Wikipedia:Featured article review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Reviewing featured articles Shortcuts: WP:FAR WP:FARC This page is for the review and improvement of featured articles that may no longer meet the featured article criteria. FAs are held to the current standards regardless of when they were promoted. There are two stages in the process, to which all users are welcome to contribute. Featured article review (FAR) In this step, possible improvements are discussed without declarations of "keep" or "remove". The aim is to improve articles rather than to demote them. Nominators must specify the featured article criteria that are at issue and should propose remedies. The ideal review would address the issues raised and close with no change in status. Reviews can improve articles in various ways: Articles may need updating, formatting, and general copyediting. More complex issues, such as a failure to meet current standards of prose, comprehensiveness, factual accuracy, and neutrality, may also be addressed. The featured article director, Raul654, or his delegates Marskell and Joelr31, determine either that there is consensus to close during this first stage, or that there is insufficient consensus to do so and, thus, that the nomination should be moved to the second stage. Featured article removal candidate (FARC) An article is never listed as a removal candidate without first undergoing a review. In this second stage, participants may declare "keep" or "remove", supported by substantive comments, and further time is provided to overcome deficiencies. Reviewers who declare "remove" should be prepared to return towards the end of the process to strike out their objections if they have been addressed. The featured article director or his delegates determine whether there is consensus for a change in the status of a nomination, and close the listing accordingly. Each stage typically lasts two to three weeks, or longer where changes are ongoing and it seems useful to continue the process. Nominations are moved from the review period to the removal list, unless it is very clear that editors feel the article is within criteria. Given that extensions are always granted on request, as long as the article is receiving attention, editors should not be alarmed by an article moving from review to the removal candidates' list. Older reviews are stored in the archive. A bot will update the article talk page after the review is closed and moved to archives. Purge the cache to refresh this page

Featured content: Featured articles ← Featured pictures Featured lists Featured portals Featured topics Featured sounds Featured article tools: Featured article criteria Featured article candidates Featured article review Today's featured article This month's queue Main page requests Featured article log Featured article statistics Former featured articles Toolbox Dead links (Updates daily)

Nominating an article for FAR Nominators typically assist in the process of improvement; they may post only one nomination at a time, should not nominate articles that are featured on the main page (or have been featured there in the previous three days), and should avoid segmenting review pages. Three to six months is regarded as the minimum time between promotion and nomination here, unless there are extenuating circumstances such as a radical change in article content. Place {{FAR}} at the top of the talk page of the nominated article. Write "FAR listing" in the edit summary box. Click on "Save page". Note: if an article has already been through the FAR/C process, use the Move button to rename the previous nomination to an archive. For example, Wikipedia:Featured article review/Television → Wikipedia:Featured article review/Television/archive1 From there, click on the "add a comment" link. Place ===[[name of nominated article]]=== at the top of the subpage. Below this title, write your reason(s) for nominating the article, specifying the FA criterion/criteria that are at issue, then click on "Save page". Click here, and place your nomination at the top of the list of nominated articles, {{Wikipedia:Featured article review/name of nominated article}}, filling in the exact name of the nominated article. Click on "Save page". Notify relevant parties by adding {{subst:FARMessage|Articlename}} to relevant talk pages (insert article name). Relevant parties include main contributors to the article (identifiable through article stats script), the editor who originally nominated the article for Featured Article status (identifiable through the Featured Article Candidate link in the Article Milestones), and any relevant WikiProjects (identifiable through the talk page banners, but there may be other Projects that should be notified). Leave a message at the top of the FAR indicating who you have notified and that notifications have been completed.

Contents 1 Featured article reviews 1.1 The Lord of the Rings 1.2 Scotland national football team 1.3 Pilot (House) 1.4 Henry Moore 1.5 Ido 1.6 Katamari Damacy 1.7 Edward VI of England 1.8 Spoo 1.9 Blues 1.10 Geology of the Zion and Kolob canyons area 1.11 Bank of China (Hong Kong) 1.12 Canon T90 1.13 Sesame Street 1.14 Benjamin Mountfort 1.15 Helicobacter pylori 1.16 John Bull (locomotive) 2 Featured article removal candidates 2.1 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs 2.1.1 Review commentary 2.1.2 FARC commentary 2.2 Ammolite 2.2.1 Review commentary 2.2.2 FARC commentary 2.3 W. Mark Felt 2.3.1 Review commentary 2.3.2 FARC commentary 2.4 Hydrochloric acid 2.4.1 Review commentary 2.4.2 FARC commentary 2.5 Eifel Aqueduct 2.5.1 Review commentary 2.5.2 FARC commentary 2.6 The Cantos 2.6.1 Review commentary 2.6.2 FARC commentary 2.7 Battle of Hampton Roads 2.7.1 Review commentary 2.7.2 FARC commentary 2.8 Taiwanese (linguistics) 2.8.1 Review commentary 2.8.2 FARC commentary 2.9 Her Majesty's Most Honourable Privy Council 2.9.1 Review commentary 2.9.2 FARC commentary 2.10 Helen Gandy 2.10.1 Review commentary 2.10.2 FARC commentary 2.11 History of Limerick 2.11.1 Review commentary 2.11.2 FARC commentary 2.12 Comet Shoemaker-Levy 9 2.12.1 Review commentary 2.12.2 FARC commentary

[edit] Featured article reviews

[edit] The Lord of the Rings

Notified:User:SorryGuy (also original FA-nom), User:Carcharoth, User:Uthanc ,Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Middle-earth,Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Books,Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Novels/Fantasy task force, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Children's literature and article talk page.

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)

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)

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:

Before editing the synopsis back to present tense, please refer to Talk:The Lord of the Rings/archive 03#In universe style and Wikipedia:WikiProject Middle-earth/Standards#Tenses

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)

While I would welcome the addition to the article of any sourced discussion of Tolkien's use of the "False document" literary device in the Lord of the Rings, the authors use of such a device is not a reason to have the plot-summary in the past tense. Other books, including Robinson Crusoe, Dracula, and a whole swathe of gothic horror short stories etc etc. use the same device, and they have plot summaries written in the correct tense. Using the fiction as a framework for discussing the fiction isn't really acceptable for an encyclopedia. --Davémon (talk) 16:48, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify my argument above, what I meant was, even in the context of Tolkien scholars, people generally do not consider the Lord of the Rings to be "texts" in the sense that The Silmarillion as it was originally conceived was (the reference, by the way, is Christopher Noad's "On the Construction of the Silmarillion" in Tolkien's Legendarium). Thus, even in that context, the past tense may be applicable for concepts in the legendarium, such as the articles on Middle-earth or Aragorn or texts that actually claimed to be true documents, such as the Lay of Luthien. In the case of the Lord of the Rings though, even though is some note in the introduction or something claiming that it is a story in the Red Book of Westmarch, Tolkien really never considered it a historical artifact at the level of The Silmarillion, but much more of a fictional work more like The Hobbit. So, even to Tolkien scholars, I think the present tense would still be more applicable to discussions of the Lord of the Rings.

I accept that this distinction may or may not be relevant to this discussion as I do not claim to be fully proficient in the conventions for what is or is not acceptable in this encyclopedia. However, I thought such information would be generally useful to know in the context of writing about Tolkien, even if it does not prove to be applicable to Wiki-articles. Astraflame (talk) 17:22, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying. This discussion is primarily to decide whether or not the article The Lord of the Rings currently meets the WP:FA criteria, and to help decide what to do about it. The kind of broader subject-matter and multi-article approach may be better suited to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Middle-earth. --Davémon (talk) 18:37, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Thank you for the clarification on Wiki-etiquette, and done! --Astraflame (talk) 19:12, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comments by Carcharoth - some other users probably need to be notified (User:YLSS, User:CBDunkerson, User:Awadewit, User:Dbachmann and User:Csernica (TCC), among others, User:Solicitr might also be interested, also have a look at the current and recent contributors to Talk:J. R. R. Tolkien and Talk:The Lord of the Rings - update: I've notified 13 other editors that I think might be interested in this - not all are still active, but hopefully between us and anyone else who becomes aware of this, we should be able to do a fair amount of work) if they don't see the WikiProject notice, but I'll review the article for now.
  • (A) I agree with the 'comprehensive' criticism point: "There is no discussion of the works literary style or the major themes found in the work, and no reference to the huge amounts of critical and academic literature which has been written on the work, so it lacks many significant viewpoints on the subject."
    • (A-i) There is mention of the themes in the lead section, which incidentally seems fine at the moment, and a link to Themes of The Lord of the Rings is there, though that article is pretty poor at the moment. Something needs to go in the main article with reference to secondary literature. I'll try and do that at some point.
    • (A-ii) About the secondary literature. We do also have Tolkien research, which is in a similarly poor state, and Category:Tolkien studies, so some overview section in this article on the secondary literature would be possible. I've also added a link to Reception of J. R. R. Tolkien in the "see also" section. See also Category:Reception of Tolkien. We have the articles, but lots of them were written after this article passed FA, and no overview has been integrated into this article yet.
  • (2) The plot summary is too long, but rewriting that shouldn't be too much of a problem - what will probably happen is most of the material will end up at the subsidiary articles and get refined still further there. Would that be acceptable?
  • (3) I do have the books to source a lot of stuff, but will need severe prodding to get them out and to write something. If citations are needed for specific points, please ask.

That's my initial response. I'll aim to get back to this later in the week. Carcharoth (talk) 02:10, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for notifying the other editors. The reference to the academic and critical literature, isn't to merely state that such a body exists, as Tolkien research does, but to be able to correctly cite, through reliable, independent, sources the significant viewpoints on the subject of "The Lord of the Rings". The basis of the missing style, theme and reception (beyond the initial reviews) can only be supported by citing this material. I've reworded the intro to clarify. Davémon (talk) 08:34, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict with dab's comment below) Yes. That should be obvious. Would you like a history of views on The Lord of the Rings over the last 50 years, or just a precis of current (sometimes still conflicting) opinion? There is rather a lot of literature to cover. This covers the work from 1984 through 2000, and the "Year's work" sections in the issues of Tolkien Studies covers most of the rest. The stuff before 1984 is covered in "Richard C. West’s Tolkien Criticism: An Annotated Checklist and Judith Johnson’s J. R. R. Tolkien: Six Decades of Criticism", but I don't have access to those. I will, however, look for articles summarising views on style and themes in The Lord of the Rings. The J.R.R. Tolkien Encyclopedia has several relevant entries giving an overview of the sort I think you are after, as does The Lord of the Rings: A Reader's Companion. One problem with writing something trying to summarise what is still a developing field of literary scholarship is being wary of original research, and keeping it up-to-date. I fully intend to use reliable sources, but there have been problems in the past with people saying that what Christopher Tolkien wrote about his father's works, and what Tolkien wrote about his own works (eg. in The Letters of J. R. R. Tolkien and The History of Middle-earth) is not "independent". I've tried to explain that to a certain extent such sources are valid, and that overviews published in the secondary literature should be the starting point, but in some areas it helps to cite all the way back to the primary sources (that the authors in the secondary literature are working with) when a citation or further explication is requested or seems needed. Does that make sense? I suppose what I'm really after is for you to say what you think are unreliable and non-independent sources when it comes to writing our article about The Lord of the Rings - can you give examples? One problem is that it is not entirely clear which views are significant among the myriad of views. There are some themes that keep being mentioned in the literature, so I guess pointing that out would be best, though ideally someone would point that out in a published paper themselves. Where the scholars disagree, that should be mentioned as well, though there are some "fringe" theories that sometimes get published, so deciding how to handle that could be a problem. How long do we have and how much room would you devote to this in the current article? Carcharoth (talk) 10:08, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to quibble about CT's independence on LoTR (but is his role as draft-reader, map drawer and commentator in the article? if not it should be!), but to rely majoritively on his work (or that of the authors) whilst discussing Style, Themes, Reception would be missing out on many other significant viewpoints, and so isn't really the answer to that problem.

The scope of the reception issues? Yes, the whole 50 years. Everything. From the initial views to "it's a hippy book" to "let's put this into the literary canon" and everything in-between. Whatever can be properly sourced. If it becomes too unweildly, it can get split off, but not gefore it's written WP:SS.

How much space to devote? As much as we need to show all significant viewpoints. I can't say which ones are significant, and which ones aren't, but if there are multiple reliable sources on them, then they're probably significant enough. Yes there will be conflicting views, and they make the article more interesting.

How long do we have? Well, this stage (discussion of "does it fail criteria, if so what do we do about it") is two weeks. Then as it appears that we have editors who are willing and able to address the issues, then stage two (vote to demote) will be put on hold for as long as it is evident that progress on the article is being made. If nothing constructive happens at all to the article in two weeks then we'll just move to the next stage. --Davémon (talk) 11:58, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

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)

What, instead of writing long comments here? :-) You have a point. Carcharoth (talk) 10:08, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

My primary motivation wasn't to get the article delisted, but to encourage people to improve the article, so I'm glad that is the response we're getting. For the purposes of this discussion "is LoTR article an FA", whether article's meets WP:FACR is of paramount importance. I'd like to dissuade people from seeing developing "supporting" articles as a way forward. The problems aren't with those articles, it's with the fact that the wikipedia Lord of The Rings article (demonstrably the most popular work of fiction of the 20th century) just isn't very good. Improving related articles isn't going to fix that problem. If the LoTR article actually develops enough properly sourced, reliable content to need to be split into a summary style article, then that would be great, but I fear (if you'll excuse my Tolkienism) painting the detail on the leaves before constructing the branches is counter-productive. --Davémon (talk) 11:58, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I beg to differ on the point that improving an article's WP:SS sub-articles is indeed a crucial step towards the improvement of the main article itself. Any article on a major topic will eventually end up in WP:SS, and as such needs solid sub-articles that are to be summarized properly in the main article's various sections. dab

(𒁳) 12:16, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

The real question is "shall we take sub-articles into consideration in this FA review?". My answer is "No: let's not lose focus". The article under review is The Lord of the Rings, not a combination of it and one or more of Themes of The Lord of the Rings,Translations of The Lord of the Rings,The Fellowship of the Ring,The Two Towers,The Return of the King,J. R. R. Tolkien's influences,Reception of J. R. R. Tolkien,Adaptations of The Lord of the Rings,Works inspired by J. R. R. Tolkien and any other sub-article I may have missed. Themes of The Lord of the Rings has absolutely no wp:v,wp:rs content, so starting from scratch in the main article shouldn't really be a big challenge for anyone wanting to develop the themes section. --Davémon (talk) 20:33, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

This isn't "the real question" at all. The real question is, how to improve this article. We do need work in the Themes of The Lord of the Rings department for that, but not in the The Two Towers department. --dab (𒁳) 14:38, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

It has been my experience that writing subarticles first and then summarizing in the main articles is much more efficient than writing the main article, writing the subarticles, and then rewriting the main article. However, I do recognize that we would need a committed group of editors to achieve this in a short amount of time. Awadewit (talk) 17:19, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Image For Image:Middle-earth.jpg, the source [1] 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)

worse, the map isn't so much "based on the works of JRRT" as the copyright note claims, as a blatant rip-off of Christopher Tolkien's map. I don't think there is any way we can justify keeping it on any Wikimedia server. We might sooner just hsot a copy of the actual CT map and give some fair use rationale. --dab (𒁳) 14:42, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

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.

• Large expansions - These expansions will require substantial research. Much as been written by scholars on Tolkien's books - this literary criticism could be mined for this article. Without it, the article fails the comprehensiveness criteria:

• There needs to be more discussion of genre - there are brief mentions of "novel" vs. "romance", but no in-depth discussion of what this means. There is also a passing reference to allegory, but again nothing in depth. Many scholars have written about the allegorical nature of these books - exploring that would be helpful to the reader. There is also no discussion of "fantasy" in relation to LOTR - only in relation to books influenced by LOTR. Considering LOTR was a foundational fantasy work, this is a glaring omission.
• There needs to be a discussion of Tolkien's writing style in the books. This would include symbolism, for example, which is used extensively in these works, as well as a brief discussion of Tolkien's use of languages.
• There needs to be a discussion of the themes of the books. Essentially, the meat of the article is missing - what is the book about? It has meaning beyond the plot and the reader is not given any of that information.

• Small expansions - Throughout the article, there are areas where the reader is left hanging, where one or two more sentences are needed to flesh out a point. Here are some examples:

• Since the second edition many different printings of The Lord of the Rings have appeared. - But the section focuses on recent editions. What happened between the 1960s and the 1990s?
• Tolkien, an expert in philology, examined many of these translations, and had comments on each that reflect both the translation process and his work. To aid translators, and because he was unhappy with some choices made by early translators such as the Swedish translation by Åke Ohlmarks - What were some of these comments and why was he unhappy?
• Tolkien acknowledged the influences of William Morris and his Huns and Romans, as in The House of the Wolfings or The Roots of the Mountains. - This and other of the influences need to be better explained to the reader. Where can the influences be seen in Tolkien's work? Right now the reader has to piece all of this together. The second and third paragraphs in this section are much better.

• The plot summary needs to be rewritten.

• It is in the past tense when it should be in the "literary present".
• There is too much detail in some parts (e.g. "Bilbo's 111th (or "Eleventy-first" in Hobbit speak) birthday party").
• Characters and things are poorly introduced at times (e.g. Merry and Pippin are first mentioned in "The Two Towers" without explanation).

• Some copyediting work needs to be done. Here are some examples:

• The idea of the first chapter ("A Long-Expected Party") arrived fully-formed, although the reasons behind Bilbo's disappearance, the significance of the Ring, and the title The Lord of the Rings did not arrive until the spring of 1938 - The first chapter is not Athena - this language of arrival is strange - the book is not a baby.
• Once Tolkien considered the Ring, the books really became centred around it and its influence on the inhabitants of Middle-earth. - "really became"?
• Several other authors in the genre, however, seemed to agree more with Dyson than Lewis. - The article then goes on to talk about a science-fiction author, but LOTR hasn't been discussed as science fiction in the article (nor is it usually considered science fiction).
• The live-action film trilogy has done much in recent years to bring the novel back into the public consciousness - The novel? What about "the novels" or "the trilogy" or "the works"?
• It is often assumed to have strongly influenced the RPG industry which achieved popularity in the 1970s with Dungeons & Dragons - RPG is not explained or linked

I hope these suggestions are helpful. Awadewit (talk) 17:16, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Scotland national football team

Notified: user: Kanaye, user: HisSpaceResearch, user: The Rambling Man, User: Matt Lewis, user: Mutt Lunker, Wikipedia: WikiProject Scotland, Wikipedia: WikiProject Football and article talk page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Domiy (talk • contribs) 05:37, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

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!

• "with Archie Gemmill scoring a famous goal.". Dead straight POV from my experience. It may be brilliant, it may be well known and one of the best in the history of the sport (hypothetically), but famous is a clear POV issue. I've seen numerous articles that have been bashed to death over POV, and coincidentally enough it has been predominantly for the word 'famous'.

• The same goes for "Gemmill's yer mawfamous goal". I tried to find a definition of 'mawfamous' and had absolutely no luck. Again, strangely enough, when I typed it into google the only link that came up was the Scotland national football team, with a quote from that caption being shown in the preview. Its potential to say then that this is one of the only articles/pieces of writings on the entire internet that contains the word 'mawfamous'. On top of POV, its not even a word. Don't even get me started on 'yer'. ENGLISH PEOPLE, USE ENGLISH!

• Possible POV is also evident in "Scotland's fiercest rivals". While there may not be as much strictness on this (as it is somewhat true), the word 'fiercest' is still a blatant issue of POV. Also, the way it is worded sounds like Scotland have numerous rivals in football. A more appropriate wording would be something like "England are Scotland's traditional rivals" or something similar.

• "The encounters against England were particularly fierce and a fierce rivalry quickly developed." Again, not only POV but somewhat badly worded. The same word is used twice almost right after the first one. Trying to read it makes it sound confusing and again, a clear utterance of constant POV. You may be able to get away with some light POV words in some extreme cases, but using a potential POV within the same statement is pushing it further.

• "and were thrashed 7–0 by Uruguay" I've seen this pointed out like a firework in the sky numerous times before as well. Thrashed is not really predominant wording, although I must admit it does describe the context of the defeat well in this situation, it still can be challenged as non encyclopedic wording!

• "daunting encounter" can also be challenged on grounds of POV. Difficult, tense, tensional would be good to use, but daunting?

• "This joke ultimately led to the conception of the Unofficial Football World Championships". Joke is also somewhat not appropriate for an encyclopedia. Joke can mean many things, and it doesnt really strongly fit into the category of fans claiming a team to be unofficial champions. Better words are more appropriate for this statement methinks. Replace joke with anything else.

• "...beating England 2-1 at Wembley Stadium.[11] after the match Scotland fans infamously invaded the pitch, ripping up the turf and breaking a crossbar.[20]" You forgot a capital letter at the end of the sentence! It should be 'After'.

• Again, while such may sound suitable sometimes, I have seen a lot of articles being teared up for POV, again predominantly with the description of "... continued to play impressively". Come to think of it, thats clear POV to me.

• "They beat New Zealand 5–2, drawing with the USSR 2–2 and losing 4–1 to a magical Brazilian team which included Socrates , Zico , Eder and Falcao.[29]".

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!

• "Scotland qualified for their fifth consecutive World Cup in 1990 by finishing second in their qualifying group, beating out France, but the results in the Finals in Italy were poor. Drawn in a group with Costa Rica, Sweden, and Brazil, the Scots inexplicably lost 1–0 to Costa Rica in a major upset. While they recovered to beat Sweden 2–1 in their second game, they lost to Brazil in their third match 1–0 and once again Scotland was out in the first round.". Not even a single reference within an entire paragraph explaining an entire tournament! Provide references to this stanza! You cannot explain the process of an entire tournament without a single reference!

• "Scotland made their UEFA European Championship debut at the 1992 European Championship.[32] Scotland qualified for the tournament by a narrow margin." Confusing prose. Using Scotland right after the first use is confusing, clear breach of the prose criteria. It can easily be written as '...made their UEFA European Championship debut at the 1992 European Championship, qualifying for the tournament by a narrow margin.[32]

• "Scotland failed to qualify for the FIFA World Cup in 1994 which was played in the United States finishing fourth in their qualifying group behind Italy, Switzerland, and Portugal with a record of 4 wins, 3 draws and 3 losses. This prompted the resignation of Andy Roxburgh, who had managed the team since 1986." REFERENCES! WHERE ARE THE REFERENCES!

• "The Scottish team have become famous for their travelling support". Considering its a statement based on the fans, this is a clear POV breach. Can just as easily use 'renowned' to make it sound more pro etc. Domiy (talk) 08:44, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

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)

I think this article needs semi-protection because it will always attract low-level vandalism, either good natured by Scotland fans or sometimes by England fans. I have rewritten both the intro and the section to state that it Archie Gemmill's goal is one of the best goals scored in the World Cup, for which there is several reliable sources in support. In relation to "yermaw", that was one of two edits last night that look like vandalism which have been reverted. I have rewritten the sentence re "traditional rivals" as you suggested. I have also rewritten two sentences re the 1977 match. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 18:49, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Image comments

The Image:Archie gemill1978.jpgdoes not have any FU rationale and I feel it fails WP:NFCC#8

The copyrighted Image:SFAShirtLogo.svg is used represent the team in preference to the free Image:Flag of Scotland.svg, as is used by FIFA and UEFA to represent the team, I am unconvinced that this use meets WP:NFCC#1 Fasach Nua (talk) 09:51, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

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)

Comments in reply to Fasach Nua: I have added a rationale to the Archie Gemmill goal and limited it to only his page. I think it passes point 8 for his article because it is by far the most significant moment in his career. In relation to the logo, this is consistent with all other national team articles. A flag of a nation doesn't necessarily represent the national team - indeed, in the context of Scotland, you could get some people arguing that the Union Flag is the primary flag of Scotland and should be used instead. For example, Flower of Scotland was only adopted as the team's official anthem in the 1990s. In relation to the point about the BHC, the infobox template limits the information to the world cup and the regional tournament (in this case the Euros). I don't think it is just recentism to suggest that the World and Euro tournaments are more important either, because the three tournaments ran concurrently for over 30 years and the BHC died because it didn't hold as much interest as the other tournaments. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 10:41, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

The flag of Scotland is good enough for FIFA & UEFA and is an official emblem of the team, unlike the Union Flag, the issue is why is it good enough for FIFA/UEFA to represent the team but not good enough for Wikipedia, I sympathise with you over other soccer articles having logos, but WP:WAX really isnt a good argument for an FA. Fasach Nua (talk) 10:48, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I can see what you are saying there. Television broadcasts normally use a flag to represent a team in score captions rather than the logo of the national association (or federation). I also think, however, that there are weaknesses in using national flags. Some players who have very tenuous connections with a nation end up playing for that national football team (eg Tony Cascarino). The logo does more directly represent the team concerned. The Scotland team is selected, organised and operated by employees of the Scottish Football Association, not the Scottish Government or some other public body, and the same is true of every other national team. FIFA regularly take strong measures against Governments that interfere in the operations of national teams. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 11:20, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

The flag is not just used by the Scottish government to represent Scotland, but also by FIFA and UEFA to represent the Scottish football team. If it is acceptable for FIFA and UEfA, why is it unacceptable here? Fasach Nua (talk) 12:08, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment to Fasach Nua We've been over this. This isnt why I nominated this article for review. Clearly, you have been proved wrong and diminished over this more times than anyone keeps count. Images of the flag are not sufficient in relation to the national sporting teams of that country. I'm not going to go on about this, I'm sure you've heard it all before. They are all relevant arguments. Not so much that it is OK to use copyrighted images, but clearly there is no other alternative that can symbolize the same information as the logos do. Take a look at the non-free content review page where you mentioned this, that should solve all your inquiries. You can't just go around WP stating things that have already been proved incapable and incorrect. Let the logo's go, once again, they are the only thing that symbolize the national football team. There are more important issues at hand here, this is one we can cross of the list. Domiy (talk) 11:24, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Support Featured article removal candidacy due to inappropriate use of images (criteria 3), I had hoped someone would try and justify why the standards of WP are different than either of those used by FIFA or UEFA, but alas not Fasach Nua (talk) 12:01, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Further comments on the article:

• "Scotland have qualified for several major tournaments, but have never progressed beyond the first stage of a tournament." Again, using the same word twice so often is difficult to read and sounds too constant. I suggest ending this sentence at 'stage' or you could even replace tournament with 'such'.

• "The team have achieved some famous results". Again, 'famous' is POV in this context. Sometimes even stating notable or memorable is considered downright POV, but personally I dont think so. I wouldnt mind seeing 'notable' instead of famous.

• "again.[37]." - Unnecessary full stop after the reference number.

• "Some matches, particularly friendly games, are occasionally played at a venue belonging to a Scottish Premier League team." Mentioning such a subject and then not proving further detail is diminishing. Which team is it? Don't neglect some clear facts, especially if you have already mentioned them! Might as well expand on it and finish of the statement, a lot of users would want to know which venue it is and which team it is used by!

And my initial points still stand until further fixed up! Domiy (talk) 11:24, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I believe I have rewritten the article to address your concerns. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 14:39, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I was the nominator when this article passed FAC (good job I'm active in the Football WikiProject and saw the message there, as I was not notified of this FAR). I've barely looked at it since, but it does get a fair amount of drive-by editing. I'd imagine many of the points raised can be resolved by restoring parts of the promoted version. Oldelpaso (talk) 16:30, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
  • 1. (numbers refer to Domiy's bullet points above) In the body the text referring to the goal is reference in a manner which would justify using "famous" as a summary (summary, after all, is the purpose of the lead). Unless things have changed since I last visited FAC, references from the body do not need to be referenced a second time when the information appears in the lead.
  • 3. The reference used for this in the body is entitled "A history of fierce football rivalry"...
  • 4. Sentence from promoted version restored.
  • 6. "Tense" has a completely different meaning to "daunting", and would be unsuitable as a replacement. I'd disagree about it being POV. The context makes it clear that the opponents had just become world champions. Facing the world champions can cause the courage of a team to be affected. I could put "potentially daunting" I suppose.
  • 7. It was originally said in a joking manner. It was not until years later that the "Unofficial Football World Championship" used it as their inspiration.
  • 9. Reworded.
  • Most others fixed by Jmorrison. In almost all cases, the issues were not present in the promoted version, it is drive-by editing which has caused them.
  • Fasach Nua's objection over football association logos has been raised at several different venues in the past, without gaining much support (Wikipedia:Fair use review#These Logos is one example). The football association badge is the primary form of self-identification used by the team, being the emblem borne on their shirts etc. Thus provided WP:LOGO is being followed, I see no problem. Oldelpaso (talk) 17:43, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

The use of the logos is still subject to WP:NFCC in addition to the logo guidelines. NFCC#1 states "...if one of acceptable quality is available; "acceptable quality" means a quality sufficient to serve the encyclopedic purpose", WP:NFCC#8 states "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic.". The issue is why is what is acceptable for organisations like FIFA and UEFA unacceptable for an organisation like Wikipedia, and how much does the use of this logo increase the readers understanding of the concept of a national football team. I have raised the issue at WP:FUR and with little support from editors, but no-one has justified the use of logos in these articles in terms of policy, but meerly attempted to shout down the topic on because they didnt like the idea of it and wouldn't tolerate a discussion. In my opinion the primary means of identification is the highly visible flag flown at every match as demanded by FIFA, and the blue shirts worn for a century, not some 10cmx10cm piece of embroidery that is hardly visible from a distance, Italy are called the "Azuri", not the red white and blues, Northern Ireland are "the green and white army", not the gold cross, The Republic of Ireland are "the boys in green" not the tricolours, France are called "Les Bleus", ,not the chickens, Belgium are the "Diables Rouges" not the belgian flags, Spain are called the "La Furia Roja", not the bulls, The netherlands are "Oranje" not the lions, it is clear from the fans point of view that the colour of the kit seems to be the primary means of identification, not whatever the current incarnation of the badgge is. Fasach Nua (talk) 19:30, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

England are called the Three Lions though. And in some of the cases you mention the flag doesn't represent any better than the logo, most obviously with Italy - green, white & red tricolour, but called the Blues (Azzurri). Jmorrison230582 (talk) 19:50, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Indeed England and Wales are the two exceptions, but the badge is definietly the minority view as the primary means of identification. As for "the flag doesn't represent any better than the logo", given the choice of two equal options, I would choose the free alternative per WP:NFCC#1 Fasach Nua (talk) 19:55, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

The likely outcome here is that we will agree to disagree. Nicknames are just that, not the primary means of identification. The nickname "Tartan Army" refers to the fans more than the team. The Scotland team use the FA crest to identify themselves, just look at their website, or try the Google Images test. Of course there's always the fact that if removed from the infobox, the crest could quite justifiably pop up again when it is discussed in the section about the colours and crest. Oldelpaso (talk) 21:02, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

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)

[edit] Pilot (House)

Notified: WP:TELEVISION, The Filmaker (talk · contribs)

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)

The article needs both additional citations and more sources, a majority of the information (including entire sections of the article) may be deemed completely original. I'm baffled as to how this managed to pass it's original FA review, an article requires more than just information alone. UniversalBread (talk) 23:19, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

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)

• The {{unreferencedsection}} template should be removed from the Plot Section. Plots do not need references as the source is the episode itself. Everything can be verified by watching the episode. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 22:42, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Henry Moore

Notified: Solipsist (talk · contribs), RobertG (talk · contribs), Teapotgeorge (talk · contribs), WP England, WP Yorkshire, WP Bio, WP Visual arts

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)

Tony, is your only concern cites and images, or did you read the article. My suspicion is that you came across it while brousing the arts section of the FA page looking for articles with more images that in Crown Fountain. Ceoil ^sláinte 21:54, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I have not read the article in about a year (about the time I created Man Enters the Cosmos (WP:GA)). But it has not gotten much better since then in terms of several issues. Believe me this article is well below standard. I did come across it while comparing FAs against my current FAC, but that does not mean this is any less below standard.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:57, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

ADDENDUM I have been watching problems with this article for a year and a half since I first noticed its deficiencies.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:31, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok. I always knew this would happen someday, and I suppose we might as well get it over with now. If its cites only is the prob; easily fixed. Can you calarify on this, as you have taken the responsibilty to nom for a delist. And please stop mentioning articles you've created; they have nil relevance here. Ceoil ^sláinte 22:00, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I know they have little relevance, but I feel very guilty nominating the article. I have not taken responsibility for the article. It will now be monitored by the FAR directors, AFAIK.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:25, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Accepted. Ceoil ^sláinte 23:03, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

• UK derivative works law is the key one for most of the photos; I am relieved to find this:

"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)

Just remove them. Johnbod, the gallery seems a little unweildly; could you whittle down the no of images. Ceoil ^sláinte 22:40, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Various US images removed - now a 2 row gallery, which I think is about right. But still US pics left; I need to check other countries legal situation. Johnbod (talk) 01:53, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

• I can see little wrong with this other than the lack of citations. The prose still reads well though there are a few recent additions that could be trimmed: the theft of the statue in 2005 particularly. That does not impact on Moore himself, it should be (and is copied almost verbatim) in Henry Moore Foundation.
• I think the gallery should go, a link to commons should be acceptable.
• I could probably help out with the cites, I seem to remember I picked up a few books the last time I was at the Foundation. I will try and dig them out. Regards. Woody (talk) 22:36, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Disagree re gallery. Johnbod (talk) 01:53, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

• I've always found this article to be a little dense, the article needs an infobox and some tightening. I moved one of the two lead images further down in the text to the sculpture section. I'm currently working on rewriting the image captions, and a little CE including adding a few live links. Modernist (talk) 01:12, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

The gallery seems OK to me also, it's useful. Modernist (talk) 02:59, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I added the infobox and combined the galleries..Modernist (talk) 11:03, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Looks much better now. Ceoil ^sláinte 11:56, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

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)

• Anyone who says that this article should now be graded "C class" ("useful to a casual reader, but would not provide a complete picture for even a moderately detailed study")—well, that's reason for throwing out this case without examining its merits. Whiskeydog (talk) 07:41, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ido

Most of the main body is unsourced, thus against WP:WIAFA criteria #1c. D.M.N. (talk) 15:57, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

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)

I've informed Mithridates (talk · contribs), but I don't know whether to inform WikiProject Constructed languages as it's inactive, and whether to inform WikiProject Languages as it covers a huge scope of articles. D.M.N. (talk) 16:31, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia is probably a better judge but it wouldn't hurt popping a note on the constructed languages and/or the languages pages. The article looks dormant and there may be some Ido lovers out there. --Regents Park (paddle with the ducks) 18:57, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

As a rule, notify as broadly as you can, in the hopes of snaring an editor willing to work on an article. Even inactive editors may have friends who still follow their pages. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:03, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Note: I've informed WP:Lang and WP:CL of the FAR. D.M.N. (talk) 14:34, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

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)

[edit] Katamari Damacy

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)

I've given this a first cleanup pass - cut down story and gameplay drastically and have worked out a development section. There's still more in the sales section that can be improved and fixed. --MASEM 02:33, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

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)

What information on development does it lack? Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:53, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I would say that that concern is no longer as relevant, though it was with the revision I nom'd for FAR: rev1 --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 20:15, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

More specifically, there was no development before I did a mass edit to add some. --MASEM 20:17, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

• Notified A Link to the Past, FAC nominator. —Giggy 03:57, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks. Would've been nice to have been notified of the FAR in advance by David, but hey, high expectations, I guess. - A Link to the Past (talk) 06:08, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

What issues are actually outstanding here? Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:09, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure there are sections of story and gameplay needing sourcing. Reviews can be used for that, I just haven't had time. --MASEM 14:25, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Baloney. Both are implicitly sourced to the primary source material, i.e. the game, which is an utterly fine source for identifying its own plot and gameplay. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:28, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

This generally doesn't fly anymore for FA's, at least for gameplay, which 99% of the time can be easily backed by collaborating evidence from reviews. The plot, fortunately, can also be cited as such. --MASEM 14:31, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I am appalled that that doesn't fly. Backing with evidence from reviews, given the egregiously poor editorial and ethical practices of the video game review industry, is a miserably poor idea for something that can be straightforwardly gleaned from primary sources within our policy. This is something we ought push back on. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:35, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

At worst, a review from a reliable source (meaning that some editorial oversight has been done) is better in terms of verifiability than an editor's interpretation of game mechanics or plot, when it can be done. Even sourcing the game itself or the manual is preferred over no source at all. Mind you, I agree that in most cases, plot and gameplay can stand on its own, but its clear from several recent GA/FAs that I've been through that lack of any source in gameplay and plot will be called out and questioned. --MASEM 15:04, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Right, obviously there are places where secondary sources can have a role to play. But in this specific article, I see nothing of significance in the gameplay section that seems to me to require a secondary source. That people will raise the concern seems to me beside the point - it is a needless concern that imposes undue requirements on articles, and it cannot meaningfully help improve them. It's something I think it's better to hold a firm line on. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:10, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Edward VI of England

• Notified Wikiprojects England, Biography, Christianity, Anglicanism, and User:DrKiernan

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)

I may try to add some. DrKiernan (talk) 11:03, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm cleaning the house out a bit prior to restoration—see the article's talk page. I have the books for this (Alford, Loach, MacCulloch, etc.) and am rolling up my sleeves. qp10qp (talk) 15:52, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm proceeding, but I am very very slow, so please be patient. qp10qp (talk) 22:55, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

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 [2]? DrKiernan (talk) 12:59, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Slightly different versions of the Dudley portrait exist. In books it is only ever in black and white. I don't think the lack of a source is important in this case, because I can't think of a circumstance in which this wouldn't be public domain. However, I could scan one from a book and source it to the book if a sourece is thought essential. qp10qp (talk) 14:12, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I am 100% confident that the Scrots portrait will be kept. I think the delay is that Commons are negotiating a new policy, since Jimbo Wales and some other highups recently stated that old art shouldn't be deleted on the grounds proposed in that deletion discussion. As a precaution, PKM did upload a Wikipedia version, but I can't find it: perhaps someone has deleted it on grounds of duplication. qp10qp (talk) 14:09, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Spoo

FAR 1 FAR 2

1c. There are 27 footnotes in the article. Let's break them down:

• Wikipedia:No original research states: "Wikipedia articles should rely on...secondary sources. Secondary sources are accounts at least one step removed from an event," whereas "primary sources are sources very close to the origin of a particular topic or event." 17/27 of the footnotes comprise primary sources: Internet postings by the creator of Babylon 5, Dining on Babylon 5 (a book published by Warner Brothers, the company that owns Babylon 5), TV episodes, a short film, and a song. The article, therefore, fails the requirement that articles should rely on secondary sources.

I rarely comment on a FAR but I feel that this policy must be clarified. The policy uses the word "should" which is not be confused with the word "must". The FA criteria requires reliable sources. Joelito (talk) 20:17, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Should and must are synonyms. "Wikipedia articles should rely on...secondary sources" appears in an official policy, and all FAs must abide by official policies. Punctured Bicycle (talk) 20:30, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

No they aren't. Phil Sandifer (talk) 18:33, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I must respectfully disagree on this. Joelito (talk) 20:47, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

As do I. There's a very clear difference drilled into me in High School debate team, yea these multiple decades ago. If a policy states a requirement, it must use must. In the same way, a guideline should use should. Jclemens (talk) 20:51, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

So when WP:BLP says "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons — whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable — should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion", we don't really have to follow it, since it says should instead of must? Punctured Bicycle (talk) 21:02, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

That is the way it's written, yes. Of course, there may have been a decision made to avoid the more precise language. Reasons to do so include that the use of the word 'must' seems demanding and incompatible with a volunteer project, or that the Foundation's legal counsel felt that use of the word 'must' would create legal problems for the Foundation in the event that the policies are not followed. I have no knowledge of any such considerations, however. Rather than saying that should and must are synonymous, which they are not, it might be more on point to assert that 'should' when used in an official Wikipedia policy is normative, not optative. That seems to support your point, while still avoiding unnecessary torture of the English language. :-) (disclaimer: I write policies for a living, so my usage of words in this context may be overly precise and downright arcane) Jclemens (talk) 21:42, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

That does indeed say "should" as it ought. Using "must" in that context would have the unfortunate meaning that any editor who sees such material is obliged to remove it, no matter what. Phil Sandifer (talk) 18:33, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

"Wikipedia articles should rely on...secondary sources" does not mean that "Wikipedia articles should exclude primary sources." Primary sources are legitimate sources, per WP:PSTS, the very section you're selectively quoting, and are often the best sources for a given area of coverage. You cannot use primary sources as the basis for an independent analysis of a subject (that is OR), but factual descriptions of the contents of primary sources are a vital part of our sourcing. Have you looked, for instance, at the "Plot" section of nearly every movie article on the site, including the FAs?--Father Goose (talk) 21:39, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I never said "Wikipedia articles should exclude primary sources." Of course factual descriptions of the contents of primary sources are a vital part of our sourcing—when used in conjunction with ample secondary sources. That is not the case here. Movie articles, if they truly are FA quality, will draw heavily upon secondary sources. Punctured Bicycle (talk) 22:07, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, then what you're saying is "delist, too much use of primary sources". I don't see how this in and of itself should be a reason to delist an FA. If it had no secondary sources, it would fail WP:N. (That is, depending on whether you considered "inherited notability" kosher... which is not at this time a resolved issue.)--Father Goose (talk) 00:08, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

It is obvious I haven't presented this point very effectively. My point is that once you remove the 7 citations that clearly violate WP:V and WP:NOR, as explained below, you are left only with primary sources and a few highly questionable secondary sources. The problem is not too many primary sources but rather too few, or no, good secondary sources. Solid secondary sources are the flesh and blood of this encyclopedia; although primary sources are useful in some cases, for the most part we should let the historians handle them. This, I take it, is what Jimbo means when he says "this is Wikipedians obsessed with trivia trying to be historians rather than encyclopedists" in the quote below. Punctured Bicycle (talk) 21:37, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Verifiability states: "Self-published...personal websites...forum postings...and similar sources are largely not acceptable." 3/27 of the footnotes comprise forum postings and a personal website, none of which involve J. Michael Straczynski, creator of Babylon 5.
• Wikipedia:No original research states: "Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. Synthesizing material occurs when an editor comes to a conclusion by putting together different sources. If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion, or if the sources cited are not directly related to the subject of the article, then the editor is engaged in original research." 4/27 of the footnotes comprise sources that attempt to support the conclusion "Straczynski was not the first person to use the word spoo - uses can be found in popular culture since the 1970s," but none of them explicitly reach this conclusion, and none of them are directly related to the subject of the article.
• So, 24/27 of the footnotes fail the content policies that 1c is based upon. What do the remaining 3 contain?
  • A draft of an article and a tv.com biography, which attempt to support the claim "Straczynski's use of Usenet and other internet forums is well known," a fact that, while important, is not specifically about spoo.
  • A USENET FAQ, which attempts to support the claim "The question of what spoo is made it into the major Babylon 5 FAQ," an absurdly inane fact.
  • A Lurker's Guide entry, containing the statement "The price of spoo is highly volatile: near the beginning of the episode, as Mack and Bo ate lunch, Mack claimed it cost 10 credits an ounce. At the end of the episode, he said it cost 15," which somehow has been stretched into "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. During one episode the price of a spoo sandwich is stated as ten credits an ounce; at the end of the same episode it is stated as fifteen credits. While this could be a simple mistake by Straczynski, a bit of fanon assumes that it is an intentional reference to spoo's exorbitant volatility in the market." in Wikipedia's article.
• One final thought: "The article spoo that you mention is a very good example of a specatularly horrible use of original research. This is Wikipedians obsessed with trivia trying to be historians rather than encyclopedists. This should all be nuked from the encyclopedia with extreme prejudice, in my opinion." —Jimbo Wales, creator of Wikipedia, a year after the article was featured. Punctured Bicycle (talk) 19:54, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

The article has only minor changes since the last FAR, mostly some changes to accessdates. Sourcing was addressed in previous FARs. Nothing really has changed here, so no need for a review. Gimmetrow 20:18, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comment diffs between the version of the article Jimbo criticized and today's iteration.
  • To me Jimbo's opinion has the same weight as that of any other editor on this encyclopedia. The community has decided that the article is worthy of inclusion on this encyclopedia. Joelito (talk) 20:47, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
• Remove this nomination now - The article has twice been FAR'd, there are no new issues whatsoever, and it was decided that the references used are allowable. Jimbo can have his opinion, but the people who actually build his encyclopedia have been very clear about where they stand on the issue. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:05, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Gimmetrow, Joelr31, Judgesurreal777: Consensus can change. The last FAR was a year ago. If you actually read the previous FAR, as well as the AFD, you will see that lots of people have misgivings about this article. Punctured Bicycle (talk) 21:21, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I did, I remember when they happened, and I didn't agree with the AFD or the FAR then, and I don't now. The sources are not the most optimal, but they are from the creators of the substance, and are therefore reliable. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 00:43, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

• This article has excessive non-free images. The lead image, Image:Gallery Spoo lite 2.jpg is two guys talking, with the caption that they are discussing spoo. Is it really necessary to have a picture of two characters talking about the subject? Likewise, you can barely see the spoo in Image:Midnight Spoo copy lite.jpg. Do the images in the Real-world etymology of the word section provide anything that the text does not? Pagrashtak 15:50, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Midnight_Spoo_copy_lite.jpg might be unnecessary, but the others all seem pretty justifiable. There aren't going to be free images available of a fictional subject.--Father Goose (talk) 21:32, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

That's only a small portion of the non-free content criteria. Does Image:Gallery Spoo lite 2.jpg convey signification information that Image:Spoo Close Up 3 lite.jpg does not? (3a) Does it significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic? (8) Is it impossible to convey by text alone? (1) Pagrashtak 18:00, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Have the WikiProjects/users associated with this article been notified of this FAR? I don't see a list of notifications at the top of this FAR. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 00:35, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

• My Concerns- Delist
  • Images: How do any of the images, besides those directly identifying the subject, meet WP:NFCC? Can't it be said in text Skeletor got offered Spoo?
  • WP:WAF- entire sections such as "Commodity" don't help an outside reader understand the subject, and veer into unnecessary detail
  • Sources: I have nothing against using primary sources, and have used them many times. However there needs to be a balance. Flood has 14 secondary sources. Many of Spoo's citations are more like footnotes, and several are flying in the face of WP:RS (such as current ref 23; we can't throw people at Google and just say 'it is notable, look here'.) Next to no info on creation or reception beyond fans- in other words, little to show the actual food, not the word, have relevance outside of the series.
  • Summation: Fails 1b, 1c, 3, and 4 of WP:FA?

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 01:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

• Keep listed. It is clear that this article relies on the best available sources, and that the sources available are reliable by any sane or objective measure. To declare that these sources fail to meet our criteria misses the point - this article, and I say this as a published scholar in popular culture, is well-sourced. It is we who are mistaken if we say otherwise. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:35, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Well-sourced /= reliably sourced. I could make you an excellent sourced article on the Helljumpers from the Halo series. That doesn't mean it is fit for this encyclopedia. Spoo lacks secondary reliable sources for its continued inclusion. This is a minor piece of fiction which appeared, according to the article, in only eight episodes of a series and is inherently fanbait. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 17:06, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

When you are arguing that "well-sourced" and "reliably sourced" are not synonyms, you have departed reality in favor of Wikipedia jargon-land. Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:12, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Show me how forum postings meet RS, and I'll stop considering this fancruft in need of deletion, let alone demotion. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 17:23, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Explain to me how comments by the creator and more or less sole writer of a television series aren't reliable sources. Never mind RS - if RS says that J. Michael Straczynski talking about Babylon 5 in any verifiable medium isn't a reliable source, RS is on crack. And, notably, I haven't read RS in a month or two. It's frankly irrelevant to this discussion - if it says that JMS speaking on B5 isn't a reliable source, it is transparently wrong. Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:28, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Phil, the relevant quote from WP:SPS is "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." JMS is an expert on B5. JMS' work on B5 has been published in RS. Therefore, use of JMS' SPS are RS WRT B5, QED. If we're agreed on the logic, WP:B5 members can certainly source each statement therein to everyone's satisfaction. Jclemens (talk) 20:19, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not talking about that guy as a source: it's a primary source which falls under WP:SPS as long as its verifiable. But the article has, next to no secondary sources which prove the article is notable. All I know is that the creator used the phrase once before in a show he worked for, and that fans spoofed it, and that college students used the term. That doesn't equal notable, and none of the "See Usenet posting via Google" are reliable sources and should be removed. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 17:34, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I would hope, given the contentiousness of notability and fictional subjects, that FAR would not become a frontier in that battle. Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:52, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

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)

This is neither here nor there, but it was brought here for 1c concerns, not 3. Pagrashtak 18:10, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't speak FA jargon. What are 1c and 3? Phil Sandifer (talk) 18:14, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

1c and 3 are "factually accurate" and "image" clauses of the FA criteria. Ec: "claims are verifiable against reliable sources, accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge, and are supported with specific evidence and external citations; this requires a "References" section in which sources are listed..." Ergo, we need reliable sources, of which at least five are patently not. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 18:23, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Would you be so kind as to specify what five? Phil Sandifer (talk) 18:25, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, only four (though there are more I'm not sure about.) Current refs 14, 16, 25, 13. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 19:26, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

13 and 14 seem to me trivial - they're minor references for a side point, and I don't really see them as major issues. Remove them if they offend. 16 does not bother me particularly - the Usenet post is a sufficiently reliable primary source for the basic fact that the term was used. The only bothersome claim is "earliest use," since to my knowledge Google's Usenet indexing is not complete. 25 is a non-issue, being redundant with 26, but is probably worth keeping due to its link to the primary source of the song. I'd agree with removing 13 and 14 and recasting 16 slightly, but I am unable to see how these add up to de-listing. Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:34, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm going about this the wrong way... explain to me what the significant secondary sources are which make this article notable. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 19:40, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I do not think this is an appropriate discussion given that the overall question of notability and fictional subjects is ambiguous. Delisting a FA while this is being discussed seems unwise. If nothing else, we have learned by now that we cannot effectively stem the tide of articles of this sort being created. Given that, a FA that is a genuinely good model for how to do articles of this sort seems to me a positive. Phil Sandifer (talk) 20:20, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, that was a great question. Starting with the secondary sources that provide notability will probably be the best way to improve the article. I've removed refs 13 and 14 based on the above. Pagrashtak 20:36, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I think, seeing this discussion and looking at the article again, the references that do exist are very poorly done, they are much more like notes and not actual references; they say what happens in the episode they reference, instead of citing the actual episode, for example. Proper formatting and fixing this aspect will give us a much better idea of what is a reference and what is not. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:39, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

• Found a new secondary source: Babylon 5 The Role Playing Game It's secondary, but not independent. Doesn't have preview enabled, so we can't see the depth of the coverage. Anyone got a copy? Jclemens (talk) 22:40, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
  • A Babylon 5 role playing game rulebook written by the creator falls under primary. Punctured Bicycle (talk) 21:40, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
    • JMS did not write the role playing game. He's credited on the cover as the creator of B5, and the book uses quotes from the series. It may have an intro by him, but he is not the writer of the rulebook. Phil Sandifer (talk) 21:49, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
      • Regardless of who wrote it, this is not the kind of source we are looking for. We are looking for reliable secondary sources; for example, objective articles written by pop culture historians that might, say, detail how spoo has had an impact of society. Of course, spoo is so insignificant that these kinds of sources don't actually exist. Punctured Bicycle (talk) 22:06, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
        • There's ample evidence that "Spoo" has significant impact within the fandom of a popular and acclaimed television series - such that it appears regularly in materials marketed to said fans, both by JMS and otherwise. When you say "impact of society" you seem, basically, to be creating an "I don't like it" argument. The impact provided, it seems, is not important enough for you. Phil Sandifer (talk) 22:20, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
          • Phil, this is the issue. The article is not demonstrating an impact, critical, cultural, or otherwise. Can you show what current references support your impact theory? (dino-nerd inside joke, ignore it) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 22:39, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
            • For me, the cookbook, RPG, Babylon Park, and Luke Ski references show meaningful impact within B5 and sci-fi fandom. Phil Sandifer (talk) 23:03, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
              • Setting aside the cookbook, neither Babylon Park or Luke Ski's articles demonstrate notability, so I don't think they can be used to bolster the notability of spoo. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 17:16, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
                • Um. What? How do they not demonstrate notability? Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:19, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
• Um, they too don't have secondary sources. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 17:24, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
  • ... And? WP:N does not specify that the sources establishing notability much again be notable. Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:29, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
    • GNG requires secondary and reliable sources. If there's no assertion that Luke Ski is important, how can his writing a song that contained 'spoo' also be important enough to merit an article on Spoo? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 17:46, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
      • Is Luke Ski a primary source on Spoo? Clearly not. Is he a reliable source for the claim being made - that this song from B5 fandom makes mention of Spoo? Clearly. Does this provide support for the central claim of notability - that Spoo is significant within B5 and sci-fi fandom? It certainly seems so. Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:51, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
        • How is Luke Ski clearly a reliable source for the claim or otherwise? If he's not notable, then the fact he made the song cannot be used as a claim for notability. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 03:35, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
          • Please point to a passage in any policy or guideline page that supports the view that the reliable secondary sources used to establish notability must also be independently notable. Phil Sandifer (talk) 04:05, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
• Please see the WP:FAR instructions, votes to delist or keep the article are not declared in the review phase of this FAR. You can ask that this FAR be moved to Featured article removal candidates. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 16:33, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Blues

Notified Vb, WP Music genres, WP African diaspora, WP Media, WP Chicago, WP Illinois and WP Music.

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)

• Delist The article is quite informative and detailed, but it does need quite a bit of research in terms of finding WP:RS for all of the information.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:02, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

  Please see the WP:FAR instructions, delist or keep are not declared in the review phase. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:59, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

• This is a very good article that is also an important one. Many articles link to it and depend on the information being relevant and well sourced. The article lacks reference citations for many statements and also treats some hypothesis as facts. I think some work, especially with the sourcing (and removal of information without solid sources), could fairly quickly return this article to a status deserving of FA. I don't think its deficiencies are fatal. —Mattisse (Talk) 18:10, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Image problems

• Image:RobertJohson.png is missing a fair-use rationale for use in this article. It is also arguable whether its use here can be justified.
• The licensing is confused on Image:Okahumkee-On-The-Ockl.jpg: it has a public domain tag plus a CC tag as well as saying it's copyrighted and used with permission.
• Image:Muddy1.png has no fair use rationale for use in this article. Again, doubtful that its use is justified (at one extreme of the debate it's just a black man holding a guitar).
• Licensing is confused on Image:Svaughan.jpg: it says copyright of Scott Newton, and "Weselex Depository Rights Reserved", in addition to a PD tag. The original upload was copyright Lloyd Litt.
• Image:Rhapsody in Blue cover.png lacks a fair use rationale for use in this article.
• Image:Tajmahalblues.jpg has three licenses; it should only have one. DrKiernan (talk) 12:53, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Geology of the Zion and Kolob canyons area

Notified WikiProject Utah, WikiProject Geology and Mav.

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)

Was promoted to FA at a time when inline cites were not needed. I'll add them and perform a copyedit to bring this to current FA standards. --mav (talk) 16:23, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

"Wouldn't pass GA" is not an argument, and it sounds quite pompous. This rhetorical tone ("not a single inline citation"), adopted too often by FAR "introducers", does not exactly promote an environment in which one would want to assist the process. What a delight it would be if FAR actually required more than two cut-and-paste sentences for someone to initiate the process. Whiskeydog (talk) 02:15, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

If I were reviewing this article in its current state for GA, I would most certainly fail it. As such, we cannot have FAs that are of lesser quality than GAs, so that is a perfectly legitimate argument. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 14:28, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

For the record I was not offended by Juliancolton's comment. This article legitimately was found to be one of the best of Wikipedia back in 2004. However, standards have increased (esp in regards to inline cites) since then, prompting a need to upgrade the referencing and MoS compliance of this article. That our standards have increased is a good thing. --mav (talk) 00:08, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Many inline cites added; more to come. --mav (talk) 02:00, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - Well, obviously Mav is adding some, so Julian please be patient. I understand and realize that the article is not Fa quality, but trust me, it will be. Mav has 20 fas under his belt. He will get it done. --Meldshal42? 23:48, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes, I see that Mav is working hard at it. My suggestion is to use some references other than the Harris book. Once the referencing is done, the next major step is to cut down on some images. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 00:06, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
    • See below. Text to image balance will be much better once the article is expanded, negating any need to remove images. --mav (talk) 03:04, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

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)

[edit] Bank of China (Hong Kong)

Notified WP Companies, WP Business, ‎ WP China, WP Hong Kong and Juntung.

Lacking inline citations, outdated (most as of dates are dated), and MoS cleanup needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:01, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree. This article needs major work. There was another major restructuring of the bank in 2005 or possibly 2006 that is not mentioned at all. --Patrick (talk) 01:13, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

At current condition, it won't even meet the criteria for GA. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 02:14, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Needs more work, i agree with OhanaUnited --Itemirus (talk) 08:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Canon T90

Notified WikiProject Photography and Morven. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:06, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Though informative, this article has a few issues:

• 1a. A few minor problems; the tone is rather inconsistent and needs to be made more professional.
• 1c. It has a glaringly short "Notes" section, with only 13 inlines, and many sections do not have citations. It would be good to incorporate some of the references from the "References" section as inline citations.
• 2b. A bit too many sections.

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)

• Hmm. Is that last line a piece of boilerplate? Three criticisms does not equal 'major rewrite' to me. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:31, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
• I'll be working on the references to get them to 2008 standard, though; this was what was the standard in 2005 when only major sections or controversial points got inline refs. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:36, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
• Too many sections? I'm not sure I agree; they're all multiple paragraphs and I think combining any would reduce the readability of the text. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:41, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

  It needs a bit of MoS cleanup after you finish the citing work, but I don't see the "too many sections" issue at all. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:06, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sesame Street

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:

• Plenty of red links
• "Funding" and "Characters" sections are almost entirely unsourced
• {{Fact}} template in "Live characters" and "rumors and urban legends"
• "Regional variations" also unsourced

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)

• Notified WikiProject Television and User:WordyGirl90. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 21:48, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

• Red links are not at opposition with featured status and are not a valid objection at FAR or FAR, unless they are, for example, to articles unlikely to meet notability. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:16, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

• Ah. Some of them looked like they would stay red, though. Also, I removed a link that pointed to the wrong person; it was pointing to a Mad magazine contributor named George Woodbridge, who was not the same George Woodbridge involved with the show. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 23:39, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

• Agree, this is no longer an FA class article. The vast majority of it is unsourced, with only a spattering of references in each section. The lead doesn't summarize the article well. The article doesn't follow the Television MoS well (sections out of order and all over the place), nor the Wikipedia MoS, with basic errors in heading names, organization, the infobox, etc. The characters and cast sections are very disorganized and messy looking. The list in regional variations seems unnecessary when it already has an entirely separate list, much less two. The "Rumors and urban legends" seems entirely unnecessary. Relevant content should be merged to other sections. The criticsm section shows a lack of neutrality as it is not part of an overall reception section, and the only other reception info given is a much briefer ratings section. Its awards are relegated to a see also without so much as a lead, and no corresponding positive reviews are given at all. The reference section includes unsourced commentary. For the actual references, I saw at least to references to the Muppet wiki and one to a personal Tripod website! Quite a few others are missing basic information and refer to log in only articles on EBSCOhost. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:03, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
• Agree to delist Delist - many unsourced facts and prose is kind of below FA standards. miranda 01:41, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Declarations to delist or keep aren't made in the review phase. Nousernamesleft (talk) 17:25, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Several issues in the article:

First paragraph in "Overview" needs to be better worded for prose flow.

Paragraph one and paragraph two are unsourced.

History of the show - one cite for the section. One external link.

"Rumors and Urban Legends" - OR?

"Featured Films" - unreferenced

If delisted, this article needs a B rating. miranda 20:37, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

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)

[edit] Benjamin Mountfort

The following notifications have been left: [3], [4]. [5], [6], [7], [8] --Falcorian ^(talk) 17:20, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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) 16:28, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah yes, I'll add a note up top. --Falcorian ^(talk) 17:20, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

• after a quick review the only issues really seem to be inline citations. I don't have access to the referenced books, so can't do the ref formating. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 18:24, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

This is not my area of expertise, but let me know if there are specific items you want me to check out in New Zealand libraries. However, I'm in Auckland, some of the material may only be available in Christchurch, so you might need to recruit some help from down there. User:Alan Liefting and User:Evil Monkey may be able to help with such materials.-gadfium 21:55, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll get a copy of A Dream of Spires tomorrow. I can look at The Gothic Beauties (but not the first edition of 1929, only the 1941, 1950 or 1963 editions) but it isn't available for loan, so I'll need specific details on what needs to be looked up.-gadfium 22:03, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

• You three have just nearly restored my faith in wikipedia - what! 3 editors all working out where to get the books and who may help! fantastic stuff, more power to your elbow :-) --Joopercoopers (talk) 23:34, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I've found a biography in the Dictionary of New Zealand Biography - I'm not sure how much that'll help. Snippets of his work are also available in Sir Banister Fletcher's a History of Architecture. I'll begin adding citations from the former right away, if no one minds. Nousernamesleft (talk) 01:21, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

NB: I've added comments in spots in the text where the citation I have doesn't discuss the fact or disputes the fact. It would be appreciated if others could verify or debunk the statements. Nousernamesleft (talk) 01:36, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I've now got A Dream of Spires, and I'll see what I can add to the article with it tomorrow.-gadfium 06:17, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

That's good; I can't seem to find anything except the two I mentioned and the Christchurch reference already provided. The DZNB reference contradicts what the article says in several places, so I'll be needing a third source to determine which version of the events is true. Banister Fletcher doesn't provide much, I'm afraid. Nousernamesleft (talk) 17:21, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I'm having trouble with the following statement: "...[The Pilgrims] have their names engraved on marble plaques in Cathedral Square, Christchurch, in front of the cathedral that Mountfort helped to design." I've looked everywhere, and I can see nothing that even vaguely alludes to this. Is it in The Dream of Spires? Nousernamesleft (talk) 20:11, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

No, as far as I can see it isn't in Dream of Spires (but I'd have to read every word and every footnote to be absolutely sure), however I found a Christchurch City Council page about all the plaques in the city, and from there a page about this one.[9]-gadfium 08:58, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I've hit upon a goldmine: [10] - this will easily reference much of the article, I suspect, though scrolling through it and waiting for it to download is incredibly irritating. Nousernamesleft (talk) 16:03, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

• Main contributor has requested the removal of date-autoformatting. I've obliged. (It's now optional.) Tony (talk) 02:13, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

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)? DrKeirnan (talk) 09:29, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

The church pictured is clearly St Augustine's, designed by Mountfort and pictured in "A Dream of Spires", p 191, although it has had additional structures added since the 1872 photo shown there. I think the description of it as St Patrick's is erroneous; that appears to be a different church, although I cannot find the image you refer to in ATL - they don't appear to make searching by ref no easy.-gadfium 10:10, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, should have provided a link. The correct source and author information should be added to Image:St Augustine's. Waimate. NZ.jpg and Image:Christchurch Cathedral (1).jpg. DrKiernan (talk) 08:45, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Helicobacter pylori

User:AxelBoldt, Wikipedia:WikiProject Microbiology, User:TimVickers, User:GrahamColm, User:Jfdwolff notified

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)

• Agree - the prose contains some odd constructions and word usages in places. Luckily this is fairly straightforward and I have started tweaking it but there is a way to go yet. It would be good to save such an article. The references need proper formatting and more definitely need adding. Also, I suspect a little more could be added on the bacterium itself.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Casliber (talk • contribs) 23:07, 1 August 2008

• Mostly a great article, a pleasure to read. But I do have some comments, and think it merits another look.
  • Short lead.
  • I find this sentence to be confusing: H. pylori's helix shape (from which the genus name is derived) is thought to have evolved to penetrate and favor its motility in the mucus gel layer. Penetrate what?
  • from mucosal specimens from human stomachs Could this be put into plainer language?
  • The paragraph beginning Before the appreciation of the bacterium's role is unreferened.
  • is that is produced by other intestinal bacteria correct (i.e., is H. pylori considered intestinal)?
  • Some of the info under Structure is not about structure (e.g. the oxygen material).
  • The apparent contradiction brought up on the talk page about the reduced stomach acidity should be explained or addressed.

I have to go for now but I'll be back with more. delldot talk 14:37, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

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 comments:
  • Under Colonization: An example of this is the Lewis b antigen. An example of what? Possibly An example of such an adhesin?

More later. delldot talk 17:00, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

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:

• • Heavy reliance on primary sources. Reviews should be found to replace these where possible.
  • While some favorable evidence has been accumulated, the theory is not universally accepted -- not really clear what this refers to. Also, this paragraph flows poorly from the last one. Why am I suddenly reading about cancer? How does it relate to the rest of the section?
  • Even biopsy is dependent on the location of the biopsy. -- Choppy, awkward sentence.
  • The info on rates of infection in the West and Third World should go in an Epidemiology section, not diagnosis.
  • Define unfamiliar terms like atrophic.
  • Refs should be consistent: periods after authors' initials, capital letters in article titles, full page range (4888–4891) or abbreviated (4888–91), periods after abbreviated journal titles (Aliment. Pharmacol. Ther.) or none (Dig Dis Sci).
  • All instances of the genus & species name should be italicized.

More to follow. delldot talk 20:03, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

More:

• • It has been proposed that H. pylori induces inflammation and locally high levels of TNF-alpha and/or interleukin 6 -- perhaps explain the difficult terms, e.g. locally high levels of the inflammatory proteins TNF-alpha and/or interleukin 6. Also, and/or is discouraged by MOS.
  • Acid reflux and esophageal cancer is a tiny subsection all by itself. I'd get rid of it, but it's referenced above with an "explained below".
  • The last paragraph under Genome studies lost me. Any chance of making it less technical or explaining difficult terms?
  • Bacterial strains that have the cagA gene are associated with an ability to cause severe ulcers doesn't make sense.
  • I would suggest a restructuring of the article, with two main parts: the first half should be about the bacterium itself (e.g. structure, genome studies) and the second part about infection. If we change Colonization to Colonization and infection, we could convert Causes of infection, Diagnosis of infection, Treatment of infection to lvl 3 headers: Causes, Diagnosis, and Treatment (the cancer section would also be a level 3 under Infection). On the other hand, this would be a massive section.
  • I'm not sure about the comprehensiveness. So 2/3 of the world is infected? In that case, what are the usual characteristics of infection?

That's it from me. delldot talk 20:45, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Here are my issues:

• Lead is too short and does not summarize the whole article.
• Citations are done improperly, although I've fixed many of them.
• References are lacking from a number of statements.
• Prose is difficult to read. There are too many areas where repetition has occurred.
• The treatment section gives too much weight to natural treatments that are far from proven to do anything positive.
• Editors have cleaned up the see also and external links section. Those were a mess.

Hopefully more editors will get involved so more people will watch the articles. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:11, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Is there an MOS for microbiology articles? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 05:12, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

• Images: I took a quick look at them, added info tags etc. I think everything is ok, but I'd prefer someone more experienced with images take a look at
  • Image:Helicobacter Pylori Urease.png as it is showing Protein database as the source with the note of Online and printed resources are welcome to include PDB data and images from the Structure Explorer pages, as long as they are not for sale as commercial items themselves. Does that eliminate wikipedia requiring only non-commercial. I've also uploaded the en.wiki copy on top of the commons copy as they were two marginally different files uploaded.
  • Image:EMpylori.jpg and Image:Pylorigastritis.jpg are showing as Copyrighted free use from http://info.fujita-hu.ac.jp/~tsutsumi/index.html. Are we to assume based on the upload or that this has passed FA in the past that this is legitimate. I don't see anything on the website to expressly indicate a PD release or any indication of an e-mail. -Optigan13 (talk) 05:13, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

• Minor procedural note, can you post who you notified. I can't tell anymore since the FAR has already generated a bunch of edits. -Optigan13 (talk) 05:38, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

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)

[edit] John Bull (locomotive)

Notified Trains Portal, Trains Project, and User Slambo.

This article was promoted to FA status in December 2004 and has not been reviewed. The article may have met the FA criteria back then, but it doesn't meet the current criteria. Criterion 1(c) seems to be the biggest problem for this article. There has been a "nofootnotes" tag on it since May. Halgin (talk) 00:20, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I've been meaning to get back to this to add footnotes for some time. I guess now is the time to get to it. B-) Slambo (Speak) 10:25, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm working on this now. I couldn't get to it over the weekend as it was my wedding anniversary, but I'll be putting some time into this during the week. Slambo (Speak) 11:32, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Much of the early history is now footnoted to multiple independent references. Work has slowed now because I'm looking for my copies of the books in my collection about this locomotive. I found a few New York Times articles about the 1931 and 1981 operation events, but they're behind an archive fee so I haven't added them yet. Slambo (Speak) 16:04, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I found my copy of the book by John White and added the remaining footnotes to the main text. I'm still looking through the books in my personal library as well as at books available online and at my local city library for more reference material (and that's not mentioning the various magazines and historical journals that I have yet to look at again), so there may be more footnotes still yet to come. But, I think it should satisfy now. Slambo (Speak) 02:38, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Since there has been no response either here, on the article talk page or on my talk page, I've requested that the review nominator return to review the changes. Slambo (Speak) 22:34, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

This is the first article I have asked for a review of. Thanks for the Message on my talk page. I was not sure if you were done. I will review the changes. Can you drop some information on the New York Times articles. If provide the information to support the statement in the summary or title you should add them. If not maybe if we can find another source. If someone else wants to review it also that would be good. Halgin (talk) 01:10, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I added some “citation needed” in some places. Maybe some of the technical information in the Intro box should be referenced also. I don’t have access to the References books, so I can’t check them. I assume that the information above them is supported. I have not checked the one online book. The article says that in 1939” It was then placed in somewhat permanent display back in the East Hall where it remained for the next 25 years.” But then its states “make its final public appearance outside the Smithsonian for another 39 years.” When was the Century of Progress exhibition in Chicago 1933–1934 or 1939? The article states both. Halgin (talk) 00:12, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Cool, I'll get onto those today. For the sections about the locomotive's museum displays, the information is all in John White's book (I have a copy in my collection). 1939 appears next to the phrase "Century of Progress" on page 46, but 1939 refers to the New York World's Fair. I've fixed it in the article (good catch). Slambo (Speak) 11:06, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

The flagged statements are all referenced, and I also found and fixed an incorrect reference URL. I plan to further address your concerns later today. Slambo (Speak) 11:23, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

My concerns about the references have been addressed. Halgin (talk) 21:51, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Images

• Image:John Bull.jpg: missing source and author.
• Image:John Bull at the Columbian Exposition-2.jpg: missing source and author.
• Image:John Bull at the Smithsonian, 1920.jpg: See http://lcweb.loc.gov/rr/print/res/100_hory.html and the media file at the Library of Congress: http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.pnp/thc.5a48124 "Publication may be restricted." DrKiernan (talk) 13:32, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Other experienced editors have helped to list reliable sources and proper license tags for all three images. As all three were published in the United States before 1923, they fall into the public domain. Slambo (Speak) 10:51, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm still concerned over Image:John Bull at the Smithsonian, 1920.jpg, as the Library of Congress says it could have been taken "ca. 1950", if that's the case the US-1923 tag would not apply. DrKiernan (talk) 14:37, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure it said 1920 when I added it to the article. However, even if it was later, [11] asserts "The photographs Theodor Horydczak made for his own use or for the government are in the public domain." That page also says that any client information on work-for-hire images would be stored in the catalog records with the image. I don't see anything obvious on [12] or the associated MARC record that would indicate that this would have been a work-for-hire (there is no lot number or client name listed in either location). Slambo (Speak) 15:27, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Featured article removal candidates

Place the most recent review at the top. If the nomination is just beginning, place under Featured Article Review, not here.

[edit] Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs

[edit] Review commentary

Notifications to Rad Racer and WP Drug Policy

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)

I second all of the above. I was about to nominate this for FAR as well when I came across this article. --Allstar86 (talk) 08:08, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

• I agree. Not even close. None of the refs are formatted properly, no real inline citations to speak of, choppy/list-y prose, et cetera. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 22:02, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Image problems

• Image:Opium harvesters3.jpg: source is a dead link. Can we be sure it's a DEA picture?
• Image:Grizlov 139.jpeg: source is a dead link. No evidence that Rosbalt news agreed to the image's use.
• Image:Opium-processing.jpg: source is a dead link.
• Image:En incb.gif source is a dead link. No evidence that the copyright holder has released the image into the public domain.
• Image:ECOSOC meeting.jpg: no specific source cited. No evidence that the copyright holder has released the image into the public domain. (Indeed, most if not all UN sites have "All rights reserved" at the bottom.) DrKiernan (talk) 13:13, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are formatting and MoS (2), referencing (1c), and images (3). Marskell (talk) 16:54, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

• Remove Numerous concerns remain unaddressed. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 20:05, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ammolite

[edit] Review commentary

Notified WP Alberta, Gemology and Jewelry, Hadal and Rmhermen‎.

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)

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)

[edit] FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are referencing (1c) and images (3). Marskell (talk) 16:53, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] W. Mark Felt

[edit] Review commentary

Have Notified:

• PedanticallySpeaking - the editor who originally nominated this article;
• WikiProjectBiography Here;
• WikiProjectFBI Here; and
• WikiProjectLawEnforcement Here

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[13] and here[14].

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))

Alright, so the main issues here are factual accuracy (FA criterion 1c) and comprehensiveness (FA criterion 1b), correct? Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 12:58, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, yes, thanks, that's correct. (Morethan3words (talk) 08:02, 26 July 2008 (UTC))

This might also need overhauled per 2C. I think we should avoid using ibid in case paragraphs get moved. Not all the references appear to have actually been used (though they would be useful for future researchers). I don't know what the citation guidelines actually say and am basing this on my instincts... Does someone knowledgeable about this know what all actually ought to be fixed? --JayHenry (talk) 01:44, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

• I was reviewing a different PedanticallySpeaking FAR, and stumbled across this on his talk page. This is an issue I know something about. Gray and Dean's arguments should be noted, but it's important to bear in mind that Dean was Nixon's lawyer and Gray his FBI director and as such they are possibly the earth's least-unbiased people on this issue, after only Nixon. Further, they had published their own theories that were contradicted by Felt and Woodward. Their points should nonetheless be noted, but Gray and Dean do not by themselves reflect the "historical thinking".
• The article does need some updating, but it does not need overhauled. Neither doubts that Felt was an off-the-record source for Woodward and very little of the article depends on whether it was Felt or Donald Santarelli that gave a specific piece of information. (It's already acknowledged by all parties that other anonymous sources were used in the reporting.) Needs updating on a few other points as well. --JayHenry (talk) 00:25, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Just a quick note in response. Of course it's worth noting who the writers are on this particular issue, but in that light it's worth noting not just who they were, but who they currently are. In Gray's case, it wasn't actually Pat Gray who discussed the Mark Felt/Deep Throat issue in his autobiography, but his son Ed who had done the research (and subsequently wrote the last chapter on the issue). And as for Dean, he has made becoming an expert on the Watergate era as a way of kind of atoning for the whole affair, and as such has been praised for his fairness, impartiaility and knowledge in his writing on the time period. Although, I think the most important thing to note on this is that, in both cases, the writers use Woodward's own records to draw their conclusions, and in Gray's case referencing Woodward's notes against the FBI investigation files. Furthermore, these conclusions are really more of an attack on Woodward, and not so much on Felt, so any perceived bias against Felt is almost beside the point.

Of course the conclusions by these two writers do not yet constitute a consensus on historical thinking regarding Felt/Deep Throat. But then, it's also worth noting that there is still more to be revealed in this regard. Woodward's publicized notes only cover 3 of the 17 conversations with Deep Throat indicated in All The President's Men, once the remaining notes are publicized, more writers will scrutinize Woodward further, and it is likely more criticisms and/or questions will come up.

What I am suggesting is not that the article be orverhauled, per se, but that the sections that refer to the conversations and information about Deep Throat provided in All The President's Men, simply be amended to refer to Woodward meeting with/talking to Deep Throat, as opposed to Felt. Furthermore some statements, perhaps in a new section, that discuss the composite character theory and its persistence beyond 2005. (Morethan3words (talk) 10:32, 2 August 2008 (UTC))

Yeah, that sounds completely reasonable. I think we're on the same page--I just wanted to make sure of that before diving in :) I'll start chipping away at this in a couple days. Does anyone have any thoughts about what to do with that reference section? --JayHenry (talk) 16:45, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

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))

Image The author is missing from Image:MarkFelt.jpg. How can we be sure that it is a work of the federal government? DrKiernan (talk) 13:51, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are factual accuracy (1c) and comprehensiveness (1b). Marskell (talk) 16:52, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

• Remove per 1b and 1c. The article has not improved since the FAR began. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 16:52, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
• Remove per 1b x 2 and 1c, same reasoning as above. (Morethan3words (talk) 06:54, 19 August 2008 (UTC))

[edit] Hydrochloric acid

[edit] Review commentary

Notified WikiProject Chemicals, Wimvandorst, Cacycle, Edgar181, Walkerma, Physchim62.

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)

Please be more specific, otherwise you will only be creating WikiDrama, not helping to improve articles. Physchim62 (talk) 15:39, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I thought the same when I saw the very brief nomination, but after looking at the article I think the nominator is right. The article is almost completely unreferenced, and there is absolutely no chance that it would pass a featured article candidacy today in its current form. --Itub (talk) 15:47, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Physchim62, I thought it was pretty self-explanatory. FA criterion 1c: "(c) factually accurate: claims are verifiable against reliable sources, accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge, and are supported with specific evidence and external citations; this requires a "References" section in which sources are listed, complemented by inline citations where appropriate;" This article is almost completely unreferenced, therefore it fails 1c. Regarding your edit summary, I keep my comments brief. I've written two lines for other FAR noms and no one else has complained. Perhaps you should take a look at WP:FAR. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 15:55, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I've been thinking to nominate this for a review since putting it on my watchlist some months ago, but have been hesitant due to the fact that nominators are asked to provide help in improving the article. That said, the one area that should be completely referenced is the History section. I believe just by having looked over the rest of the article that it is easily verifiable (college textbooks and what not should serve) and should have inline references as per the nomination.

I would also say the prose could be spruced up, for what little there is of it. --Izno (talk) 16:50, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

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)

• Yes, the article could do with some grooming. All paragraphs are properly referenced in the style of 2005 FA requirements, which indeed needs a change-over to more modern in-line refs. I'll give it some attention in the near future. Due to the vacationing, I'm actually now off-Wiki for another fortnight (having a great non-wiki time), so herewith I kindly ask the FAR processor to keep this FAR open for an extended period. Wim van Dorst (talk) 18:59, 5 August 2008 (UTC).

[edit] FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concern is referencing (1c). Marskell (talk) 16:50, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

• Remove per 1c. My concerns have not been addressed yet. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 16:51, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Eifel Aqueduct

[edit] Review commentary

Notified WP Germany and WP Architecture, principle editor no longer active.

A 2004 promotion, this article is lacking citations and needs a MOS tuneup and images check. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:35, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Untouched since nominated, move to FARC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:49, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are referencing (1c), MoS (2), and images (3). Marskell (talk) 13:12, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

• In my view, the only suspect image is Image:Logo roemerkanal wanderweg.jpg, which may come under the guidance at Wikipedia:Logos. DrKiernan (talk) 13:21, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

• When the article first came up for review, I searched my architecture and ancient history books for references and found none. The web seems to have nothing either, although my searching talents are pathetically lacking as I am a book person. Could it possibly have a more common alternative name? —Mattisse (Talk) 17:41, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

  One hit on Google Books for "Eiffel Aqueduct",[15] nine for "Eifel Aqueduct".[16] Jappalang (talk) 22:27, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Cantos

[edit] Review commentary

Notified the nominator and main contributor User talk:Filiocht, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Poetry, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Books‎ and Wikipedia talk:Version 0.5‎.

1(c) Needs more in-line citations for quotations and opinions. Also some of the sections seem a little lengthy. Pictures seem small which shouldn't take as long to sort out as the inlines which will take quite a lot of work. Tom (talk) 15:32, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment in-line citations are an issue fair enough, but luckly some strong online sources have been left in the "References" section. I deforced the picture sizes (about 4 seconds work), but is "some of the sections seem a little lengthy" really any reason to remove a featured article. Do you mean the article is too lenghty to get through, or it strays off topic in areas, or it needs to be broken in sub-sections. Ceoil 19:45, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

had put 'lengthy' point as an additional thought but you're right that it is not a reason for removing so have struck and thanks for sorting images. Tom (talk) 17:20, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment About a year ago I raised some concerns I had with The Cantos on its talk page (and I almost nominated it here then). I, like the nominator, thought that, to reach current FAC standards, the article should have better inline citations and structural issues. As I noted in my criticisms then, the very flat structure of the article makes it difficult to navigate and daunting to approach; there is little concentrated discussion of the work as a whole; also, some of the subsections are way too large. Please see the extended discussion that has already taken place under the heading "Sorely lacking". -- Rmrfstar (talk) 20:39, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

The wisest Wikipedians will fix the mising images to this version [17] and then preserve it for posterity. This is my one and only comment on this ludicrous nomination. Giano (talk) 20:47, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Rmr, I would'nt go as far as 'lacking' but you do have a point. My openion is that its a fine article that needs a small amount of though and work (structural issues can often be fixed using ctr/c ctr/v!), and inlines. Some of the prose reads as essayish - The most striking feature of the text, to a casual browser, is the inclusion of Chinese characters as well as quotations in European languages other than English, but again a ce can fix that with a few days effort. I'd be hopeful for this one; lots of sources, and well, it was written by Filiocht, so its quality is a given, IMO. ( Ceoil ^sláinte 21:59, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't know how else to say this, so I will be completely blunt: this article is probably one of the best that Wikipedia has to offer, and an article of this scope should be approached, first and foremost, on the basis of content, and not form. That questions over this article should be raised over inline citations is akin to discussing Abraham Lincoln's presidency in terms of his acne. Nandesuka (talk) 04:22, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I do not think this article is necessarily doomed; but for it to remain an FA, people need to fix the problems, not ignore them. Calling this nomination "ludicrous" or this article "one of the best", does not in any way address the serious concerns brought forth, that in its current state, The Cantos is illegibly structured and not verifiable. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 09:07, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Its very early days yet though, mrfstar; and its just the way of FAR that words like thoes get tossed around. Rather than get bogged down on these things, maybe just focus on actionable issues. ( Ceoil ^sláinte 02:01, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

• Move to FARC Way too much original research. The language style seems more like a critic at a news paper giving his opinion, dropping a few names, and lacking any in-depth critical approach. I'm surprised it hasn't been given the "essay" tag, since it reads like a freshman term paper. Grammar errors and run on sentences are through the roof. This needs to be removed, since it would require more than a month of work to bring it up to par. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:08, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, with the amount of critical review and interpretation, there should be at least 40 sources for references. Those given do not represent an adequate portion of critical theory, let alone the main stream theory behind the Cantos. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:11, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Please see the WP:FAR instructions; the review period is at least two weeks; moving to FARC is not an option one day into the review. The purpose of the review is to identify issues and discuss improvements. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:25, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Nandesuka on this; it is a damn fine article, with or without inlines, and other issues can be fixed without too much effort, and IMO the addition or not of footnotes is just a small detail. The "concerns" about inlines are formalism concern only as its not doubted that anything in the article is untrue. Structural problems can be resolved, and the language style Ottava mentions just needs a few hours copyediting to rectify. I'm going to commit to this, but I'd hope that the argument here is more constructive than principaled. ( Ceoil ^sláinte 01:44, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Fine article? The sentence structure is horridly sloppy and reads like a report. There is nothing academic in the actual page, let alone something useful. Cliffnotes has a better summary than the page. I wouldn't want any of my stdents to use it as a critical resource. The whole page needs to be deleted and started from scratch. There is nothing worth salvaging. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:27, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Added - excessive amounts of red links. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:42, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

A thats a little harsh, Ottava! Deleted? Ppfff, come on man. You have to admit at least it has nice pictures ;) Ceoil 11:16, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

What happened with the Samuel Johnson page is it required a lot more work later to purge all the inconsistencies and strange things left in. Language like "The most striking feature of the text, to a casual browser" is strange on multiple levels, with the abrupt pausing/asides, with the dramatic claims to knowledge, and the lack of really telling anything explanatory about the piece. Then the next line follows with, "Recourse to scholarly commentaries is almost inevitable for a close reader", which is obvious that any close reader would use scholarly commentary (unless they didn't care). However, it doesn't actually say why they would need it. Thats another problem that I forgot to mention - the paragraphs tend to operate on a logical progression that leaves out a lot, as if they assume a certain audience that comes in with that piece of information. It is almost a "wink wink, nudge nudge" in words. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:02, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Work is underway Rima, or at least will be soon. So you dont have to judge it at this stage; wait until it gets to FAR/C. Now is the time for offering constructive suggestions only, or editing directly as you did earlier. ( Ceoil ^sláinte 15:10, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I thought this was the FAR? Wasn't it moved up to the top because it moved on? Or perhaps I am just confused. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:55, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Your confused ;0 First stage (FAR) comments, bitching and cat fighting; second satge (FAR/C) voting, moaning and groaning. ( Ceoil ^sláinte 16:40, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I thought I was clear when I said I doubt that it could be completely recoverable without deleting a large amount of text and starting over. :) Remember, if it does fix everything, then it wont be the same page as it was before, or even close. Plus it will take a long time. Either way, the page it was wont exist, so, it will be removed one way or the other. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 16:54, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

• Ottava, please note that declarations of "Remove" and "Keep" are not made in this section. FAR aims to assist in the improvement/updating of FAs, and if at all possible should be a positive process. I find your angle negative and combative, especially given the expertise of at least one of its main contributors, who made a comment further up. I note that your strong assertions come without supporting detail. At this stage, they can't be taken seriously. I'm sorry to speak firmly, but I think you're misconstruing the aims and the tone of this process. Please provide specific examples and details if you intend to persist in your critiqueing. Not happy. Tony (talk) 16:57, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Ottava: "a long time": you got that right. So what, its worth it. Ceoil 17:06, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Tony1, the policy of Wikipedia requires consensus, which means that all opinions must be heard. I am saying that this needs to be moved to the next phase. That is clearly stated in the clause I quoted on Sandy's page. If you do not like it, please remove the clause from the FAR guidelines. Furthermore, "expertise" means nothing. No one owns the page. This is Wikipedia. The language is incredibly poor. As Wikipedia states, everything will be heavily criticized and edited, and if you cannot handle it, do not submit. This process is to remove articles that do not meet FA standard. It is clear that this article does not, and probably can not. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:10, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

No, the process is not "to remove articles that do not meet FA standard", and this page is carefully designed with the intent that articles aren't defeatured as long as editors are willing to work on them. At minimum, FAR lasts a month, some last as long as three. Settle in and identify actual, actionable, concrete issues that need to be changed; vague comments about it being an awful article will only be ignored. Articles move to FARC if no one is working on them and no improvement is seen after two or three weeks. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:32, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Either show where it says I am not allowed to express my concerns that it must proceed to the process, or strike your comment as being patently absurd. No where does it say that I have to wait two weeks to say such. You are clearly wrong. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:23, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I think Ottava is being remarkably specific about his concerns with The Cantos. Certainly he is being more specific in his criticisms than other editors are in their praise. There is no need to jump on him for mentioning "FARC" a bit too early. He's not denying anyone the chance to fix all of the issues he has mentioned. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 06:44, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Woah Ottiva; The next phase will happen after time, and after the people working on the page are happy to offer it for judjement. I hope you will be one of these people, because we need all hands on deck on this one. ( Ceoil ^sláinte 17:14, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I still don't think this can be accomplished. Each individual Canto set is notable on its own, and to cover the required breadth of material would justify many splits from the pages. This would require sections to be summarized and broken down. Then there needs to be indepth analysis of the critical themes and interpretations. Then there also needs to be an extensive background section added to explain what happened during the publishing. There are hundreds of references that would be needed to be added. From what I can see, just adding in 10 references and making it work takes about 5 days for one person. There needs to also be a community consensus on a lot of other additions and changes, which I doubt can happen during this time. The Cantos are large and have a lot of critical theory behind them. You could almost justify having a WikiProject devoted just to Ezra Pound because of them. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:18, 20 July 2008 (UTC)#

Good Christ, could you please be more optimistic. If complex articles such as WB Yeats, Shakespeare or Mary Shelly can reach FA, well, why not this. ( Ceoil ^sláinte 18:05, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I know it can get to FA. However, it would be completely new and take a lot of time. There would be a lot of splits, which would require significant consensus. Can this process handle such a thing? Thats my only concern. I would suggest that the league of copy editors be brought in at least once its done. Also, can someone take the "posterity" edition and place it on a subpage and then possibly link it to the milestone so there is some idea what it was before. Everyone knows that the page will end up being vastly different, but the original was an FA, and there probably should be some linkage back to that FA edition so people can see what was originally made an FA. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:12, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

The "posterity" editions are listed in articlehistory. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:32, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

The discssion between Ottava and myself has been taken to our talks, as there is no pont in publicly airing openions such as above. Its going to be a long project though, most likely ;) ( Ceoil ^sláinte 02:02, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comments: I've never commented on an FAR before, so forgive me if I suck at this. :) The lack of inline citations has already been mentioned, but I'm also concerned with the article's lack of comprehensiveness. Most of it deals with the individual cantos, but nothing is said about the project's genesis, inspiration, or even Pound himself. I would suggest implementing a "Background" section, or something similar, to describe in detail information that is somewhat addressed in the first section of the lead; otherwise, the article does not adhere to WP:LEAD. I'm not a fan of Pound, but although I have studied him somewhat, I was mostly confused by the article. It has promise but, wow, is it confusing. I could possibly provide some reference help, but I currently have two projects (one at FAC and one at GAN) of my own to handle. Let me know. María (habla conmigo) 15:50, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. I agree with María, and to some extent also with Ottava R. I'm not particularly bothered with the lack of citations per se. Or rather, there should be citations only in so far as there should be a more comprehensive account of the work and its importance. Instead, we have a canto-by-canto account or even summary of the poem within which more general musings are occasionally interleaved. For instance, the article states that "Much critical discussion of the poem has focused on the relationship between, on the one hand, the economic thesis on usura, Pound's anti-Semitism, his adulation of Confucian ideals of government and his attitude towards fascism, and, on the other, passages of lyrical poetry and the historical scene-setting that he performed with his 'ideographic' technique." Yet it has nothing further to say about this (apparently) voluminous critical discussion. Or, later, the article states that "The Cantos has been influential in the development of English-language long poems" but gives almost no reason for this influence except, perhaps, that it is long. In short, if anything there is not enough original research here. I'm rather surprised at those who are so committed to defending the article, as though it were some kind of masterpiece. No: it's a more or less close reading (and really not even that, in that there's very little account of form or language) that misses the wood for the trees. In this sense, it's quite precisely unencyclopedic.
• In short, the article needs restructuring. I'd be tempted to suggest that that canto-by-canto account of the poem be hived off into a separate article. Certainly, what there is on context and the writing process (for instance, the first paragraph of the section "I–XVI" and the first three paragraphs of the section "LXXIV–LXXXIV (The Pisan Cantos)") should be reorganized and not simply subsumed into the reading of the poem. But really, there's a lot to be done on this article. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 11:10, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
• Comment: What an article! I believe that, when it was promoted, it was probably one of the project's best. But it has almost no citations! Personally, I wouldn't touch the basic structure (per Giano on this), although this does not mean that certain deficiencies, such as the lack of an overall critical approach (per Ottava Rima on this), shouldn't be worked. And I'd really like to help with the citations, but I have no sources. And for such an in-depth material, I do not think that google-booking is enough. Sourcing is a big problem, even for such a great article.--Yannismarou (talk) 17:07, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Image problems:

• Image:EzraPound 1913.jpg is a photograph by Alvin Langdon Coburn (1882–1966), and so the copyright tag "Author died over 70 years ago" was clearly incorrect. Copyright is claimed by the National Portrait Gallery.[18]
• Image:Malatesta.jpg image is fine, but there is a file on commons with the same name (different person).
• Image:Gondola.arp.750pix.jpg claimed to be CC from flickr, but at the original source page it says (c) All rights reserved.
• Image:Confucius 02.png is up for deletion at commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Confucius 02.png for dubious licensing.
• Image:AubreyBeardsley.png is a photograph by Frederick Evans (1853–1943), and so the copyright tag "Author died over 70 years ago" was incorrect.
• Image:Coke.JPG and Image:TJeff.jpe ideally should have more information about who they're by and when they were made. DrKiernan (talk) 17:51, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are referencing (1c), comprehensiveness (1b), and images (3).

and writing/structure (1a, 2b). --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 13:12, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

• Delist. There's no real work being done on this article, and doesn't look as though anyone's about to take it up. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 13:12, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
• Delist with Deepest Sympathy. Pity; I'm very dissapointed that a Filiocht FA has to go. Ceoil ^sláinte 08:45, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Battle of Hampton Roads

[edit] Review commentary

Notified Vaoverland, WikiProject Military history, and WikiProject Virginia

This article was promoted to FA status in December 2004. The article may have met the FA criteria back then, but it doesn't meet the current criteria. Criterion 1c seems to be the biggest problem for this article at the moment. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 15:55, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I know that I have also nominated another article for FAR, but be assured that I can handle commentaries on both pages. I've had multiple FACs and FLCs run simultaneously, with no problems. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 03:35, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

This had struck me as a clear FAR candidate in the past. Referencing is virtually non-existent, and there are also some style problems e.g. the list-section for order of battle. There are also some stubby subsections. Content is by-and-large fine, though the article is a little on the short side, and the 'impact' section certainly needs to be considerably bigger. The Land (talk) 18:31, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

• I must say the article in current form barely meets the current B-Class criteria for Milhist articles. Apparently it has not been maintained over the years. --Brad (talk) 05:08, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
  • It doesn't even meet that because it has only 5 in-line citations. -MBK₀₀₄ 06:42, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
• The lack of in-line citations is paramount. With the amount of work needed, you must be a masochist. If this wasn't an FA, I'd plaster the article with {{Morefootnotes}} at the top and a whole slew of {{fact}} tags. -MBK₀₀₄ 06:42, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
  • The citations might be lacking but they are not 'difficult' citations, if you know what I mean - no profound understanding is needed, just a couple of history books, it's mainly narrative. The Land (talk) 12:30, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
    • I didn't bother reading the article (perhaps I should?), but is referencing the only issue? If it is, we might be able to save this article. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 12:52, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
      • Not quite the only issue but certainly the leading problem. The Land (talk) 15:56, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concern is referencing (1c). Marskell (talk) 08:02, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

• Remove - 1c (the lack of in-line citations), 2a (the lead is too short), 2b (the style and sectioning doesn't hold up to other FAs of naval battles (Battle of Midway for example) -MBK₀₀₄ 14:24, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
• Remove per 1c and 2a. Overall, my concerns have yet to be addressed. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 19:37, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
• Remove as per above. Wish I had time to make the save. --Brad (talk) 04:30, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Taiwanese (linguistics)

[edit] Review commentary

Notified Kaihsu, Jiang, WikiProject China, WikiProject Taiwan and WikiProject Languages

This article was promoted to FA status in May 2004. The article may have met the FA criteria back then, but it doesn't meet the current criteria. Criterion 1c seems to be the biggest problem for this article at the moment. I haven't looked at prose yet, but I will review later to see if it meets 1a. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 15:43, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Definitely needs a whole host of references to stay featured. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 15:26, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concern is referencing (1c). Marskell (talk) 08:00, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

• Remove per 1c. My concerns have yet to be addressed. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 19:42, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
• Remove Inline citations are advised for statements such as "how one describes Taiwanese depends largely on one's political views", and "such claims are still controversial". Prose needs tightening. Article is off-focus in parts, e.g. Taiwanese puppetry and cuisine. Obsolete image tag on Image:Taiwanese Bible Chim-gian 1933.jpg could be updated. External links should be trimmed. DrKiernan (talk) 11:38, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
• Remove 1c. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:06, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Her Majesty's Most Honourable Privy Council

[edit] Review commentary

Contacted User:DrKiernan, Wikiprojects Spoken Wikipedia and Politics of the United Kingdom

• This article needs more citations, as it has only a few, meaning that large parts of the article are totally unreferenced. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 00:52, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll see if I can hunt up some references. Might be a little while, since I'm quite busy at the moment. Dr pda (talk) 11:47, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concern is referencing (1c). Marskell (talk) 07:40, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Still working on this...slowly. Dr pda (talk) 11:22, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

FYI I will be away, without internet access, for the next week or so, but I'm still working on the referencing. Dr pda (talk) 10:59, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Helen Gandy

[edit] Review commentary

Wikipedia:WikiProject FBI notified. Sole editor User:PedanticallySpeaking last contributed to wikipedia in November 2007.

Nominating due to criterion 1c, no inline cites. --RelHistBuff 15:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Renominated July 13, 2008: criteria 1c, no in-line cites. Buckshot06(prof) 04:42, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Please contact the editors involved in bringing this article to FA status and post notices on WikiProject talk pages. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 15:46, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

• Numerous issues, article is in pretty bad shape and it doesn't look like anyone is working on it. If anyone does begin to work on it, I'll supply a list. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:56, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

• I fixed a previous PedanticallySpeaking FA, as I happened to have access to the same news archives he did. I suspect this is the case here and if so I can try to make fixes with regard to 1c... will be the weekend before I get to it. --JayHenry (talk) 02:27, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concern is referencing (1c). Marskell (talk) 07:37, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

• Remove 1c. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:08, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
• Remove per 1c. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 14:32, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] History of Limerick

[edit] Review commentary

User:Seabhcan (only major contributor and nominator), WikiProject European history and WikiProject Ireland notified

Article needs FA review fundamentally for 1c, having only a single footnote and that without a page number. There is a list of references, but without inline citations its impossible to know where or how they are used. I think there are also some deficencies in 1a, 1d and 2a as well as an image claimed as fair use without an adequate rationale, but these are all fixable fairly simply, unlike the dearth of citations.--Jackyd101 (talk) 09:32, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Comprehensiveness (1b) is a greater concern to me. There is a rather sudden jump from 1200 to 1642, meaning much of the later medieval period, the Tudor period and the plantations is completely excluded. There is another sudden jump within the misnamed "The famine" section, which actually includes details of a time of prosperity. The source of the famine and why Limerick's prosperity fell is not explained thoroughly enough. Half the article is on 20th century history with the remaining half covering over a thousand years; that seems unbalanced. I would like to see more information on the earlier history added to the article. DrKiernan (talk) 15:50, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Limerick is a small city and there just isn't very much documented history for the periods you discuss. For the medieval and tudor periods there is a good deal of information in other articles, but little information is known of how Limerick was specifically faired during these times. ... Seabhcan 15:51, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I can probably accept that but the article on the Plantations mentions the Munster Plantations and that estates in the County of Limerick were seized after the Desmond Rebellions. Is anything further known on this? DrKiernan (talk) 07:35, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments In looking for sources, I found Ferrar's 1787 History of Limerick online at the Limerick City Library in several pdf sections and will try to extract some early info from it. Does anyone have access to The History of Limerick City, by Sean Spellissy (1998)? I can't get access to it where I live, maybe someone else can assess it. Thanks ww2censor (talk) 03:32, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments: this article is going to need a lot of basic cleanup. I'll list all of the MoS issues if someone succeeds in citing the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:40, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Move to FARC. No edits since my last comment, so I haven't listed the MoS issues yet. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:48, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concern is referencing. Marskell (talk) 13:30, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment Ww2c is working on this, and given his track record, I'm inclined to hold. ( Ceoil ^sláinte 20:48, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, so I am slow at these FAs, but I am still hoping you can get the Spellissy history book. I can't get it and I really think we will need it to move this anywhere near being complete. ww2censor (talk) 21:02, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Images User:Seabhcan, can you give more details of the copyright of Image:O'Connell St, Limerick City, 1960's.jpg? Did you take the picture yourself, is it a family snap or is it scanned from an old postcard/book? Ideally, Image:Sarsfield.gif should have information about when, who and where it was first published (although it is obviously very old). DrKiernan (talk) 10:19, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The O'Connell st image is a scan of an old postcard. Unfortunately, the postcard doesn't have any publisher details, or copyright information. ... Seabhcan 19:18, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, the O'Connell St postcard is certainly not 70 years old and Seabhcan does not hold the copyright on it, so it cannot be PD. The Sarsfield image is found in several places online but they may well all be copies of ours. It is most likely 18th or 19th century but I could not find it easily. Any suggestions DrK? ww2censor (talk) 21:24, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not terribly fussed over the Sarsfield image, it's probably safe to assume its ancientness. The postcard is published without notice in a foreign country prior to 1996. Providing it has not since been republished with a copyright notice, I believe that makes it public domain in the US. I have updated the tag. DrKiernan (talk) 07:50, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

• Fixes needed: there are quotes in WP:ITALICS and breaching WP:MOS#Quotations; inconsistent date linking (some full dates are linked, others aren't); WP:NBSP attention needed (example, 7 p.m.); Image captions need to be descriptive (see Celtic Tiger section); missing accessdates as well as incomplete references (example: Limerick City Library); inconsistent date formats in citations (example: ... Press Release. Department of Arts, Sport and Tourism (Ireland) 1999-11-03. Retrieved on August 5, 2008); book sources need page numbers and incorrectly formatted book citations (example: ^ Shalom Ireland: a Social History of Jews in Modern Ireland by Ray Rivlin, ISBN 0-7171-3634-5, published by Gill & MacMillan); mixed citation styles, breaching WP:CITE, {{citation}} is used along with the cite xxx templates, resulting in inconsistent citation style; incorrect use of WP:MOS#Ellipses; incorrect punctuation in image captions per WP:MOS#Captions; incorrect us of WP:MOSBOLD in the WP:LEAD; more problematic, someone should check the prose (sample of less than compelling prose: The arrival of the Normans to the area in 1173 changed everything.) Undercited and uncompelling prose, including parenthetical deviations to other articles), combined with incorrect use of italics: Sarsfield sailed to France with 19,000 troops^{[citation needed]} and formed the Irish Brigade (see also the Flight of the Wild Geese). After these forces had left the treaty was repudiated by the Williamites, for which the city became known as The City of the Violated Treaty^[1] and is a point of bitterness in the city to this day. Large amounts of uncited text, sample: No statistics exist on how many people in the Limerick area died during the famine. Nationally, the population declined by an average of 20%, half of whom died and half emigrated. While the Great Famine reduced the population of County Limerick by 70,000, the population of the City actually rose slightly, as people fled to the workhouses. Unless there are dramatic improvements shortly, I'll be a Remove. I stopped there without a serious review; there's likely more, as this was a very quick glance. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:37, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comet Shoemaker-Levy 9

[edit] Review commentary

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)

Notified Nominator, User:Urhixidur, User:Noren, [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Solar System. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 15:04, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Eleassar, please see the instrutions at the top of WP:FAR and sample notifications at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Trigonometric functions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:42, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Notified Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomical objects. (and note that Worldtraveller no longer edits here) -- Rick Block (talk) 03:32, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

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 [[19]]. 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)

Thanks for doing so. If I understand you correctly, some of the reliable sources that the article rests on are listed in the 'external links' section. I suggest they are referenced inline. As you said, current format makes single claims difficult to verify. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 18:18, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

• Might be savable, but the prose needs pulling apart. Here are random examples from one small portion of text.
  • In the lead, I saw "SL9 was in pieces ranging in size up to 2 kilometres in diameter, and is believed to have been pulled apart by Jupiter's tidal forces during a close encounter in July 1992." Why not "in pieces up to two kilometres in diameter"? "Is believed" is possible if there's no other wording: who believes? Based on the level of uncertainty, pick something like "is likely to have been" or "may have been". There's a spectrum of certainty-wordings.
  • Not actionable, but why "approximately" when a short, plain word is available: "about"?
  • Suddenly at the end of the lead we have imperial conversions, after several unconverted ones. If no one objects, it's quite OK in a science article not to clutter with conversions. All American school-kids are taught metrics nowadays, and adults who don't know probably don't want to visualise 37 miles per second.
  • Avoid repetition: "The prominent scars from the impacts could be seen on Jupiter for many months after the impact".

So, there's work to be done on the prose throughout. TONY (talk) 03:22, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Just got back from vacation (we left on the day of the notification!). What exactly does this article need done? Urhixidur (talk) 22:26, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

First, footnotes. Second, improvement of the style of writing. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 15:17, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are referencing (1c) and prose (1a). Marskell (talk) 15:45, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

• Remove lack of citations, in particular wrt discussion of hypotheses and conjectures, and comparing them etc, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:25, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Would you be more specific as to what statements are in need of better citation? If it's the "Predictions for the collision" section, if that's what you mean by discussion of hypotheses and conjectures, the document currently cited appears to me to be a reliable source that contains all of the information in that paragraph. It's true there's just the one source, but a year wasn't enough time to generate many secondary sources on the topic of pre-impact speculation. --Noren (talk) 02:47, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

• Keep The specific concerns raised by Eleassar and Tony were addressed during the FAR phase. I would be willing to work to address other specific areas if they are brought to my attention. --Noren (talk) 03:03, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

• Certain sections are undercited; see the "Frequency of Impacts" and "Discovery" sections, where assertions like these lack sourcing:"Studies have estimated that comets probably crash into Jupiter once or twice per century, but the impact of comets the size of SL9 is much less common - probably no more often than once per millennium." ""The comet was thus a serendipitous discovery, but one that quickly overshadowed the results from their main observing program." I also see url links in citations not properly formatted with the use of the appropriate templates. ISBNs in parentheses (which is not what would be generated if Template:cite book) was used, and other similar problems. Nevertheless, all these issues could be fixed, and therefore I'll not vote yet for the article's removal.--Yannismarou (talk) 15:28, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

• Remove, lacking citations, unformatted citations, and Yahoo Groups as a citation? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:50, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

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)

This actually has a decent amount of scholarly sources. Unfortunately, they need to be formatted. I'm slow with this stuff but I'll pick away. Marskell (talk) 11:19, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I started working a bit on formatting notes, but it is a damn boring job, and most of these sources seem specialized. I thus faced two problems: 1) Not sure I format the data correctly, 2) I am not sure I can find the full data of certain sources, such us some proceedings with no url. Somebody specialized on the issue should have a look.--Yannismarou (talk) 17:22, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm ... And indeed somebody should find something better for note 20. Yahoo groups?!--Yannismarou (talk) 17:31, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

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)