family. So I took a look at this article to see what types of things should be included, and saw that the "family" section in this article is barely a sentence long. If this is an issue that is preventing an article from reaching GA status, then I certainly think it is an issue that should be addressed here given what we have currently. ( Morethan3words ( talk) 04:35, 6 August 2008 (UTC)) reply