melhordawiki beta







Wikipedia:Featured article review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
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 "delist". 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, Joelr31 and YellowMonkey, determine either that there is consensus to close during this first stage, or that there is insufficient consensus to do so and so therefore 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 "delist", supported by substantive comments, and further time is provided to overcome deficiencies.
  • Reviewers who declare "delist" 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; the delay in bot processing can range from minutes to several days, and the {{FAR}} template should remain on the talk page until the bot updates {{articlehistory}}.

Purge the cache to refresh this page – Table of Contents

Featured content:

Featured article tools:

Toolbox

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.

  1. Place {{subst:FAR}} at the top of the talk page of the nominated article. Write "FAR listing" in the edit summary box. Click on "Save page".
  2. From the FAR template, click on the red "initiate the review" link. You will see pre-loaded information; please leave that text.
  3. Below the preloaded title, write which users and projects you'll notify (see step 5 below), and your reason(s) for nominating the article, specifying the FA criterion/criteria that are at issue, then click on "Save page".
  4. Click here, and place your nomination at the top of the list of nominated articles, {{Wikipedia:Featured article review/name of nominated article/archiveN}}, filling in the exact name of the nominated article and the archive number N. Click on "Save page".
  5. Notify relevant parties by adding {{subst:FARMessage|ArticleName|alt=FAR subpage}} (for example, {{subst:FARMessage|Superman|alt=Superman/archive1}}) 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). The message at the top of the FAR should indicate who you have notified.

Contents

[edit] Featured article reviews

[edit] Xanadu Houses

I am nominating this featured article for review because of this discussion. —S Marshall Talk/Cont 17:38, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Should we even have an FAR and AFD going at the same time, even though both its status as FA and its overall notability are in question? I think we should play out the AFD first. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 17:44, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Given that at least one editor is doubting the notability, I hardly think the {{Notability}} tag is unsubstantiated. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 17:53, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment This was listed at FAR and AFD at the same time; AFD closed as keep. My concerns re: the notability still stand. The sources are very thin and the article clearly not of FA quality. I'd barely even call it anything more than start class. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 19:43, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Sheesh, TPH, you must be kidding. You closed the AFD yourself, and then come here and still question its notability? That isn't wise; why'd you close the AFD then? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:46, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Presumably because it was a snow keeper, and TPH has learned not to fight consensus.

    Meanwhile, back in the land of on-topic, I have not yet notified anyone of the FAR. The primary contributor seems inactive.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 19:50, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Indeed; consensus is clearly against me, but I still say that the notability is tenuous at best. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 21:24, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Perhaps e-mail Wackymacs, just in case? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:51, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. Please add alt text to images; see WP:ALT. Eubulides (talk) 22:55, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment: Notability feels okay to me, three independent newspaper articles spread over three years. (Pretty flash in the pan, but not a single incident). More troubling is the SELF/VANITY angle in Acropolis books, which should be sent to RS/N for a detailed investigation of their publishing quality in the early 1980s. "For almost five decades, Acropolis Books has been a respected publisher of non-fiction books. In 1995, Acropolis started to reintroduce out-of-print classical mystical literature, and began publishing works of the 20th Century mystic, Joel Goldsmith, whose teachings have helped hundreds of thousands of people around the world grasp the eternal principles of spiritual living." The second statement puts lie to the first in my mind. ... I'm deeply uncomfortable with a FA being sourced from the creator's account of his creation. Personally I'd claim Author-Creator is self for anything but an impeccable academic press. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:09, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Music of Minnesota

Notified: Listed Wikiprojects. Author long inactive.

Article has large passages that are compeltely unsourced. Many of the sources used, such as Myspace, and other ad hoc sites are far from RS. There is an undue weight on very modern music. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (help the Invincibles Featured topic drive) 02:35, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Research Quality related issues

http://204.169.52.42/history/ is not a secondary source published by a RS. Its tertiary linkspam.
SELF: "History of the Minnesota Opera". Minnesota Opera. Retrieved February 9 2006.
Unsigned Tertiary: Levy, Mark; Carl Rahkonen and Ain Haas. "Scandinavian and Baltic Music". Garland Encyclopedia of World Music, Volume Two. New York and London: Garland Publishin
Dead: "History". First Avenue. Retrieved January 5 2006.
Dead: "Pulse of the Twin Cities". Pulse of the Twin Cities. Retrieved February 9 2006.
Deliberately unreliable publisher, take the work to RS/N: Blush, Steven (2001). American Hardcore: A Tribal History. Feral House. ISBN 0-92291-571-7
Primary/SELF: "School of Music". University of Minnesota. Retrieved January 30 2006.
SELF: "About the Minnesota Orchestra". Minnesota Orchestra. Retrieved February 8 2006.

Citation Quality related issues

Grossly and completely unacceptable footnotes. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:34, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. Please add alt text to images; see WP:ALT. Eubulides (talk) 22:56, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Exactly what Fifelfoo said. The sourcing is terrible, and there are red links out the yin-yang, most often referencing crap that shouldn't even be there. Furthermore, can someone take a whack at the linkspam at the bottom? This practically needs to be gutted and rebuilt. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 01:37, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I have gone and tagged everything I saw unfit. I snipped "As well, prominent serious composers resident in the state include Libby Larsen, Stephen Paulus, and Timothy Mahr" from the intro because they're mentioned nowhere else in the article, and cut out a bunch of crud while slapping {{fact}} and other maintenance tags left and right. This is the most tagging I've done in my life. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 03:09, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
  • This amount of tagging is troubling; it's not necessary to deface an article to achieve the aims of FAR. A good practice is to tag a bit, and then tag more depending on whether someone works on the article. Also, please keep in the mind that the level of scholarship required for an article depends on the topic; in an article of this nature, we might expect less than scholarly sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:39, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I think all those tags are necessary. So many of the red links seem irrelevant, and so much of what should be sourced isn't. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 21:37, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Please see WP:RED and do not remove redlinks if an article meeting notability can be written; red links are how the encyclopedia is built, and are not a bad thing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:06, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I know that. I only removed a couple red links, and tagged the rest with "relevant?" to flag for whether or not they should be linked at all. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 01:37, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment. First of all, wow. That has to be one of the most annoying, unnecessary tag-bombings I have ever seen. It would have been much easier to put a note here or on the talk page that stated "Please check the red links for notability", and just put the citation needed tags after groups of sentences that needed referencing, rather than after every single sentence. I do agree that the article is very short on citations, has questionable sources (Ref #14, Anderson Jr., G.R, is a blog), needs referencing formatting, and need work on the prose and deciding whether all of the included information is relevant to the article. The external links section could use a cleaning, and the lead could stand to be expanded. Also, File:Slug-Atmosphere-20030727.jpg (the image of Atmosphere), needs a description. Dana boomer (talk) 19:06, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

There is also redundant tagging; it's not necessary to tag the top of a section as well as individual items within the section-- one or the other. And then the top of the article as well. I do think this is the most defacement I've ever seen of an article at FAR, and don't find it helpful. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:13, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
I went back and removed all the {{Off-topic?}} tags and a couple other redundant tags. I think that most of the other maintenance tags should stand. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 01:11, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
When there are a lot of problems, it isn't usually necessary to tag everywhere, as highlighting tools are usually to point out the abnormal, but if unsourced parts are the norm...Still I think in Louisville, Kentucky, one of the topic custodians asked for everything to be tagged to remind him, and about 80% of the article was tagged YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (help the Invincibles Featured topic drive) 03:20, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
This one definitely needs every tag I put on it. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 03:46, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Thank you, TPH, for removing a large portion of the tags. Between the ones still left and the comments on this page, interested editors should be able to get a good feel for what needs to be done on the article. If someone pops up during the review phase to work on the article, we can always add more tags after the ones already there have been taken care of. Dana boomer (talk) 21:18, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Manila Light Rail Transit System

Notified: Sky Harbor, WikiProject Trains, WikiProject Philippines

I am nominating this featured article for review because it fails several of the current FA criteria, in particular 1(c). The main issues are the lack of referencing throughout most of the article, many dead links, references lacking author in appropriate places, {{fact}} tags, listing of what seems to be trivial incidents such as recent suicide and crimes simply committed on the systems property in a table, a "see also" section with links from the main body, overlinking and sub-professional standard of prose. Arsenikk (talk) 23:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

  • I concur with most of your assessment,especially the criticism of the incidents section. I also dislike the article's organization, as the over-long history section is mediocre writing at best, features an obnoxiously incorrect use of block quote, and should be after the sections on current operations. I say delist. oknazevad (talk) 00:19, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Wow, I haven't seen this coming. As far as I can see from the article, there's only a single fact tag (and that's someone challenging the translation of the LRT into Filipino, which is the article's name on the Tagalog Wikipedia). However, I've been meaning to overhaul the article from its old 2006-era FA standards, as well as bring the citations in line with current standards, fix dead links and general attrition. I'll see what I can do to bring this back to a more appropriate FA state. --Sky Harbor (talk) 02:49, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Citation quality issues

No authors listed for newspaper articles with probable authors.
Pages, Vol & Issue required: ^ The Metro Manila LRT System—A Historical Perspective, Gary L. Satre, Japan Railway and Transport Review, retrieved May 8, 2006
Mixture of fullstops & non-full stop endings.
Inadequately footnoted history section
Lack of probable scholarly sources. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:36, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

A lot of the newspaper articles do not have listed authors to begin with, and Philippine newspaper archives now do not go back as far as 2003 or 2004 (the oldest, which is the archive of the Manila Bulletin, was partially wiped when the newspaper revamped its website), so I cannot check who the authors are. Work is currently ongoing to begin fixing the citations on the article, as well as to cover details currently not cited.

In addition, the LRT has few scholarly sources to begin with. If there are any, they're not available online, and I'd have to go to the likes of the National Library of the Philippines to get them. --Sky Harbor (talk) 03:54, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment. Please add alt text to images; see WP:ALT. Eubulides (talk) 22:54, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Data Encryption Standard

Notified: User talk:Matt Crypto main editor and nominator, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Telecommunications, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cryptography

I am nominating this featured article for review because it currently lacks inline citations. Tom B (talk) 22:02, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Referencing problems including a mixture of inline and footnote citations. Either is fine. Pick one and be consistent in its use. Text inline like this: "and improved by Biham and Biryukov (1997)." shouldn't exist if footnote referencing is being used. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:29, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. Please add alt text to images; see WP:ALT. Eubulides (talk) 23:57, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Image review
  • File:Board300.jpg: source is a dead link. Confused licensing: says both copyright and GFDL.
  • File:Copacobana.jpg: missing permission. DrKiernan (talk) 12:44, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Yet another reason why we need a "speedy delist" for former FA-class articles now in this lousy of shape. Once again, I think this is proof that FA is flawed: articles get promoted to a certain standard, and never get touched again after their promotion, even if the standards are increased. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 23:05, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  • See here; perhaps if you had written an FA yourself, you might feel differently about the amount of work that someone once put into this article. Patience, please. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:42, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
  • This is still in terrible shape. I retract my statement on speedy-delists, but I still think it's absurd that articles can still be called "FA" if they are this bad. Fifelfoo's concerns about sources are, as always, spot-on. As tagged, there is one whole section that lacks sources entirely, and overall there seem to be several other unsourced areas. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 23:19, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Sly & the Family Stone

Notified: WikiProject Music, WikiProject Musicians

I am nominating this featured article for review because there are large portions that are unsourced. The first paragraph of "Sly's solo career" is totally unsourced, as are the sentences "Sly continued sporadically releasing new singles and collaborations until a 1987 arrest and conviction for cocaine possession and use. After being released from prison, Sly stopped releasing music altogether." The first two paragraphs of the "Reunion" section are also totally unsourced. There are also some sloppy edits, including bare-URL refs (37, 41) and doubled periods in a sestence in the "Reunion" section. The grammy tribute also contains the borderline weaselly "Several people, however, were more positive about the performance…". My main concern is the lack of references in parts; it is clearly no longer GA class, having been promoted in 2007. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 03:09, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Transcluded on 23:53, 30 October 2009 (UTC) Dabomb87 (talk) 14:42, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
  • As an aside, I just want to say that I think it's ridiculous how little articles change after promotion to FA, even if the concept of what is a featured article has changed. This article has had very few non-IP edits since its promotion two years ago, and while the concept of featured article has changed some since then, the article hasn't kept up with the times. I've noticed this with way too many featured articles. Even worse, none of the major editors (more than 10 edits) have edited the project at all since February at the latest, and most of them retired in 2007 or so.Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 03:13, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Citation quality issues

Dates non standard D Month YYYY versus YYYY-MM-DD... even "Nov. 1, 2002"
Date presentation non standard, sometimes plain sometimes (bracketed)
Most cites end with a fullstop, some don't. Consistency.
This isn't a citation, this isn't a citation at all! ^ http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=11:0cfpxqy0ldde~T1
Volume, issue, pages: Aronowitz, Al (Nov. 1, 2002). "The Preacher". The Blacklisted Journal.
Self / Vanity? : Edwin & Arno Konings www.slystonebook.com Fifelfoo (talk) 03:40, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Not a bad idea, but after all the crud I've done this week, I've been wanting to play a little safter and not do something that big. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 00:41, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Hong Kong action cinema

Notified: Zzzzz, Michael Wells, WP:Film, WP:China, WP:HK, Wikipedia:WikiProject Martial arts

I am nominating this featured article for review because it seems to fail criteria 1.(c) in several areas. Several parts of the article are tagged with the [citation needed] tag. Some entire paragraphs contain no citations, such as the second paragraph in ""New School" wuxia", the fourth paragraph in "The 1970s kung fu wave", the second in "Bruce Lee", and the third in "Jackie Chan and the kung fu comedy". The "Influence in the West" section has no citations and has been tagged with a banner at the top for months at the top banner seeking help with no major additions being made. Andrzejbanas (talk) 03:02, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Image check OK but alt text required. DrKiernan (talk) 07:52, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure why some of these images are used in the article. Showing a poster for that Bruce Lee film for example does not suggest it was the first Hong Kong film shot in the US nor does the Twins Effect one at the bottom showcase that there is a lot of CGI in the film. I'd say these images should be removed or replaced with images that relate to the text better. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:39, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. Please add alt text to images; see Wikipedia:Alternative text for images. Eubulides (talk) 15:48, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. This article is missing a lot of reliable sources per WP:V, it will definitely be de-listed and reassessed to class C if those issues are not addressed within the duration of this FA review. Tavatar (talk) 04:43, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] George III of the United Kingdom

Notified: Ian Rose, DrKiernan, WikiProject British Royalty,WikiProject England

I had thought that all of the Emsworth articles had been reviewed until noticing this hasn't been done. It was originally listed as having no citations but has seen substantial organic improvement. I bring it here just for a look over. I will try to go through the prose myself. Marskell (talk) 17:09, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Image check OK but alt text required. I'll have a go at writing some. In my opinion, this article meets the criteria for comprehensiveness and accuracy. DrKiernan (talk) 09:59, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Yep, this is an article which fortunately has stayed on people's watchlists since attaining FA status, so it should be in good shape and just need a few updates from a MOS perspective, e.g. for alt text, as DK points out. I'll go though it from top to bottom as well. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:27, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually it looks pretty good as far as MOS goes, though the gold guinea image under William Pitt cuts into the left-hand side of the following section on my screen. Perhaps this image would be better placed in the legacy section. Apart from that, I think we need a bit of work to tighten up the referencing, mainly ensuring each para has at least one citation and/or that we finish every para with a citation:
  • Under Marriage, the last bit of the first para should be cited (it may be just a matter of moving the previous citation to the end, or repeating the first citation of the next para).
  • Ditto first para of American Revolutionary War.
  • Ditto second para of William Pitt.
  • Ditto second para of French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars, and sentence The possibility of invasion was extinguished after Admiral Lord Nelson's famous naval victory at the Battle of Trafalgar.
  • Ditto second, third and fourth paras of Later Life.
  • Ditto first para of Legacy.
  • Ditto second and third paras under Arms.
Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:49, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Marriage, Nelson, Arms, and one paragraph of Later life done. Pitt merged with follow-on sentence. The remaining paragraphs in the Later life and Legacy sections are just standard facts.
That only leaves the concerns over the Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars sections. These are very general statements that surely represent a fair summary? DrKiernan (talk) 11:22, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Exceedingly minor formatting question: is it usual to include the definite article in the dabs of titles? I had started removing them (the Duke of Saxe-Gotha --> the Duke of Saxe-Gotha) but realized it's done throughout. I don't want to introduce an inconsistency.

I think any prose work needed will be very slight. Marskell (talk) 12:56, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

"His humane and understanding treatment of two insane assailants, Margaret Nicolson in 1786 and John Frith in 1790, contributed to his popularity." Without a blue link, this sentence leaves me curious for more. Would a short section on assassination attempts be warranted? There seem to have been enough of them.
I really can't find much to complain about in the prose. Napolean's plans to invade are perhaps given too much play relative to the other military history. Conversely, things seem to end rather abruptly at 1809. Did George not have any public role or comment during the later Napoleonic Wars or the War of 1812? The War of 1812 doesn't even get mentioned. One or two more sentences on the etiology of porphyria (as well as any criticism of the theory) might also be in order.
Other than that, I think the coverage is excellent. Marskell (talk) 17:51, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Link to Margaret Nicholson and John Frith (assailant) added; coverage of invasion scare reduced. With regard to his years of darkness, his last public appearance was in October 1810, and most of his powers were transferred in February 1811, with the remainder following a year later. His biographers skate over the last decade of his life as there's really nothing much to say about him personally other than he was ill. DrKiernan (talk) 09:58, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Once DrKiernan and Ian Rose are satisfied here, so am I; I probably won't revisit this FAC unless someone pings me for input. Minor issues: the article mixes citation styles, citation and cite templates (see WP:CITE, and some instances of p. have spaces after them, others don't, in the citations-- please make consistent. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:49, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Citation formatting done. DrKiernan (talk) 09:12, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Soviet invasion of Poland

Notified: Qp10qp, Piotrus, WP Poland, WP Mil Hist, WP Soviet Union, WP Russia

I noticed that a number of individuals involved in the current Eastern European mailing list Arbcom were also involved in the of the FAC for Soviet invasion of Poland.

1. (a) Lots of passive text, additive terms (“also”) and word to avoid (“many”, “some”, “several”, “despite”. “actually”, …). There is an overuse of blockquote text, no shortage of double wiki-linking and a generally improper use of brackets. and text placed in quotes for emphasis not quotation. A heavy copy-edit is needed.

  • I did a heavy copy edit to address all this. Most of it survived the back and forth of reversions. As far as the block quotes go, some superfluous ones had been added on after the FAC and I removed them, but please restore the Subtelny block quote that you have removed. That is a crucial quote because it expresses the Belarusian and Ukrainian experience, which is needed in the article. I've no idea if you have a point of view yourself, but in order for the POV to be balanced that block quote must remain. By the way, block quotes are within policy and are not removable for the purposes of a Featured Article Review just because they are block quotes. qp10qp (talk) 23:24, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Copy-editing is still needed. --Labattblueboy (talk) 05:39, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

1. (b) There is little to no information on the opposing forces and their composition. Expansion of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact and German Invasion of Poland would be helpful.--Labattblueboy (talk) 05:39, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

1. (d) POV issues.

  • Ex: ”despite their change of overlord, Ukrainian nationalists continued to aim for an independent, undivided Ukrainian state”
How is that POV? It's a statement of fact. qp10qp (talk) 23:28, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

2. (a) Lead in need of general copy-edit.

Done. And shortened. qp10qp (talk) 23:30, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
I believe I have addressed all the grammatical issues in the lead. Please see if my edits have been detrimental to the content.
There are still citation issues in the lead.
  • Note 6 has a couple of citation tags. There are a number of places where citations could be added and I will see about trying to do that myself.
  • Dom wydawniczy Wojska Polskiego citation needs to have pages numbers added, placed into template and moved to bibliography.
  • Polish and Russian language resources require similar work. I can't do it myself because I don't speak the languages --Labattblueboy (talk) 17:34, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

2. (b) The Aftermath section is disproportionately long, compared to the remainder of the article.

It's in three sections, though, isn't it? I can't see a problem. The aftermath of the invasion is an important aspect of it. qp10qp (talk)

2. (c) Citations structure is inconsistent. Citation of a number of primary documents (WP:PSTS). Likewise, I question whether the employment of a number of non-English sources is appropriate or necessary given there appears to be no shortage of English sources.

Again, I think you are overlooking how many of the non-English sources are doubled up with English sources. Sometimes there is another reference tag alongside. But sources may overlap in the sense that what references one sentence may also reference some that follow or went before in the passage, or even a whole paragraph. For example, the cite to Sanford on the Fourth Partition of Poland is tagged to that term but applies to the rest of the information about it. So the information does not depend on the Polish source given at the end of the sentence before. There is no stylish way to umbilically reference every word of an article. As for foreign language sources, they should not be favoured over English language ones but they are permissible, and most of the sources for the article are in English. I think if you read the English language sources cited you will find little that they do not cover. qp10qp (talk) 23:51, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

3. Too many images and most contain descriptions that are far too long. No alt text. Sections are led with left justified images.

Removed some images due to bunching. I'm not sure if the choice of images is what the principle editors are looking for, so please review. Basic alt text added. No more left justification section starts.--Labattblueboy (talk) 17:54, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Labattblueboy (talk) 15:31, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

A number of other issues may be valid, but the POV issue is being over-considered. The example given is completely accurate; we should not censor or tone down historical fact. The only change needed in the example given might be to 'despite the change of regime' or 'government'. Buckshot06(prof) 15:59, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
I removed some WTA and the overlord issue; I am not a native speaker (and the text went through several native speakers copyedits prior to becoming FA). More of course are always welcome.
What's wrong with lead?
I count three uses of (reliable) primary sources; PSTS allows the use of primary sources (it only discourages them). I think they are used correctly here; although if they can be improved by adding secondary sources to them that of course should be done. Same holds for non-English sources: they are acceptable, but if somebody can improve them by adding English sources, please do. Do note that some facts, sometimes, are simply not mentioned in English sources and one has to reply on non-English historiography or other scholarly literature.
Aftermath is about as long as the military campaign section and slightly longer than background. The invasion had very important consequences; I don't see the lenght of the aftermath as an issue.
I never could figure out the FA image rules. I hope somebody can take few minutes and fix the image issues. I don't recall a rule about caption's lenght, though...?
PS. What does the arbcom case has to do with that article? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:14, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Here are some of the refs. of concern:
  • (Russian) Pravda, 30 November 1939.
  • (Polish) Represje 1939-41 Aresztowani na Kresach Wschodnich (Repressions 1939–41. Arrested on the Eastern Borderlands.) Ośrodek Karta. Retrieved 15 November 2006.
  • (Polish) Śledztwo w sprawie zabójstwa w dniu 22 września 1939 r. w okolicach miejscowości Sopoćkinie generała brygady Wojska Polskiego Józefa Olszyny-Wilczyńskiego i jego adiutanta kapitana Mieczysława Strzemskiego przez żołnierzy b. Związku Radzieckiego. (S 6/02/Zk) - dead link reliable?
  • (Polish) Szack. Encyklopedia Interia. Retrieved 28 November 2006.
  • (Russian) Отчёт Украинского и Белорусского фронтов Красной Армии Мельтюхов, с. 367. Retrieved 17 July 2007 - dead link
  • (Polish) Artur Leinwand (1991). "Obrona Lwowa we wrześniu 1939 roku". Instytut Lwowski. http://www.lwow.com.pl/rocznik/obrona39.html. Retrieved 16 July 2007. - self published
  • (Polish) obozy jenieckie żołnierzy polskich (Prison camps for Polish soldiers). Encyklopedia PWN. Retrieved 28 November 2006.
  • (Polish) Edukacja Humanistyczna w wojsku. 1/2005. Dom wydawniczy Wojska Polskiego. (Humanist Education in the Army.) 1/2005. Publishing House of the Polish Army). Retrieved 28 November 2006. - dead link
The online encyclopedia entries (ex: Encyklopedia Interia), are short on substance. I'm not sure 3 line entries are appropriate as sources, but that's just my view.--Labattblueboy (talk) 05:33, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Can you number these so it's easy to refer to them? (Quickly, what's wrong with Encyclopedia PWN?)radek (talk) 05:39, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Why a foreign language ref and not an english one? Both the Olszyna-Wilczyński Józef Konstanty and obozy jenieckie żołnierzy polskich PWN refs are rather slim on material but are used in broader form citations.--Labattblueboy (talk) 07:23, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Also, the Olszyna source is not a dead link [1].radek (talk) 05:52, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Furthermore the Leinwald source does not appear to be self-published.radek (talk) 05:52, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
The material appears to be on a personal website.--Labattblueboy (talk) 07:23, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
I shortened some of the captions and removed the most obvious double wiki links. The rest of the wiki links that may appear as "doubles" are not - for example there is a difference between Ukraine, Western Ukraine, Ukrainian SSR and Ukrainians. So having each of these linked separately to different articles is not an instance of double wikilinks.
Can you point to any other POV problems? Gave it a quick read over and don't see any.
Also, I re read the lead couple of times and did a slight copy edit. I don't see what else is wrong with it.
Last FAC review was two years ago - before any ArbComs case and completely unrelated to them.radek (talk) 16:18, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
On words to avoid:
"Despite" occurs once in the article where I believe it is used correctly: Despite a tactical Polish victory on 28 September at the Battle of Szack, the outcome of the larger conflict was never in doubt
"Several" is not one of the words to avoid [2]
"Actually" doesn't appear in the article
"Some" is not one of the words to avoid, and in fact, the guideline itself uses "some" quite frequently [3]
Ditto for "many".radek (talk) 16:26, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, I've looked through the FAC criteria and image policy and I see nothing about how many images are "too many". In fact, compared to some other FAs this article does not appear to have that many images at all.radek (talk) 17:03, 26 October 2009 (UTC)


*2. (a) Lead in need of general copy-edit. I've given it a copy edit and removed material that unduly elaborated on the basic gist of it. It's now an appropriate length again, I think. qp10qp (talk) 19:27, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

  • I've been addressing most of the concerns this evening, which has taken ages, but I've been flatly reverted. Sigh. Giving up for the moment. qp10qp (talk) 21:08, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Welcome to the wonderful world of attempting to edit any article which in any way covers Polish history!Varsovian (talk) 21:19, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Qp10qp I have reverted you because unfortunately you have also changed the meaning of some parts article. Such changes should be discussed first. Loosmark (talk) 21:28, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Some of the meanings need changing to remove accumulations of POV since the FAC. That's part of the point of the exercise. In the process of reverting you have also restored all the unwieldiness, re-lengthened, re-added block quotes, restored bad grammar and wordiness, and reinstated POV. For example you have changed back the section title "Byelorussia and Ukraine" to "Territories of Second Polish Republic annexed by Soviet Union", which is both more POV and bad English. qp10qp (talk) 21:34, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
  • References
  • The reference relating to Dom wydawniczy Wojska Polskiege need to be improved. There are multiple sections in the pdf report composed by different authors. The page numbers and relevant author of each reference should be inputted rather than only referencing the document as a whole. I can't do it myself because I do not speak Polish--Labattblueboy (talk) 19:45, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I have some concern with the number of times the Sanford reference is used. The spread of pp. 20-24 is used over 20 times, I suspect that greater focus is possible here.--Labattblueboy (talk) 19:45, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
What do you mean by "greater focus"? Sanford is the best source. qp10qp (talk) 22:51, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
I have a hard time believing that each citation covers the 20-24 page spread. If some only utilize for instance 21 than that should be the page cited. --Labattblueboy (talk) 22:56, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm afraid I disagree, because these pages need to be read as a whole. I'm not aware of a policy that says a range of four pages is too large. The point of citations is for readers to check information: to do so in context they need to read more than one page, and I suspect this is what people do, to save them repeatedly checking the same reference as they read through an article. By the way, on eight occasions that citation is reinforced by another one from a different source.qp10qp (talk) 23:01, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Once again still have a hard time believing that the spread is necessary for context on 20 citations. I'll leave it at that.--Labattblueboy (talk) 23:21, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
As it stands, Wikipedia already requires more minute referencing of information than in academia. To expect us to go even further and break up a four-page range into separate single page citations strikes me as actually unhelpful. The way academics check a source is to go to the page number and read several pages or more around it to get the whole picture. This actually saves time, because they don't have to then look everything up anew as they come to re-uses of the same source. The distribution of references around the article, most of which I decided myself when helping prepare the article for its FAC, is, I hope, reasonably sophisticated. Although the article is densely referenced, and everything is sourced, there's no attempt to place tags every few words in the article out of pedantry. It's assumed that when reading a source a reader will see what it covers in a whole passage. Single-page citation is of course used for specific figures, quotations, terms, etc. qp10qp (talk) 00:39, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
While I believe that referencing a single page is better than five, I think page ranges are perfectly acceptable - both in academia and on Wikipedia. Further refinements are welcome, but I think they are above and beyond even FA requirements. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 23:11, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
I take no issue with concepts but figures are another story, They should be page specific. If someone is willing to send me a pdf scan of the four pages I am even willing to do it myself, but it needs to be done--Labattblueboy (talk) 12:21, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
  • The Roberts (1992) references need specific pages numbers. --Labattblueboy (talk) 20:17, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
*The Orlik-Rückemann footnotes have no relating bibliography equivalent.--Labattblueboy (talk) 22:46, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Restored. qp10qp (talk)
* Ryziński reference (Obrona Lwowa w roku 1939) is missing publisher and location information. --Labattblueboy (talk) 00:29, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Publisher is Instytut Lwowski, location is Warszawa. Don't know if this has already been added.radek (talk) 23:27, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
thank you for that. --Labattblueboy (talk) 12:15, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
  • There is no bibliography entry for Norman Davies, Europe: A History.--Labattblueboy (talk) 00:35, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
It was there. I've just moved it down one. qp10qp (talk) 02:08, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
missed it my bad. --Labattblueboy (talk) 03:06, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Labattblueboy, you are starting to add more things. You've put a load of citation requests on the article today. Could you give some idea when you are going to stop, because it's dispiriting to address your concerns, have no acknowlegement of it, only to find a whole lot more (hours) of work requested. qp10qp (talk) 02:08, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Arsenal F.C.

Notified: Qwghlm, Mattythewhite, Ed g2s, WikiProject Football

This is the oldest unreviewed sports FA, a fact which caused me to take a look at this article. What I found showed a few issues that, while not overwhelming, would be best resolved by the FAR process.

  • 1c: The history section is noticeably light on references. A couple paragraphs are unreferenced, and a couple others have citations which don't appear to cover everything before them. Problems also exist with the references used; a couple sites used (Arseweb and Arsenal Shirts) appear to be fan or personal sites. Several dead links as well.
    • Replaced 3 of the 4 dead links with 1 archive.org copy and 2 changed urls. I've left the 4th, nufc.com, which has an archive.org copy but is a fansite. I'll try to go through the existing refs in the next couple of days to fill in missing dates, authors etc, and will replace any fansites if I can. Struway2 (talk) 12:46, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
      • Update: have been through existing refs, tidying as best I can, and have replaced a few with more obviously reliable sources and added a few more. Struway2 (talk) 20:01, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
  • 2c: Reference 2 is not formatted well. Not as important as the stuff above, but worth a mention.
  • 3: Alt text is now required for images in FAs.
    • Started to add ALT text -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:38, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
      • Alt text all now added apart from the image in the "colours" section - I can't figure out how to do that one....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:38, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Referencing is the main concern for me. Giants2008 (17–14) 02:41, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Image problems
  • File:Trophy presentation Highbury 2004.JPG and File:Arsene Wenger.JPG: source verification failed.
    • Wenger image replaced with a new, sourcable one. Removed the other one -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:50, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
  • File:Arsenal crest 1888.png: no source.
  • File:Arsenal fc old crest small.png: two of the links supporting the claim that it is not copyrighted are broken. The third does not mention the copyright.
    • The third does in fact mention the copyright: "Arsenal have revamped their famous cannon crest as part of a major shake-up of the club's corporate image. The rebranding will give the Gunners a tighter grip on merchandising as they had been unable to copyright their old badge" (my highlighting). However, this link to Arsenal F.C.'s website states that "Firstly, as the VCC crest incorporated many separate elements introduced over a number of years, there was uncertainty surrounding its exact origination. Consequently, the Club was unable to copyright the crest." I've added this link to the image's description. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 21:59, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
  • File:Emirates Stadium Arsenal.jpg: what does "photo taken...on Dennis Bergkamp's testimonial" mean? Is this photo by Dennis Bergkamp?! DrKiernan (talk) 14:44, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Are you kidding on the fourth point? There is nothing ambiguous about the description: the photo features a game (that is about to be played) at the Emirates Stadium, and the occasion is the testimonial match of Dennis Bergkamp. Chensiyuan (talk) 00:50, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
      • Of course it's ambiguous. My objection stands. DrKiernan (talk) 08:47, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
        • I've changed the description to read "... before Dennis Bergkamp's testimonial match." which should clarify. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 18:06, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Technetium

Notified: User talk:Aarchiba, User talk:Mav, User talk:Jan van Male, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements.

FA from 2005, a few minor 1c issues, otherwise there is some copyediting that could be done: a few very short subsections that could possibly be merged, and one-sentence paragraphs and other short paragraphs. 9 images used in the article: File:Tc-TableImage.png - "other versions" appears like it needs fixing, File:Tc,43.jpg - could use formatting for source/author info, the rest of the images could use formatting with commons:template:information, including: File:Дмитрий Иванович Менделеев 4.gif, File:UraniumUSGOV.jpg, File:Basedow-vor-nach-RIT.jpg, File:Technetiumhydrid.png, File:Technetiumcluster.png, File:Technetiumcarbonyl.png, File:Technetiumkomplex.png. Shouldn't be too hard to bring the article up to speed. Cirt (talk) 23:16, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

This article already received a major overhaul in May from Materialscientist... I guess we might as well make things official and fix the images, table and other minor issues. Will take a look this weekend. --mav (talk) 00:25, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Sounds great! :) Cirt (talk) 01:11, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
I've contacted two people who should know the source of File:Tc,43.jpg, but couldn't get information on the source (one doesn't know, other doesn't reply), thus replaced the image with a sourced one. Materialscientist (talk) 09:05, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Commons info template now on each image. HTML table replaced File:Tc-TableImage.png when the new Elementbox was implemented for this article. --mav (talk) 01:26, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
I always try to help out whenever a an element is brought to FAR, so I'm on board too. I'll try to take a look in the next couple of days. Perhaps I'll do a line-by-line prose review to help improve the writing. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 01:17, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. Alt text done; thanks. Several images need alt text as per WP:ALT. Please see the "alt text" button at the upper right of this review page. For the structural formulae I suggest IUPAC as per WP:ALT#Chemistry. Eubulides (talk) 07:41, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
    Alt text updated (by several editors). Please check. Materialscientist (talk) 09:19, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
    Thanks. It mostly looks good. Two problems, though. First, the two images File:Tc-TableImage.png and File:Tc,43.jpg lack alt text. Second, and a very minor issue: the phrase "Black and white image of" should probably be removed, as per WP:ALT #Phrases to avoid. Eubulides (talk) 09:38, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
    Third image fixed, first two is a general (unresolved) issue with all elements FAs: those images are "hardwired" into the elementbox. This is a question to Mav. Materialscientist (talk) 10:44, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
    Thanks. Mav, perhaps you could comment? For File:Tc,43.jpg, could you please fix the problem by adding a suitable |image alt= parameter to Template:Infobox technetium's invocation of {{Elementbox}}? (I just added support for that parameter.) You're right that the periodic table is a more-general problem than just this article; perhaps I should ask at WP:ACCESSIBILITY for help or ideas on that. Eubulides (talk) 21:44, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
    I see the image was changed to File:Tcfoil.jpg; I added some alt text for that. Eubulides (talk) 16:16, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. The history section has one big problem. Nobody was searching for a element with a certain place in the PSE before 1869, because there was no PSE at that point. The discoveries of polinium pelopium ilmenium are absolutly unrelated to technetium. The davyum discovery has to be looked at if Kern calls the element ekamanganese or points to a place in the PSE for his element. --Stone (talk) 08:02, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Some of the literature is also flawed. The atomic number was first propsed in 1911 so something must be wrong with when Jonge (1996) doi:10.1007/BF00837634 states: Various workers claimed to have discovered an element with Z = 43 in naturally occurring ores and proposed such names as polinium (1828), ilmenium (1846), davyum (1877), lucium (1896) and nipponium (1908). He quotes Kenna BT. The search for technetium in nature. J Chem Educ 1962; 39: 436-442. for that fact. So how you can sarch for something which you do not know that it is missing or search for Z = 43 when Z is unknown to you. Further problems is that ilmenium and pelopium are niobium an tantalum similar while polinium lucium and polonium are iron group metals similar to platinum, so they are not ment to be element 43.--Stone (talk) 13:53, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
You have really good knowledge of history of elements. It would be great if you could take initiative and fix that section in the article. Materialscientist (talk) 11:42, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
The history section is not that bad and I have the literature used as source, so I can improve it. --Stone (talk) 15:31, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Do we want the history part which is not related to technetium except that the discovers quote a mass of around 100?--Stone (talk) 15:31, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
I would briefly mention that too and then see how the article stands. If it doesn't swell too much, my vote is to keep expanded history as this information is mostly lost on the internet. Materialscientist (talk) 10:44, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. I think (at least some of) the subsections of Chemistry need to be merged. Hydrogen has chemistry subsections, but they are larger and each cover a broader range of information. Perhaps the technetium chemistry information could be resorted into Inorganic, Organic, and Clusters. Any thoughts? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 17:00, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
    Possible, but my vote is no because subsections bring clarity. Other opinions? Materialscientist (talk) 09:19, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. Some lines of prose that I don't really understand: Cryptic C62 · Talk 17:10, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
    • "Pure metallic single-crystal technetium becomes a type II superconductor at 7.46 K; irregular crystals and trace impurities raise this temperature to 11.2 K for 99.9% pure technetium powder" This sentence says that technetium becomes a superconductor at these temperatures, but the sentence that follows it discusses superconductor effects below these temperatures. Which is it?
      Regarding your first question: superconductivity is a low-temperature phenomenon. When someone says that a material becomes superconductive "at 7.46 K", it implicitly means that it is superconductive at temperatures lower than 7.46 K, with 7.46 being the critical temperature. This could be made more explicit, though. --Itub (talk) 17:21, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
    • I think the information about Tc-99m should be removed from the new Toxicity section, as the information is already discussed at great length in other sections of the article. Also, it doesn't really make sense to elaborate on this here because it isn't toxic to the human body. Perhaps Tc-99m could be referenced in passing in order to contrast it with other more toxic isotopes: "Unlike Tc-99m, which is used in medical applications, blah blah blah..."
      Article changed a bit. I would keep the radiation protection (former "toxicity") part. Some people really need that information. Materialscientist (talk) 10:44, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Comments by Cryptic are moved to talk:technetium for further work. Materialscientist (talk) 08:00, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Much great work has been done by several people. Getting close. --mav (talk) 01:31, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I just finished an extensive copyedit, added some missing inline cites and removed or commented out material that really isn't needed but is still uncited. What else, if anything, is needed? --mav (talk) 02:12, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Much much better. I added one {{fact}} tag. Some images are still missing info, such as date, or author info. Cirt (talk) 04:20, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Added cite to the fact. Checked date/author info for images, added one author. IMO, date/author info is reasonably complete. Materialscientist (talk) 04:58, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
I still see multiple images with empty fields. Really now, this should not be too hard to fix. Cirt (talk) 05:03, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Could you please point to an example (image and empty field)? Materialscientist (talk) 05:30, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
File:Дмитрий Иванович Менделеев 4.gif = this one is an easy fix. :) Cirt (talk) 05:44, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Replaced the image instead ;-) - actually long wanted to, as the new one is much more realistic. Materialscientist (talk) 06:04, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Great! :) There are still some minor issues with the other images, as noted above. Cirt (talk) 06:30, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Info template, description, source and author info is on all images. --mav (talk) 17:43, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

<indent>Using the same tactics, I changed the uranium ore picture to a referenced one (much easier than to find back the 2005 sources). Other images are self produced, thus author/dates are specified and to be taken from the individual image versions. Materialscientist (talk) 07:21, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

  1. File:Tcfoil.jpg = no way this has to be fair use, a free use image could definitely be used instead.
  2. File:Technetiumhydrid.png = missing date field, should be an easy fix.
  3. File:Technetiumcluster.png = missing date field, should be an easy fix.
  4. File:Technetiumcarbonyl.png = missing date field, should be an easy fix.
  5. File:Technetiumkomplex.png = missing date field, should be an easy fix.
  6. File:Basedow-vor-nach-RIT.jpg = missing date field, should be an easy fix.

Cirt (talk) 17:48, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

All have dates now. Still trying to tie-down the source info for the original image. A valid fair use rationale for Tc image may be possible depending on how constrained access to the element is. --mav (talk) 18:34, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks very much! Keep us posted. :) Cirt (talk) 18:35, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
A note on "rationale" issue: search of techentium on images.google.com would return a few results, none being referenced, except for File:Tcfoil.jpg - that was the reason for using it. Just 6 October, I've got an email on the source of File:Tc,43.jpg and put into the description file. I have no access to that source, but the email person has, and offered to provide more details if needed. Materialscientist (talk) 04:51, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Can't File:Tc,43.jpg be used, and the fair use one deleted? Yes, info on the author-field for File:Tc,43.jpg would be good. Cirt (talk) 05:00, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Author added (unknown). The trick here is I have to trust the email of that person on that image (that it is pure Tc and US government work - fine with me, but other opinions are welcome. Anyone has access to that book ?). That is why I keep the foil image in the infobox. Materialscientist (talk) 05:11, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Given that, and the fact that versions of this image are so widely used on the Internet, I say we put Tc,43.jpg back. It has a cite, we know the cited book exists but can't find a copy. I think we have done our due diligence. Let's get rid of the fair use image. --mav (talk) 03:19, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Done. In terms of photographic and scientific quality, Tcfoil.jpg is better by all counts, but if fair use is an issue .. Materialscientist (talk) 03:30, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks very much, excellent work all around. :) Cirt (talk) 04:24, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Cool. Are we done with the FAR now? --mav (talk) 06:56, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Looks good to me, would like to hear what others think though. Cirt (talk) 06:58, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Can we close this now? I think we are done and the article is now clearly up to current standards. --mav (talk) 21:47, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

My voice may be disregarded, as I am a contributor, but I also think the article is up to the standards. We are polishing it further with Cryptic (many thanks to him!), but I believe this goes beyond FAR. Materialscientist (talk) 00:10, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
As a member of WikiProject Elements, I am obviously biased towards keeping this as a Featured Article. Regardless, throughout my review I have yet to see any red flags which suggest that it should be demoted. I will continue to work on the article with Materialscientist regardless of how the FAR turns out. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 00:40, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I don't think this article is ready to be kept yet. I found MOS issues in the lead (didn't look any further), text squeeze between images in several places, and one unnecessary red link (ppm). Further work and review needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:55, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Thanks for taking a look. I went ahead and fixed some obvious MOS issues. A more MOS-experienced set of eyes welcome to point out remaining issues. --mav (talk) 21:08, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
      • The first image 1) creates text squeeze with the infobox, and 2) has the subject looking off the page (see WP:MOS#Images). Could it be relocated, further down in the article, and right-aligned so the subject is looking into the text? You might ping either Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) or Maralia (talk · contribs) to ask if either of them has time for a MOS tune-up. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:55, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
        Fixed the image issue. Materialscientist (talk) 04:03, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Canada

Notified: Jeff3000, JimWae, Soulscanner, Ground Zero, Jkelly, SimonP, Thirty-seven, Ckatz, Sunray, WikiProject Countries, WikiProject Canada


This article was promoted in 2006, and it doesn't look like it has had a review since. I am nominating this featured article for review because I found there are many many sections are lacking in sources/citations. For the section of history; for example, its length is too long and going into unnecessary detail. In addition to these, notes/references are not in correct formats according to the standard of Wikipedia. Oei888 (talk) 17:04, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment. Also, images need alt text as per WP:ALT. Eubulides (talk) 19:40, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I've started this but as I have little experience with alt text I would appreciate it if someone else would take a look. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:14, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! What I see so far looks excellent. Only two minor points: first, please omit "French" as per WP:ALT#Verifiability; second (and less important), I'd omit "Oil painting of" as per WP:ALT#Phrases to avoid. Eubulides (talk) 01:32, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Okay, done. I wasn't quite sure what to do with the maps though; any suggestions? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:45, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

The page takes a long time to download. Download times might improve with some pruning. Perhaps the number of external links, nav templates, and quotes from references could be reduced? There's one image I'm not sure about: File:NAFTA logo.png in Template:NAFTA. As a logo, is the licensing information correct? Other images OK. DrKiernan (talk) 14:23, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Too long to down load?? well anyways not sure if this is still being talk about ..But if it is i would hope that a GA/FA review type process would be done first listing the problems. WITH much time given to update the article to new standers. IN other words give editors a chance to fix it before it is downgraded i see no rush in downgrading the article it was once just fine. Buzzzsherman (talk) 20:44, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
This is supposed to be the encyclopedia for everyone. If it's slow for me (in a first-world country on a fast connection and computer) then anyone in the third-world or using an old computer will never see it. That defeats one of the key purposes of the project: to provide information for those that cannot otherwise afford it. The page needs trimming in size to meet criterion 4. DrKiernan (talk) 10:36, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment. To Buzzzsherman: this article is still open for comments, discussion and editing. Articles are generally listed at FAR for at least two weeks, and then move on to the FARC (the actual voting phase), where they remain for at least another two weeks. Here are my thoughts on the article:

  • I have serious doubts about the article meeting FA's new requirements for "high quality sources". Much of the article that could be sourced to high quality books and journal articles is instead sourced to mediocre (although technically reliable) sources. The Further reading section could indeed stand a significant trim, but I would suggest that many of these references be used to source the article, instead of being simply tossed.
  • See here for a list of dead links and other links with problems. There are over 20 dead links (both references and external links) alone, a serious problem for a FA.
  • Dead links fixed, not sure about the other stuff. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:13, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
  • References need significant work on formatting. Web references need publishers and access dates at the very least, which many of the current references are lacking.
  • This should now be fixed for all references, although I would appreciate it if someone would double-check. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:13, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
  • What makes current ref #26 (bloorstreet.com) a reliable reference?
  • Changed
  • What makes current ref #132 (railwaypeople.com) a reliable reference?
  • Changed
  • What makes current ref #167 (Global Recession...) a reliable reference?
  • Removed

Hope these suggestions help! Dana boomer (talk) 14:52, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

ok tks i will get a few people like User:SriMesh to help fix this page ... I see that User:Nikkimaria is already working on refs...with her and SriMesh help we should get this done in a few weeks...we are just finishing up GA level for Aboriginal peoples in CanadaBuzzzsherman (talk) 22:39, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Reducing size

Question... we need to trim down the article anyone got a problem with removing some content that is coverd in main article ..I was thinking the following bellow could be removed..but some pictures would have to go..any opinions? "The gulf is bounded by Newfoundland to the north and the Maritimes to the south. The Maritimes protrude eastward along the Appalachian Mountain range, from northern New England and the Gaspé Peninsula of Quebec. New Brunswick and Nova Scotia are divided by the Bay of Fundy, which experiences the world's largest tidal variations. Ontario and Hudson Bay dominate central Canada. West of Ontario, the broad, flat Canadian Prairies spread toward the Rocky Mountains, which separate them from British Columbia. A lake in the foreground reflects the image of the snowy mountain-tops in the background. There is an outcrop of forested land between the two Moraine Lake in Banff National Park, Alberta.

In northwestern Canada, the Mackenzie River flows from the Great Slave Lake to the Arctic Ocean. A tributary of a tributary of the Mackenzie is the South Nahanni River, which is home to Virginia Falls, a waterfall about twice as high as Niagara Falls. A pier and some houses on the edge of a body of water. There are rolled pieces of fabric on the pier in the foreground, and more houses in the background A Maritime scene at Peggys Cove, Nova Scotia, which has long been sustained by the Atlantic fishery. Northern Canadian vegetation tapers from coniferous forests to tundra to the Arctic barrens in the far north. The northern Canadian mainland is ringed with a vast archipelago containing some of the world's largest islands." Buzzzsherman (talk) 21:37, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

done since no one said anything i will go out on a limb and do it ... i went ahead and trimmed the articles size again. I have replaced above text with a reference and this statement "Canada is surrounded north, east, and west with coastline and since the last ice age has consisted of eight distinct forest regions. The vastness and variety of Canada's geography, ecology, vegetation and landforms have given rise to a wide variety of climates throughout the country. "
Getting there
Redlinks aren't important (they are placeholders to indicate the need of a subject-specific article). I'll check over all the alts a bit later, and add where needed. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 19:34, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
I found the current version of the one remaining dead link and made the update in the article. PKT(alk) 22:11, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment. Although most of my comments from above were completed, I still stand by my statement about high quality sources. I still am not convinced that Encyclopedia Brittanica, the World Book Encyclopedia and multiple Canadian government websites should be considered high quality sources when there are so many books and journal articles to choose from. The list that is now the Further reading section looks like (from talk page dicussion) it was the original references section before in-line citations began to be required. Now, these books, which were presumably originally used to write the article, have been delegated to a bloated Further reading section, instead of just being used with in-line citations. Dana boomer (talk) 15:07, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

agree with World Book Encyclopedia and as for Encyclopedia Brittanica i think it is great and well written Encyclopedia (to be honest it has a much better good source reliability history then wikipedia does) but it is a wiki competitor and i can see why using it is discouraged ....''The government of Canada links are not the best but are very useful in furter understanding (reading on the spot) more about each subject line.

As for old original references i can only find 4 of the 19 books listed in the Ottawa university's library's... I will need some help in finding them if we plan to reuse them.....Still the article has come a long way since we started 2 weeks ago.. Good job guys.... love love love Buzzzsherman (talk) 19:07, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Update ok have used 7 of the old refs , 2 were links i could use ...need help with the rest only 6 to go!! Buzzzsherman (talk) 21:45, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Lead

  • This sentence is in the lead: "Canada was formed as a federal dominion of four provinces.[9][10][11]". Do we really need 3 references for this, in the lead? There is only one other reference in the entire lead. DigitalC (talk) 16:48, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Ann Arbor, Michigan

Notified: TonyTheTiger, Pentawing, Taxman, Gsgeorge, Avenue, Jay32183, WikiProject Cities, and WikiProject Michigan.

This is a 2005 FA that underwent FAR in 2007. Since then, it's undergone the classic Wikipedia rot. Unsupported information has been added, links have gone dead, and the MOS has progressed.

  • I've added a scattering of citation needed tags where appropriate.
    • Still working on it (primarily in the History and Culture sections). PentawingTalk 04:17, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
  • There are several dead links in the article.
    • Redlinks or dead external links? PentawingTalk 04:17, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
      • I'm sorry ... dead external links. Checklinks shows citations 19, 38, and the two last links in the additional sources list to be dead. JKBrooks85 (talk) 04:35, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
        • done - Though I should note that the last dead external link pertaining to Urbanoasis.org is still active (I managed to open the file in another browser window). Hence, in the meantime, I have commented that external link out. PentawingTalk 02:59, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
  • There are external links in the main body of the article.
    • done - Though if there are any I missed, please point them out. PentawingTalk 04:17, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
  • The prose is rough in places, but it isn't my main concern.
    • I have gone through as much of the prose as I can, though I intend to look at it further. PentawingTalk 04:17, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
      • done - I think I have gone through the entire article. PentawingTalk 01:41, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  • The article needs to be updated in spots. Forex, there's an "As of December 2006".
    • done - Seems to be corrected, though someone else might want to look through the article to make sure. PentawingTalk 04:17, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

With the number of University of Michigan alumni and students on Wikipedia, I'm sure there's enough interest to save this article ... it just has to manifest itself. JKBrooks85 (talk) 23:42, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Does it make sense to nominate it during the summer, while the students are away? Can I please suggest withdrawing the nomination and renominating it a month from now? Classes begin September 8. Eubulides (talk) 06:57, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I imagine that there's more free time in the summer, when classes aren't going on. You don't have to be on campus to access Wikipedia. :) In any event, I think there's enough alumni and local users that the timing shouldn't matter. JKBrooks85 (talk) 12:02, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I concur with JKBrooks85's thinking; as a student, I know the general rule is that the start of school is much worse a time to begin a major Wikipedia project, compared to during the summer. Otumba (talk) 22:08, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Actually the Wikimedia traffic data always shows a major lull during Northern Hemishphere summers and it picks back up about the time school starts again. Summer is a major detraction from a lot of editing—either from students not being at school or vacations. Also, who studies much when school first starts? The weather is nice and there's too much else to do. :) I did go add a couple citations and I'll try to get some more. Overall though the article isn't in terrible shape, it could do with someone going through and detailing any more concerns besides what have been tagged as being needed already. Those can be searched for easily. - Taxman Talk 15:06, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
I have gone through the article and corrected as many problems as I can for one night. However, I intend to look over the article again to make sure every issue has been dealt with. PentawingTalk 04:17, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
I believe that I have gone through the entire article and have dealt with the issues raised. Though if issues still exists, can someone please point them out exactly? PentawingTalk 01:55, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. Done; thanks. Images need alt text as per WP:ALT. Please see the "alt text" entry in the toolbox at the upper right of this review page. Eubulides (talk) 06:57, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Though if there are any that I missed, please note that. PentawingTalk 04:17, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
      • Thanks, but I'm afraid that alt text is still missing for File:Annarborskyline.jpg and for File:Washtenaw County Michigan Incorporated and Unincorporated areas Ann Arbor Highlighted.svg; please see the "alt text" button in the toolbox at the upper right of this review page. More important, the alt text that was added simply duplicates information that's in the caption, which is not what alt text is for. Please see WP:ALT #What not to specify and WP:ALT #Difference from captions, and look at the examples in WP:ALT #Flawed and better examples. Eubulides (talk) 04:42, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
        • I went through the alt texts again and tried to follow the guidelines, though I would appreciate it if someone else can improve on the texts if they are found to be inadequate. However, I can't be able to get the alt texts to work for the images in the settlement infobox, though there are entries for alt text that for some reason are not working. PentawingTalk 01:41, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
          • That's funny - now the alt texts for the images in the settlement infobox are working. PentawingTalk 03:00, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
            • If you're using the Altviewer, it's often delayed for reasons beyond my control or understanding. Alt text is now present for all images, but there are still two images where the alt text repeating the caption, namely "View toward the southeast of Ann Arbor near Liberty and State Streets ..." and "Ann Arbor skyline as seen from Michigan Stadium". Also, several of the proper names should be removed from the alt text, as they cannot be verified by a non-expert who is looking only at the image (as required by WP:ALT). These proper names include "Ann Arbor", "Michigan Stadium", and "Herman Hesse". The maps' alt text don't convey the useful information that the maps' visual appearance does, namely, just where is Ann Arbor? Other than that it looks good. Eubulides (talk) 13:08, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
              • Thanks, I see the above changes were done. Eubulides (talk) 17:17, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
  • File:AnnArborMural.jpg: caption confusing: the mural may depict the five people mentioned when seen in its entirety but this detail just shows one person (either Allen or Hesse, I can't make out which). DrKiernan (talk) 12:14, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
    • done - The caption has been corrected. PentawingTalk 04:17, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Changes look pretty good, Pentawing. I'm going to do a more detailed combing of the article, so let me know if you think I'm going down the wrong track with some of these changes. JKBrooks85 (talk) 10:23, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I've dropped a few more citation needed tags in there, and citations No. 23 and 24 don't appear to cover everything in the paragraph preceding it. JKBrooks85 (talk) 07:27, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
    • I've managed to add in the citations where needed. PentawingTalk 04:59, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Newspapers in citations should be italicized. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:04, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
  • There is a dab that needs fixing (see the toolbox), and I wonder if this article doesn't need a check for reliability of sources before it's kept. Have images been reviewed for compliance? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:05, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
    • DAB has been corrected. If you meant licensing, there are no problems with the images (several of which I had taken myself some time ago). As for the references, I have checked them and do not see a validity issue at this time. PentawingTalk 04:53, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
  • The Ave Maria part in the education section reads oddly and feels like it was slowly edited with new information over time. Plus I believe it is now gone. Hobit (talk) 03:35, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
    • The passage has been edited to reflect the fact that the law school was founded in Ann Arbor but moved out, with the buildings taken over by the Cooley Law School. PentawingTalk 04:53, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

How's this going? YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 03:16, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

  • I have addressed the issues that have been brought up, and so far it appears that no one has brought up any other problems. If no one brings up any further problems, I believe that this FAR should be closed. PentawingTalk 04:33, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

lat=42.27083&lon=-83.72639&datum=nad27&zoom=8

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:15, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
I pinged Pentawing for a look at this last comment. Marskell (talk) 15:58, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
I looked at several of the sources, and hopefully will take care of them fully in the article soon. PentawingTalk 05:06, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
I have replaced several of the above citations. However, several of the non-replaced citations (e.g. Topoquest and Airnav) use data that are explicitly labeled as being from a reputable source (US Geological Survey and the FAA respectively). City-data has a publisher, which is now listed. The vt100.net site has a listed author (which is listed in the citation listings), and Emporis (from what I have read) utilizes a rigorous process in ensuring accurate information. PentawingTalk 04:06, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Fixes still needed:

  • The article mixes unspaced WP:EMDASHes, spaced emdashes, and spaced WP:ENDASHes; per WP:DASH, pls pick one and be consistent (spaced emdashes are not used on Wiki).
  • I mentioned over two months ago a problem with WP:ITALICS on journals, newspapers, periodicals; it's still not fixed, example: US News and World Reports.
  • Can't Further reading be alphabetical?
  • Somewhere in MOS, we're not supposed to use # except in charts, should be No., please review throughout ... took the #14 slot ...

If these and sourcing concerns are cleared up, not in bad shape. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:57, 8 November 2009 (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] Jarmann M1884

[edit] Review commentary

Notified: listed WikiProjects

There are effectively no reliable sources cited in this article. The first book chapter, cited a lot of times, are by a gunshop owner named Hanevik who runs his own printing house, so it's self-published. The only other two sources are also home made websites, and the lead is short. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 05:13, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Images

The article fails 1c on the FA criteria as large chunks of the article are missing inline citations leaving it unverifiable. Additionally, although a minor quibble, the external links really needed to be edited so they are using the correct template.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:12, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

1c Single sourced, and per YellowMonkey. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:16, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concern are citations, lead, images. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 04:33, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Delist per nominating statement YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 04:33, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Delist per YellowMonkey. Also, article is missing citations in many areas, including statistics that need to be sourced. Dana boomer (talk) 00:39, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I do not like to see Delist declarations early in the FARC period (lest improvements continue), but since no one has touched this article for months, in spite of the FAR, Delist. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:27, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] TARDIS

[edit] Review commentary

Notified: Khaosworks, Wikipedia:WikiProject Doctor Who, Wikipedia:WikiProject BBC

I am nominating this featured article for review because:

Un-referenced material.
Dead links in refs 6, 36, 38, and others.
The "Popular culture" section has clean-up tags on it.
And, though not sure, some of the pictures maybe unnessessary.
So, all and all, this article has a lot of problems to it and needs a major overhaul. GamerPro64 (talk) 01:36, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Comments

An issue I see right off the bat is that it assumes too much foreknowledge of Doctor Who—things like Time Lords are not explained, nor the Doctor or much of the show's premise. The third paragraph of the first section is entirely unreferenced and seems to involve some original research (I'm not a Londoner, but a specific figure like 700 boxes in London in the 1960s should be sourced as not common knowledge.) There are several other unreferenced lines scattered throughout the article that I think similarly require citations.

Aside from referencing issues, there's excessive weight given to in-universe explanations and trivial details. I simply don't think 30+KB about every facet of the ship qualifies as summarized and succint coverage as recommended by fiction writing guidelines. Add to the fact that most of it's unreferenced and smacks of original research (for example, the bit on the changing exterior colors) and I'd say much of the article could be plainly gutted. Lots of these issues existed in the original FA version (oldid), but it's simply gotten bloated over the years with cruft. The final sections, rather than providing real-world critical commentary and sources that prove its notability, dissolves into a list of trivia.

Finally, the defensibility of File:Rani TARDIS.jpg, File:JadePagoda.jpg, File:Tinterior1.jpg, File:Tardis Console Circa 1996.jpg, File:Tardisconsole.jpg, File:TARDIS wardrobe.jpg, File:TARDIS Key.jpg, File:Hartnellconsole.jpg and File:Doctor Who - Secondary TARDIS console room.jpg are all amazingly poor. Considering there are free shots that can adequately replace the images of the exterior, one could even argue that there's no reason for a non-free image in this article at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by David Fuchs (talk • contribs) 02:05, 16 October 2009

  • Comment on the image issue - yes, some could be removed. However, the interior shots, especially Hartnellconsole and Tardisconsole, are vital to understanding how the depiction of the TARDIS interior has changed over the years, and are extremely unlikely to be replaceable with a free alternative (especially the first, as the set was likely destroyed when the show stopped using it, like most unused sets were. I don't know of any free current interior shots available, either. The WordsmithCommunicate 03:12, 16 October 2009 (UTC) Update: I removed the three images with the weakest justification, cutting the number of fair use images by a third. The WordsmithCommunicate 03:46, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
    • I would find a defense of the non-free shots much more reasonable if there were secondary sources and critical coverage about the appearance to prove that it actually mattered. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 21:24, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
    • I'll make a do-over on the article to remove the most notable complaints some time this week. Sceptre (talk) 13:31, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
      • Update: I have personal issues making it not worth my time to edit Wikipedia extensively over the next few weeks. I think it's better to allow the project to start to work on this more once the series comes back next Spring, when we aren't constrained by a time limit. Sceptre (talk) 02:29, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. Please add alt text to images; see WP:ALT. Eubulides (talk) 03:46, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

The major issue I see in scanning the article are general concerns on Writing About Fiction. Some sections, particularly regarding production details, are perfectly well expressed, and are certainly above average for an article on a fictional topic. Other sections, including the lead section, blend a little too seamlessly between real-world aspects and fictional aspects. Most of these issues can be solved without too much trouble by prefixing the paragraph or section to explain the perspective of the content. Other places, the "character development" of the tardis should be expressed in terms of episodes/development schedule, not in-universe or unspecified (weasel) time. If more detail is needed for improvement, I can scrutinize the article more closely, and point to specific places in the article that concern me, but I suspect plenty of editors out there would have no difficulty resolving all the major concerns (which again, aren't too severe) without such help. -Verdatum (talk) 21:19, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

  • We should have a speedy delist for FAs with maintenance tags. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 03:18, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

Cited FA criteria concerns are citations and focus YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 05:29, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Delist, per my comments above. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 23:48, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Delist. Lack of inline citations (main concern), lack of alt text, a bulleted trivia section disguised as "Popular culture", poorly formatted referenced, David's image concerns, etc. Dana boomer (talk) 21:41, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] The Protocols of the Elders of Zion

[edit] Review commentary

Notified: Jossifresco, Jkelly, Ludvikus, Humus sapiens, Goodoldpolonius2, Wikiproject Jewish history
  • I am nominating this featured article for review because
  1. the lead section was overlong, uninformative, and confusing.
  2. Inspecting the talkpage revealed that others have acknowledged issues with the article.
  3. Inspection of the listed feature article revision reflects an article that is more readable and better follows WP guidelines.
-Verdatum (talk) 04:59, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose:
1) The confusion is due to the complexity of the subject matter, not the writing of the lead.
2) The article has already been edited to satisfy those "others" who raised the issue.
3) "Inspection of the listed feature article revision reflects an article that is more readable and better follows WP guidelines." Don't know what the boldface item is.
--Ludvikus (talk) 17:23, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
  1. Au contraire. The lede is too long, and—as is your style—overlinked. If other Featured Articles can get by with three- or four-paragraph ledes, there's no reason why this one can't. Please read WP:LEDE.
  2. Your "improvements" have generally made the article harder to read, not easier to understand. Try to differentiate between important information, which needs to be discussed, and unimportant trivia, which should be excised. This is an encyclopedia article for a general reader, not a specialist.
  3. What it means is that this version of the article, which is the version that was promoted to Featured Article status, is better than the current version.
  4. A few other problems I noticed:
  • Several portions of the article lack footnotes, including some entire paragraphs.
  • There are quotations without citation. See, for example, "Structure and themes" (all of which may be WP:OR).
  • Avoid editorial interjections ("the notorious Protocols").
  • Decide whether the title is "the Protocols" or The Protocols. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 21:13, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
  • [Book covers]:
  1. File:The Protocols and World Revolution.pdf and File:Praemonitus Praemunitus - The Protocols of the Wise Men of Zion - The Beckwith Company (1920).jpg don't have a licence.
  2. Anyway, it is unnecessary to show essentially the same book cover three times, and as they should be free I don't see why a non-free use rationale is necessary.
  3. File:Pavel Krushevan.jpg doesn't have a source or author.
  4. File:Protocols of the Elders of Zion 2005 Syria al-Awael.jpg is at an unnecessarily high resolution for a book cover; it should be reduced in size.
  5. The non-free use rationale for File:Mexico low.jpg doesn't make sense. What has the cover of the book got to do with its contents? How does the cover illustrate the book is untrue?
  6. File:Japan low.jpg is missing a fair-use rationale.
  7. Does File:Protocols KL08.jpg need a fair-use rationale for the clearly seen book cover?
DrKiernan (talk) 14:29, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose:
  1. This item item was published in the USA in 1920, is in the public domain, and is the second edition of the infamous plagiarism.
  2. There's no such thing as the "same" book. There are only divers editions, produced at different times. These three Title pages are taken from the seminal, original, publications, and as such are extreme notable, unlike contemporary imprints.
  3. The source for Pavel Krushevan will be supplied.
  • Strongly support:
4., 5., 6., 7. None of these items are notable and should be deleted.
--Ludvikus (talk) 17:38, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Agree that the lede is much worse than the lede that gained FA status. The current version is far too detailed. A lede is supposed to be an introduction, a capsule, a summary of the more detailed article to follow. Instead, we find things like a typescript copy from 1919 and where it is archived. A reader has to wade through five and a half paragraphs of not very interesting dates and names before the reader even finds out what the content of the book in question is. --jpgordon::==( o ) 23:45, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
I agree too. But that can be fixed I think. Unfortunately, I find not many editors around like there used to be. I find quite a bit od duplication. Also, there's too much contemporary stuff at the end which makes the article too long. However, there's been new research around in the lat few years which emphasis the circulation of the typescript in 1919. I personally may need two weeks to help restructure the article. Also, it would be nice if we could have a Wiki project page for this article. I have no experience in that. I don't know who the editors are who with to assist in restructuring the article. --Ludvikus (talk) 06:39, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I think that the article currently is nowhere near FA status; for one thing, doesn't the lead usually come before the contents? Also, this paragraph appears to end in midsentence: "It also appeared in 1919 in the Public Ledger (Philadelphia) as a pair of serialized newspaper articles. But all references to "Jews" were replaced with references to Bolsheviki as an expose by the journalist and subsequently highly respected Columbia University School of Journalism dean, [15]". I applaud the Herculean efforts of Ludvikus; perhaps the article can be cleaned up before it gets demoted (though that is where I think it is headed). Mario777Zelda (talk) 23:22, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment - Future participants in this review, you don't need to support or oppose anything. This is just to evaluate what aspects of the article could be improved, and what aspects fail the Featured article criteria. If appropriate, a discussion to delist this article is started after this step. This process of featured article review is detailed at WP:FAR. -Verdatum (talk) 05:26, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. Please add alt text to images; see WP:ALT. Eubulides (talk) 03:44, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
  • This FAR is pointless. Any attempt to improve the article is fought over by Ludvikus. Even something as simple as adding a license to an image is reverted. DrKiernan (talk) 07:08, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Yah. Delist it now; it's so far from FA quality that the likelihood of it coming up to standard, as long as Ludvikus continues to apply his unique style to it, is close to zero. --jpgordon::==( o ) 17:42, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I think that this discussion should proceed to the next stage, Featured article removal candidate. After a week of intensive editing, some major issues still exist, in my opinion.

  • I still think that there are too many images at the top of the page (though this point has been addressed previously).
  • Large portions of the lead consist of very awkward, if not unreadable, prose. The lead is also overly long (and even with its length, may not summarize the article fully).
  • The first paragraph of the first section after the lead still ends in midsentence.
  • The shortened version of the title is inconsistent: it's seen as the Protocols, the Protocols, and The Protocols (at least).
  • The article is poorly organized. The section "The Times exposes a forgery, 1921", for example, is sandwiched between discussions of the book's imprints in various languages.
  • The lead sentence of the "Fiction" section reads: "As it turned the text a plurality of literary source besides Maurice Joly." What?
  • Some sections require further references, including the "Title Variations" section and the "Middle East" and "Eugene Sue" subsections.

Mario777Zelda (talk) 00:28, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are prose, structure, citations, lead, images. Also note the recent change to the criteria requiring "high-quality" sources. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 02:10, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Delist I consider this article to be far from satisfying the Featured Article Criteria. It's currently undergoing regular major edits (as opposed to being stable), It needs rewriting, reorganization, splitting, and trimming. I judge the amount of worked needed to return it to such a status would be on the order of months. Most of the editors responsible for initially bringing this article to featured status appear to be retired from editing, or on long term break. -Verdatum (talk) 20:37, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Delist per Verdatum, major editors pre-FA are retired or gone, article is unstable due to present work, lots of problems. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 23:48, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Delist per my above comments and those of Verdatum.--Mario777Zelda (talk) 01:27, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Delist. Mario777Zelda brings up most of the pertinent points in his section in the FAR. The biggest problem is the lack of references, plus references requested since mid-2008. Dana boomer (talk) 02:45, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Ugh. One glance at the TOC alone convinced me that a pile-on delist isn't needed here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:25, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Final Fantasy VI

[edit] Review commentary

Notified: Sjones23, Ryu Kaze, Kariteh, Hibana, Crazyswordsman, Deckiller, WikiProject Square Enix, WikiProject Video games

I am nominating this featured article for review because it has several issues that need to be taken care of. This article was nominated for FA back in 2006 when standards were significantly lower. Here are my concerns:

  • The lead does not adequately summarise the entire article and needs to be expanded. There are also refs in the lead, which is unnecessary as per WP:LEADCITE.
  • Done. 16:58, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
  • The third paragraph of the Gameplay section is unsourced. The paragraph is also very short and should be merged into another one.
  • Done. 18:21, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
  • The second paragraph of the Combat section is unsourced.
  • Done. 14:33, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
  • The whole Plot section is too long, and needs to be condensed as per WP:PLOT. The Setting section specifically needs to be trimmed.
  • Setting is now trimmed. 18:32, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
  • The second and third paragraphs in the Graphics section are too short to stand on their own and need to be merged into another paragraph. The last sentence in the first paragraph of the Graphics section is unsourced.
  • Done. 18:32, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
  • The last sentence of the Localization section is unsourced, and the second and fourth paragraphs of that section are also unsourced.
  • Done. 18:49, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
  • The last sentence of the first and third paragraphs of the Re-releases section is unsourced.
  • Done. 18:57, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
  • The whole Reception is confusing to read; it needs to be restructured and possibly rewritten. There are also two one-sentence paragraphs that need to be merged into another paragraph.
  • Done. The quasi-chronological listing of reviews is now split up by which version was being reviewed, which I think makes a bit more sense. --PresN 17:17, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
  • As for references, this should be replaced with the June 5th issue of Famitsu Weekly, as that's where the content originally stems from and the website is an unreliable source.
  • Done.
  • The link to ref no. 3 is dead.
  • Done.
  • The following refs seem to be unreliable sources: LostLevels (no. 19, 90), E. Boredom (no. 35), FINAL FANTASY 2000 (no. 36), Absolute-Playstation (no. 39), Caves of Narshe (no. 40, 60), Shadow Madness Classic (no. 41), Chrono Compendium (no. 42), filibustercartoons.com (no. 43), playeronepodcast.com (no. 44), Square Haven (no. 53), Everything2 (no. 59), and FantasyAnime (91).
  • 8/12 refs replaced; remaining ones are E. Boredom, Shadow Madness Classic, Chrono Compendium, and playeronepodcast.com. 19:59, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Correction- 10/12 replaced. Remaining is the E. Boredom interview with Amano and the Chrono Compendium interview with Woolsey. --PresN 20:21, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
  • All bad refs replaced/removed. --PresN 16:44, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
  • There are also a few incorrectly formatted refs, e.g. 82, 83, and 84.
  • Done.
  • I don't think the link to the Final Fantasy Wiki in the External links section is necessary.
  • Done.
  • Also, the images need alt text as per WP:ALT.
  • Done.

As it stands now, the article fails the FA requirements and needs a lot of work to fix the issues I've listed. The Prince (talk) 21:17, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

While I appreciate that it has many faults, is this really the proper venue to do this? Honestly, it would have been much easier and much more in the spirit of Wikipedia to cooperate and discuss this with the "main editors" of the article. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 06:52, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
I have to agree with the hippie: this is a LOT to hit people with at once.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 08:17, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't think a FAR is a bad idea, nor do I think Prince acted in bad faith. FARs are meant to fix problems rather than delist FAs. So long as improvements are being made, I'm sure the review will remain open. Heck, Final Fantasy's review was open for two months, but progress was made throughout the whole time, including time to research and organize sources offline. And I think Final Fantasy is now extremely better because of it. (Guyinblack25 talk 15:21, 13 October 2009 (UTC))
  • Comment. Alt text done; thanks. Alt text is now present (thanks), but it contains some phrases that cannot be verified by a non-expert who is looking only at the images, and which therefore need to be removed and/or reworded as per WP:ALT#Verifiability. Also, some phrases duplicate what's in the caption; these also need to be removed or reworded as per WP:ALT#Repetition. The troublesome phrases are "Terra", and "enemy from the Japanese SFC and GBA, North American SNES, and Western GBA releases". Als, the "battle scene" alt text doesn't describe that scene very well: it doesn't say that the monsters are larger, are four-footed, and have spiky colars, nor does it mention the green battle field (the dominant color in the image) or the mountain background. Eubulides (talk) 03:42, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Alright, tried to fix it. --PresN 16:37, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Thanks, it looks good now. Eubulides (talk) 17:52, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment: In the Plot section, there are wikilinks that link back to said article. Not sure about redirect linking but there sure are a lot of them in the article too. — Blue。 13:45, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
  • As far as I can tell, there aren't any self-links or links to articles that redirect back to this article after GamerPro64 removed that one. If there are any links that point to redirect pages... eh. That's why they redirect. --PresN 00:06, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are citations, lead. Also note the recent change to the criteria requiring "high-quality" sources. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 02:11, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Oy, clearly being worked on, what's the rush? --PresN 15:45, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
I agree, there may have been a reason to raise concerns, but not to push it forward when it's clearly on its way to being complete. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 17:48, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Current status- the majority of the above issues are fixed; remaining issues are: The lead needs to be rewritten to accurately summarize the article, sources need to be found for the second paragraph of the Combat section, 2 lower-quality references need to be replaced, and the reception section needs to be re-flowed. Hopefully I can finish this off in the next week. --PresN 20:24, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep - I've gone through and fixed everything listed above (thanks also to New Age Retro Hippie and GamerPro64 for some assistance). The article's looking a whole lot better now. --PresN 17:17, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep. All the concerns I raised have been addressed. Well done! The Prince (talk) 18:50, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I only took a very cursory look here, but did not see major problems:

  • WP:OVERLINKing review needed, example green and censor.
  • Per WP:MOSCAPS, why uppercase? ... , "SON OF A BITCH!", which ...
  • Is the "a" necessary here? Unsure. ... It received a 54 out of 60 points ...
  • This should not be an WP:ENDASH, I suspect an WP:EMDASH is intended, pls review throughout ... saying it "had everything you could want–heroes, world-shattering events, ...
  • Please review for logical punctuation, per WP:PUNC: sample ... Overall, RPGamer regarded the game as an "epic masterpiece" and "truly one of the greatest games ever created."[71][72]
  • Incomplete citation: The Video Game Hall of Fame - Final Fantasy III (US)". http://games.ign.com/halloffame/final-fantasy-iii.html. Citations need publisher and accessdate at minimum, author and publication date when available. Pls review all citations.

There are not major problems, so I probably won't revisit this review, leaving it to others to sort these. Pls ping me if needed. I'm troubled by Keep declarations where there are still fixes needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:23, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Fixed all of this and more. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:13, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Thank you! --PresN 15:51, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Tornado

[edit] Review commentary

Notified: Runningonbrains, Evolauxia, WikiProject Severe weather

I am nominating this featured article for review because there is a bunch of unsourced information here and there are too many stubby sections.John Asfukzenski (talk) 15:24, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

File:Super Outbreak Map.PNG is not from the NOAA. It is labelled as coming from the University of Chicago. NOAA use the image, but image copyrights do not automatically transfer to the user. I've nominated it for deletion.[4] Other images OK. DrKiernan (talk) 17:37, 9 October 2009 (UTC)Struck 08:16, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I have uploaded a higher-resolution version from a source which is clearly public domain. -RunningOnBrains(talk) 04:56, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. Please add alt text to images; see WP:ALT. Eubulides (talk) 19:45, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll take on this one. –Juliancolton | Talk 19:51, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Well it has been 11 days now and not since october 12 has there been any edits. I think it is obvious that there will not be much effort to improve the article. John Asfukzenski (talk) 23:08, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

If you would point me to a some phrases you think need sourced, I would be more than happy to look for sources. As for stubby sections, I don't see how they can be improved when most of them discuss topics with an article of their own and are marked as such. Ks0stm (T•C•G) 23:44, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm also getting to work on this article, but I would appreciate some additional criticism other than generic sourcing concerns. -RunningOnBrains(talk) 15:54, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
As far as the "stub sections" concern, this is a gigantic topic with many, many forked articles according to Wikipedia:Summary style, and I see no problem with a short section linking to a main article.-RunningOnBrains(talk) 16:01, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are referencing (1c) and stub sections (2b). Marskell (talk) 16:52, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment. While I appreciate it might be hard to avoid, the stub section issue is a fair point. The article is quite visually distracting in places. Marskell (talk) 16:52, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Fixes needed:

  • The article is "Tornado" but there is a section "Tornado": see WP:MSH.
  • Incorrect use of WP:MOSBOLD in several places.
  • Apparent incorrect use of the {{main}} template: it is used when this article summarizes another article using WP:SS. If that's not the case, a different template should be used.
    • I do not understand this criticism. All uses of {{main}} are at the head of a section summarizing the linked article, as far as I can see. Can you cite specific examples where it is used incorrectly? -RunningOnBrains(talk) 22:28, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Jargon unexplained or wikilinking lacking: example, cumuliform cloud.
  • Incorrect use of WP:ITALICS: samples in "Tornado-like circulations" section.
  • Curly quotes need to be fixed: example, or an irregular sound of “noise”.
  • External link farm needs pruning, per WP:EL
  • Can Further reading not be alphabetical?
    • Alphabetized. Ks0stm (T•C•G) 06:26, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Do all of those redlinked authors in citation really meet notability guidelines?
  • See also section is a problem and needs pruning or incorporation into the article (see WP:LAYOUT, and Sister links belong in External links.
  • Red links are fine in an article, except when the fact that the link is red makes this article have undefined terms. For example, this term needs to be either defined, or the redlink filled in: Other rich areas of research are tornadoes associated with mesovortices within ...
    • Took me forever, but found a reference, created a wiktionary page for the term, and linked the redlink to said page. Ks0stm (T•C•G) 05:11, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
  • See alsos used in this manner is poor practice and poor prose: ... susceptible than others.[22][80][81] (See Tornado climatology). ... and ... bad shelter during tornadoes (see next section).
  • The number of short, stubby sections indicate better organization of the TOC may be warranted.

That's as far as I got on a quick flyover, but more work is needed to bring this article to standard. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:11, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Planetary nebula

[edit] Review commentary

Notified: User talk:Worldtraveller most edits and nominator and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomical objects, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics

I am nominating this featured article for review because it currently lacks inline citations - criterion 1c. Tom B (talk) 20:12, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I will try to add inline citations. Ruslik_Zero 09:25, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment. Alt text done; thanks. Images need alt text as per WP:ALT. Eubulides (talk) 04:43, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I've added alt text, although I suggest my text be reviewed and improved by others. WilliamKF (talk) 00:51, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, that looks good. For next time it doesn't have to be quite that fancy; please see WP:ALT#Brevity. I tweaked the lead image alt text as per WP:ALT#Verifiability. Eubulides (talk) 00:56, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concern are citations. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 00:21, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. I think I added all necessary citations. The article can kept now. Ruslik_Zero 14:52, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep. Good job well done, images check out well and sources look high quality. Disambiguation done, overlinking removed. All links check out okay. Tom B (talk) 19:45, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Fixes needed and questions:

  • Per WP:MSH, why is Clusters uppercase in "Membership in Clusters"?
  • The article needs a MOS review; I've left brief sample edits, enough to realize that no one has yet reviewed for MOS.
  • Does the citation at the end of this paragraph cover all of the vagueries in the para?
  • There are two different ways of determining metal abundances in nebulae, which rely on different types of spectral lines, and large discrepancies are sometimes seen between the results derived from the two methods. Some astronomers put this down to the presence of small temperature fluctuations within planetary nebulae; others claim that the discrepancies are too large to be explained by temperature effects, and hypothesize the existence of cold knots containing very little hydrogen to explain the observations. However, no such knots have yet been observed.[39]
Yes, it covers everything. Ruslik_Zero 18:31, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm not thrilled with the "See also" section; has it been reviewed for compliance with WP:LAYOUT?

Other than those, and only based on a quick flyover, I don't see big issues here, so probably won't return to this review, leaving it to others to check these items. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:56, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Hungarian Revolution of 1956

[edit] Review commentary

Notified: User talk:Istvan, User talk:Paul.h, User_talk:Ryanjo, User_talk:K._Lastochka, User_talk:KissL, User_talk:Gk1956, User talk:Bardwell, User talk:Biruitorul, User talk:Biruitorul, User talk:Biruitorul, User talk:Biruitorul, User talk:Biruitorul, Wikipedia:WikiProject_Cold_War, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Eastern_Europe, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Hungary, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Politics

I am nominating this featured article for review because it is full of PRIMARY, SYNTHESIS (leading to OR), unsubstantiated causal claims relying on sources for the who-what-when and then claiming why, and a consistent anti-HCP NPOV (much as I despise Stalin's Best Hungarian Disciple, the omissions of fact, for instance, regarding the coalition government are simply appalling). See the Talk: page for a list of sources with severe problems. Fifelfoo (talk) 14:26, 22 September 2009 (UTC) To state the case clearly and at length:

  1. Over 100 sources used in the article are Primary sources. The chief example used is the "UN General Assembly Special Committee on the Problem of Hungary (1957)" used 54 times, an excellent and admirable report, which is unacceptable as a source for two reasons:
    1. It is a primary source, produced by participants in the event (attendent RS issues to do with self-sourcing flow from this)
    2. The source is used to evidence points of fact, which are associated with value judgements. Using a primary source to support a value judgement in this way is grossly unacceptable encyclopedic practice. Many excellent secondary sources exist, and reliance, or extensive use, of primary sources is Synthesis behaviour.
Similar problems arise in relation to attempts to source from archives such as "(available in Lib.ru, Maksim Moshkow's Library)" or Video (in Hungarian): The First Hours of the Revolution {{[5] director: György Ordódy, producer: Duna Televízió - Fonds 306, Audiovisual Materials Relating to the 1956 Hungarian Revolution, OSA Archivum, Budapest, Hungary ID number: HU OSA 306-0-1:40}} both of which require access to archives, which are fundamentally and necessarily primary, leading to Synthesis and its attendants, NPOV, OR
A third class of major primary source reliance arises in sources such as ^ Hungarian Revolt, 23 October–4 November 1956 (Richard Lettis and William I. Morris, editors): Appendices Proclamation of the Hungarian Writers' Union (23 October 1956) Retrieved 8 September 2006 and The Avalon Project at Yale Law School: Armistice Agreement with Hungary; 20 January 1945 Retrieved 27 August 2006 broadly documents from compiled source collections, again primaries.
This problem is not limited to UN, Hungarian video archives, US legal or CWHP archives, or unfully sourced Russian archives. It also includes leftist sources, such as Fryer, Peter (1957). Hungarian Tragedy. London: D. Dobson. Chapter 9 an excellent condemnation of the HWP's role in crushing 56, but a participant account and, again, primary
  1. These sources crowd out the secondary sources that are the basis of encyclopedic writing. Many of the mischaracterisations of the Salami tactics era arise because we have not used peer reviewed historian's narratives as the basis of this article. As a simple example, Bill Lomax is uncited.
  2. A very post '89 Hungarian urban intelligentsia right wing perspective is colouring value judgements. Compare the article prior to today's edits on the pre-salami period to Mikós Molnár's A Concise History of Hungary Cambridge Concise Histories, CUP 2001 at 297, "These were free elections, the first and last in forty-five years of Soviet domination. Thanks to Moscow's exceptional decision, the results were a serious disappointment to the communists. While they took 17 per cent of the votes - as did the Social Democrats - the overall winner was the Smallholders' Party with 57 percent of mandates. Its leader, Zoltán Tildy, then formed a coalition government out of the four National Independent Front parties, which consequently included the communists." The fact that we are driving the prose from Primary Sources, leads to synthesis biased by our own local ideologies and contexts, and these biases are not subject to rigorous peer review by historians. This is the core of the NPOV issue. But the core reason to review this article is the 100+ Primary sources in use. Fifelfoo (talk) 15:40, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
You will need to provide some specific examples of "NPOV" issues before this review is to be taken seriously. We've successfully defended the article's merits from Communist revisionists in the past, if you expect to be seen as any more than another politically-motivated noise machine, I suggest you elaborate and provide specific details to back up your vague and broad complaints. Thanks, K. Lásztocskatalk 14:34, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
(ec)You need to elaborate a lot more on points such as "anti-HCP NPOV" and "omissions regarding coalition government". After reading the talk page and your absurd edits to the article I'm not convinced that this is a reasonable listing. For example the use of mass banners in this edit, [5] out of line comments on the talk page. Hobartimus (talk) 15:07, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
The sourcing issue is sufficiently serious. As far as NPOV consider
After World War II...granted the Soviet Union rights to a continued military presence, assuring ultimate political control.[11] Hungary began the postwar period as a free multiparty democracy... freely elected ...The brief period of multiparty democracy came to an end when the Communist Party merged with the Social Democratic Party to become the Hungarian Working People's Party, which stood its candidate list unopposed in 1949.
After WWII, IIRC, the Soviet forces dismantled HSDP shop soviets in Budapest while creating the free democratic elections. The Soviet military presence's assurance of ultimate political control is NPOV, particularly in relation to the findings regarding NKVD penetration of the "Moscow" leadership. "Free" multiparty democracy under Soviet guns is somewhat of an NPOV anyway, but the repetition after the introduction of the concept is harping. The explanation of the collapse of independent multiparty coalition governments is a fit-job, and the explanation of the dominance of the HWPP over the list is trite. Problem references are now pretty printed. Please draw your attention to the over use of the UN rapporteur (a PRIMARY, and a non RS in relation to the historical event) Fifelfoo (talk) 14:54, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately, that's how it was. History cannot be changed to kindly agree with your own political preferences. K. Lásztocskatalk 15:11, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
If you have reading comprehension problems I am sorry, I will simplify. Lieing about why the HCP were rotten bastards is unacceptable on wikipedia. Mischaracterising the bastardry of the HCP is unacceptable on wikipedia. Using PRIMARY sources, or sources which do not substantiate the bastardry of the HCP, to claim the HCP were bastards is not acceptable on wikipedia. That they were bastards is correct, and should be readily citable from a Seconary source by a historian, such as Bibo. I would appreciate if you would address the 100+ primary source issue, and how this causes the article to be Synthesis. Fifelfoo (talk) 15:14, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Please quote the parts of the article where it claims that HCP were "rotten bastards" we all see that you have a very strong opinions on the subject what we see less is any substance in what you say. Hobartimus (talk) 15:28, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
At diff: "In the early 1950s, the government tripled prices but held wages static, producing economic stagnation, lower standards of living and a deep malaise." cited out of "Library of Congress: Country Studies: Hungary, Chapter 3 Economic Policy and Performance, 1945–85 Retrieved 27 August 2006" which is not a peer reviewed economic source, and stands counter to the literature on the distribution of land and collectivisation, over-investment in heavy industry, and the destruction of urban small consumer goods production. Fifelfoo (talk) 15:46, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
This is a recent change (yesterday) by User:Lapsed_Pacifist who changed "Radical nationalization of the economy based on the Soviet model produced economic stagnation..." to "In the early 1950s, the government tripled prices but held wages static, producing economic stagnation..." The original phrasing is certainly true, and is backed up by the reference. I am changing it back.--Paul (talk) 21:37, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
I see, but how does "economic stagnation, lower standards of living and a deep malaise" is exactly "standing counter" to "over investment in heavy industry" or destruction of urban small consumer goods production etc etc. The things that you discuss are far from being contrary are supporting "lower standards of living" and "economic stagnation". Obviously heavy industry and production of war materials will not result in an increasing standard of living nor the destruction of consumer goods production. Forced collectivization also mentioned by you is not known for increasing productivity. Hobartimus (talk) 16:44, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't know how much political economy or economic history of post-war Hungary you've done; but claiming "the government held wages static" as a cause of economic change in a soviet style economy is radically disconnected to actual economic function. One of the features of planning in high Stalinism was the plan driving economic activity, not the magnitude of wages and prices. The NPOV issues I have are with arguments to causation not rooted in academic sources, the Synthesis point. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:19, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
""Claiming "the government held wages static"" actually the sentence is not claiming anything about prices alone but the relationship of prices and wages. The sentence plainly states that purchasing power of wages dropped to one third, which resulted in 1)a low standard of living 2) much lower consumption. But what do you think of this sentence. "In the early 1950s, the government tripled prices but held wages static, producing lower standards of living and a deep malaise at a time of economic stagnation." Hobartimus (talk) 16:07, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Your proposed sentence still contains two problems. 1) Undue emphasis on wages and prices per se in a planned economy (see Kornai for the failure of availability of consumer goods), 2) Claim that this caused the lower standards of living; the availability of consumer goods in raw numbers is the problem, not the regulation of wages and prices. The sentence needs to turn itself on its head. "Hungary entered a deep economic stagnation due to forced collectivisation, failed heavy industrial investments, and the destruction of a small production consumer goods sector. In response the government tripled prices and held wages static, furthering the anger over unavailable consumer goods." Also the source is bloody appalling: LOC Country studies is not an economist publishing in a peer reviewed journal (their main publishing context), plus the date context on the country study is 45-89. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:43, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. Alt text done; thanks. Images need alt text as per WP:ALT. Eubulides (talk) 15:05, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
nice catch. Alt text has been added István (talk) 18:26, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for doing that. I spotted a few problems that still need fixing, though:
  • There are some instances of alt text repeating the caption; this duplication should be removed as per WP:ALT#Repetition. Phrases are: "Mátyás Rákosi", "Soviet Presidium", "Hungarian Parliament building"
    • Corrected (please review) István (talk) 14:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Some phrases contain details that cannot be verified by a non-expert who is looking only at the image, and need to be removed or rephrased as per WP:ALT#Verifiability. Phrases are: "Red Square"
    • Corrected (please review) István (talk) 14:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
  • The five flags in the infobox are purely decorative and should be marked with "|link=|alt=" as per WP:ALT #Purely decorative images. I suggest using {{flag}}, as it does this automatically.
    • Corrected for Soviet and PRH flags. The Revolutionary flag (File:Flag of the Hungarian Revolution (1956).svg) is currently not listed among the others (though it should be) - I do not know how to do this, perhaps an admin can do this easily.István (talk) 15:14, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
      • Thanks. I fixed the revolutionary flag icons by hand for now. The templates can be fixed by an admin at their leisure. Eubulides (talk) 17:31, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Eubulides (talk) 03:33, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I dispute the characterization of the UN report as only a primary source. While there are descriptive sections derived from the testimony of eyewitnesses, there are many other parts of the report that analyze and draw conclusions. Although not a scholarly work, this seems to meet Wikipedia criteria for a secondary source (rely for their facts and opinions on primary sources, often to make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims). In any case, if there are valuable and reliable references, or alternate accounts that can be added to the article while maintaining its readability, by all means proceed. However, I don't think removing references has any support here. Also, everybody here needs to draw a deep breath before they type. This discussion is becoming heated. Ryanjo (talk) 16:40, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

The reasons why the Special Committee's report on Hungary are a primary source are due to immediacy, and lack of capacity to analyse the incident as history. The analysis conducted by the UN Special Committee is not disconnected from the circumstances of its time, or the events in Hungary; this is similar to Peter Fryer's journalistic reports from Budapest, they display analysis and reflection, but are primary sources due to the immediacy of the connection. Similarly, for a historical article such as this, biographies written in the 1970s are primary sources, despite self-reflection; as is the analysis resulting from the US Government funded series of interviews with refugees who participated in workers councils. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:35, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
From a reference in the Wikipedia article Secondary source: "[T]he distinction is not a sharp one. Since a source is only a source in a specific historical context, the same source object can be both a primary or secondary source according to what it is used for." Ryanjo (talk) 00:13, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
And its usefulness as a secondary source (generated by practicing politicians) waned in the early 1970s as actual historians started producing analytical results within a tradition not dictated by the make up of the Security Council, but disciplinary peer review (they also, incidentally, had access to better sources than the Special Committee did). We aren't, for example, using Aczel and Meray's pseudo-biography, or much more tightly coaligned, the Imre Nagy Institute (Brussels) which was disciplinary, scholarly, political rather than historical, and contemporaneous. These three sources lack an adequate break in their timing. Why do you believe the UN Special Committee's analysis can superceed its intimacy? Fifelfoo (talk) 00:27, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Mod note NB that The criteria ask for "high-quality" sources, not just RS. The discussion is on the talk page, it came after people complained about John Wilkes Booth using a "simple" source instead of heavy duty scholarly textbooks. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 03:22, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
    Source quality concerns The following standard secondary sources are uncited:
    Bill Lomax, Hungary 1956 Allison & Busby 1976
    Ed. Bill Lomax, Hungarian workers' councils in 1956 East European Monographs 1990
    Litvan etal The Hungarian Revolution of 1956 Reform, Revolt and Repression 1953–1956 Longman 1996
    Kiraly etal The First War between Socialist States: The Hungarian Revolution of 1956 and its Impact East European Monographs 1984
    C Békés The 1956 Hungarian Revolution and world politics Cold War International History Project 1996
  • Coverage quality concerns
    Generally: the article fails to cover "the revolution" of the revolution, and go to meaning. I see this arising from the inadequate use of the scholarly secondary literature in English. I see the heads-of-point of these coverage concerns to be sufficient to make the article not meet FA criteria in terms of coverage.
    Coverage quality concerns that cause the communist reform / ultra-left communist positions to be obscured. This is especially important in the debate over MEFESZ's ideological position, student organisation of armed self-defence in Budapest, and the union between the Workers Councils and the intellectuals after November 4
    Nagy's first government is unmentioned.
    Nagy's informal talking circle, and his political opus are unmentioned
    The militant communist stance of the Petofi circles is unmentioned
    Working class riots after failed soccer matches are unmentioned
    Rajk's campaign to force the rehabilitation of her husband is unmentioned
    Poland isn't mentioned adequately
    Nor is MEFESZ or the Writer's Union's inspiration by Poland
    Coverage quality concerns regarding the demands of the revolution, the article reads as though revolution was natural, instinctual, and finally meaningless
    The reformed independent Smallholders, and SDP's positions aren't covered
    The MEFESZ and Writer's Unions demands for reformed socialism aren't covered
    Nor are the extremist fringe views.
    Nor are the popular demands (falling largely under the MEFESZ and WU demands, though some workers councils went further)
    Revolution... for what? Admittedly the longer debate between the regional councils, workers councils, and reformed multiparty central government weren't moving anywhere fast, but the immediate demands were rather well voiced.
    The coverage of the Revolution in regional areas. Its in Lomax (1976) for goodness sake. (One sentence on Workers Councils outside Budapest isn't acceptable)
    Coverage of armed and unarmed resistance
    4-10 November are one paragraph, they should be around 3 - 4
    Especially including the CWCGB's calling off of resistance
    Post 10 November is empty.
    Miklós Gimes illegal underground communist party should be mentioned.
    As should "spontaneous" armed guerilla resistance.
    The section on refugee flight is missing.
    The organisation of paramilitaries supporting the refounded Communist Party should be mentioned.
    And most importantly of all, the general strikes, and arrests of the seesaw battle between the Soviet occupation and the Central Workers Council of Greater Budapest is missing.

again, thanks Fifelfoo (talk) 01:13, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Could the nominator please indicate when he/she has completed specifying the criteria at issue? Thanks in advance! István (talk) 21:03, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
To cover a fraction of these coverage issues introduced, would require an article much larger than the present survey article, and thus much larger than recommended for Wikipedia. These issues could be more reasonably dealt with in separate articles. Ryanjo (talk) 23:57, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
I've been stepping through criteria in a reasonable order in achievable time after noticing the Primary issue, which leads into the SYN / OR issue due to lack of following current high quality academic secondary sources, which then leads into the Undue / Coverage issues. I don't know that there is anything more that could be specified. To Ryanjo, pick any of the major heads of title and compare their importance to the topic to the potential overcoverage of the section "Soviet version of events", the size of the paragraphs of the Western communist response, or the detailed discussion of interview and selection in the composition of the UN report. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:11, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Do I understand, then, that you feel that paring down sections such as those mentioned above to a phrase or two, and including a phrase or two on the topics you mention, would result in a better article? As opposed to my suggestion to reference an existing article, for instance, Poznań 1956 protests on Poland, MEFESZ in Bucharest student movement of 1956, Nagy's 1st government in Imre Nagy, for example. I also dispute several of your statements, such as that the refugees are not mentioned. Events after the revolution was crushed are presented in summary form, since they were, well...after the revolution. I am concerned that presenting all these objections, but not contributing any revisions or additions, does nothing for article improvement. You need to take the risk, as other editors have done, and start to make improvements, subject to the usual group editing process of Wikipedia. Ryanjo (talk) 02:15, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
The reason for this request - your concerns are expressed in three large sections: 1. on the article's talk page [6] 2. at the head of this page [7] and 3. below a moderator's note [8]. Reviewing these are a bit more challenging, especially when they appear in different places and spread out over time. You replied: "I don't know that there is anything more that could be specified" - but specifically *will* there be? Are we to expect a fourth section? István (talk) 06:39, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
There won't be. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:16, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Image problems The two pictures of Stalin's fallen head are copyrighted. As it is only necessary to show one of them at most, fair use doesn't apply to the second one, as it shows the same information as the first. The portrait of Rákosi has uncertain copyright status. The image of the 1957 May Day parade has two mutually-exclusive licenses. DrKiernan (talk) 15:07, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Done 1. 2nd Stalin image replaced w/ GFDL image (boots) 2. Rákosi image moved to talk (pending status clarification) 3. May Day Parade image moved to Talk pending status clarification. The new photo (Kádár) is public domain w/ alt txt. Therefore, the photos are likely in shape now. (Please review, thanks) István (talk) 21:27, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concern are citations, formatting of citations. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 00:51, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
comment I'm sorry, I don't see where the FAR listing pointed out problems with formatting of citations. I'm sure I must be missing it, could someone please point it out?--Paul (talk) 04:15, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
I must have missed it too. If any specific formatting concerns had been raised during FAR I certainly would have set to fix them.István (talk) 04:51, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
I have to apologise for the wall of text, and dispersal of my criticisms, but at Talk: I noted three sources with citation / referencing issues, sources lacking a full citation / bibliography line, two still appear to be outstanding: Paweł Machcewicz, 1956 - a european date (Currently not fully cited 05:05, 6 October 2009 (UTC)); "3. Lesson: The Days of Freedom", The Institute for the History of the 1956 Hungarian Revolution. (Currently not fully cited at 05:05, 6 October 2009 (UTC)). I suspect these two are trivially fixed. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:05, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
I will attend to it. István (talk) 05:21, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
The two problems listed above have been fixed.--Paul (talk) 07:35, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
retain: no value in proceeding due to my ignorant use of process and malformed FAR. User:Istvan is convincing in his commentary that the way I developed this FAR is so administratively malformed (6/10 below, point 3) that there's no value to this process for the article. (I'm not abandoning any of my coverage, sourcing, or article quality concerns; but, the poor quality of my presentation of these is counter productive to article quality.) Fifelfoo (talk) 00:44, 7 October 2009 (UTC) delist: Sourcing quality per WP:WIAFA (1c) and WP:MILMOS#SOURCES (which sets a minimal B-standard on sourcing quality); Sourcing reliability: over-use of primary sources. (I will be asking for listing extensions at least a couple of times if the FARC commentary looks like delist after the 3 weeks, obviously if the results aren't delist, I won't be asking for extensions. I was hoping Istvan was going to respond before this lapsed into FARC, I read his earlier comments as a "hold-off, I'm thinking".) Fifelfoo (talk) 01:11, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Comment - Its not clear what specific concerns the nom raises. The nom, presented in three large sections: 1. [9] 2. [10] and 3. [11], contains no specific reference to any WP:FARC criteria by index (e.g. "1(c)") as per convention. The "clearest" statement so far is here [12] "the Primary issue, which leads into the SYN / OR issue due to lack of following current high quality academic secondary sources, which then leads into the Undue / Coverage issues." This daisy-chain roots to "secondary" "primary" (obviously "secondary" would obviate the concern altogether) (per WP:PSTS) and the prime example given is the UN report. This is the scope as best as I can read it - it's already (due to the large size of the nom and lack of specific reference) already quite nebulous. It may do everyone some good to confirm this scope now so we aren't faced with a moving target going forward. István (talk) 05:21, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Given that I've had a couple of bashes at attempting to scope my concerns, and failed to express myself coherently, I worry about offering such a scope myself. My intention certainly isn't some kind of moving target, in order to delist, and I'm surprised at my lack of coherence. Istvan's one line summary of my concerns is excellent, though I would point to WP:WIAFA (1c) and WP:MILMOS#SOURCES as clear policy statements on the use of the highest quality secondary sources being the basis for the production of articles in general, and historical articles. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:34, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
(well, its actually your one-line summary, quoted directly - so you should find it accurate). A "moving target" may not be your intent, but, given that the nom is a mountain of text with no specific reference to the criteria by index, then it follows that anyone could infer almost anything, and we would be well into this FARC process still discovering truly new concerns (as should not happen). István (talk) 07:02, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Its a bind, but the criticisms are high order structural ones. If I list them in summary, they're open to interpretation, if I list them at length, they're open to interpretation. What would you suggest I do? Fifelfoo (talk) 07:17, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Since you ask, I suggest you had:
1) Used the talk page before taking a minor edit dispute directly to FAR, and
2) Made direct reference to WP:FARC criteria by index (ref. other noms in the archive)
Both set a terrible precedent for this process, and an undue burden on those willing to work to improve the article. FAR should require explicit due diligence, as does AfD. Otherwise you get dysfunctional mountains of cross-commentary. István (talk) 14:02, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Retain - a main concern seems to be with the UN report, but nothing indicates that document is anything but reliable. True, sources "very close to an event" cannot be used, but that doesn't refer to time specifically. Otherwise, articles like Tropical Storm Faxai (2007) or Effects of Hurricane Georges in Louisiana wouldn't have been promoted to FA in the last couple of months. Ideally, I might like to see a modern work quoting or otherwise drawing on the UN report, but mere use of that report does not render this article less than Wikipedia's best work. - Biruitorul Talk 06:02, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Retain - This article should be continued as FA, for the following reasons:
  1. User:Fifelfoo's statements on this articles' verifiable references/citations are not Wikipedia policy, not supported by WP:RS, and have been disputed elsewhere (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive567#Edits_of_User:Fifelfoo). The application of his personal criteria for cites is a concern, ie WP:POINT.
  2. I also dispute User:Fifelfoo's characterization of a several references for this article, including the UN General Assembly Special Committee on the Problem of Hungary (1957), as primary sources. His statements about political influences on the UN Report, ""intimacy", and his personal opinions of primary and secondary sources in general are speculative and unsupported by any specific references.
  3. Much of the content User:Fifelfoo recommended for inclusion in the article is available in other articles on Wikipedia, and it would be unnecessary to add; links could be created if this content is pertinent. His suggestion for removal of content already in the article to make room for his material is disrespectful to the editors that have made these contributions, which have already been vetted by the original FA process.
  4. Most importantly, User:Fifelfoo has created vast lists of "non-RS" references, "primary sources" and "coverage quality concerns", but has not brought forth or added any supporting references (which he claims are missing) to the article to improve it. He did not seek to engage any of the other contributors to this article on the Talk page. I am concerned that presenting all these objections, but not contributing any revisions or additions, does nothing for article improvement. User:Fifelfoo needs to take the risk, as other editors have done, and start to make improvements, subject to the usual group editing process of Wikipedia. Ryanjo (talk) 11:38, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
For policy, please look at Wikipedia:WikiProject_History/Quality#B-Class which links directly to WP:MILMOS#SOURCES which covers this article, and to be boring and quote, "Policy requires that articles reference only reliable sources; however, this is a minimal condition, rather than a final goal. With the exception of certain recent topics that have not yet become the subject of extensive secondary analysis, and for which a lower standard may be temporarily permitted, articles on military history should aim to be based primarily on published secondary works by reputable historians. The use of high-quality primary sources is also appropriate, but care should be taken to use them correctly, without straying into original research." And Wikipedia:Featured_article_criteria 1c which reads, "well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature on the topic. Claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported with citations". The extent to which we are using primary sources is really shameful, we shouldn't be producing an essay of original knowledge, but an assay of existing knowledge.
For the sourcing, a United Nations report produced by politicians from a 120 person sample is not comparable to high quality secondary sources. Primary sources in history are determined by the proximity to witnesses and the event. The United Nations is not, strangely, a historian, and is not capable of generating high quality secondary sources in relation to history. Even if the United Nations contracted a historian to conduct the 1957 report (which it did not, for obvious reasons), the capacity to produce a historical account in 1957 is limited by access to closed sources. This kind of distinction between primary and secondary is the commonly shared disciplinary concept of sourcing in history, and certainly isn't POINT. It is about article quality.
Thank you for the invitation to heavily edit the article, but I feel intimidated by expressions of Ownership such as, "suggestion for removal of content already in the article to make room for his material is disrespectful to the editors that have made these contributions, which have already been vetted by the original FA process" particularly if my criticism goes to source bias and coverage which result in the article having its current area of coverage. The edit history since 2006 has been one characterised by reversion. Given that you and I seem to share differing views of the quality of a 1957 report, and the suitability of it being the key reference in the article, when it is considered by the disciplinary standards of historians as a primary source, do you think it would be appropriate for me to BE BOLD, and delist the 1957 report where its not being cited as illustrative of a point demonstrated in secondary sources, and {{citation needed}} those claims? That, I think, would be acting to prove a POINT.
Regarding coverage, could you show me the article which currently has coverage, by random selection, of the politics of the reformed SPD or Smallholders in late october and early november 1956?
Regarding uncited major secondary sources, please see: Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Hungarian_Revolution_of_1956/archive1#uncitedsources. Fifelfoo (talk) 12:06, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
The UN Report issue is a "straw man" argument. There are multiple references in this article to works by historians. The article could use more, feel free to add them. Likewise add a reference to SPD or whatever you feel relevant, with references of course. Sparring over whether the present content is adequate, but waiting for others to guess what is needed is pointless (unless sparring is your point). Ryanjo (talk) 20:18, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Retain Most things were already said, but after careful consideration of the arguments advanced by Fifelfoo, I found them insufficient to delist. As discussed in a lengthy ANI discussion recently this user has a unique personal view on sources that's quite different to that of Wikipedia's. Particularly that official UN reports would be somehow unusable on Wikipedia or citing them would result in a lower quality article. After checking WP:PRIMARY it seems clear to me that the report can only be a secondary source, not even close to the example there provided " For example, an account of a traffic accident written by a witness is a primary source of information about the accident." as it is explained : "Secondary sources are at least one step removed from an event. They rely for their facts and opinions on primary sources". Some earlier objections raised were that the UN report relies on many primary sources, the very definition of a secondary source! Hobartimus (talk) 20:48, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Retain - The article conforms to WP:FARC. Valid concerns have been addressed. The oft-cited UN report is a “secondary”, not “primary” source, and of the highest quality. There is no basis for removing it, nor other WP:RS. Thus, the nom’s main concern, rooted in WP:Primary, is invalid. This is a WP:POINT nomination, and coverage concerns are at best WP:SOFIXIT. Specifically:
  1. The UN report[13] is "secondary", not "primary". A careful reading of WP:PSTS reveals clear definitions:
    1. “primary...are sources very close to an event. For example an account of a traffic accident written by a witness… “ et al. Neither the definition, nor the many given examples remotely describe the UN report. A quick inspection shows the UN report to be not a collection of primary evidence but rather a thorough, systematic organization and interpretation thereof.
    2. “secondary...are at least one step removed from an event. They rely for their facts and opinions on primary sources, often to make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims”. This describes the UN Report. The authors of the UN report were not participants in the Revolution. They are “at least one step removed”. An impressive list of primary sources (ref Ch.I, sec. B, C, D, Annex) forms the basis of the report, but NOT the report itself. As a secondary source, the interpretive and evaluative claims, summarized in Ch. XVII, are quite valid for inclusion, as per WP:PSTS.
  2. The UN report is of the highest quality. The UN report was mandated by UN Resolution 1132 (XI)[14]; by the UN General Assembly (not the SC!) thus as NPOV as possible. The report was subjected to review, vote, and accepted unanimously. Methods are explicitly disclosed (Ch I, sec. A - G) in detail exceeding that commonly found among conventional historians writing in the academic literature. You will struggle to find a single work better suited as a source for this subject.
  3. WP:POINT discourages disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. The present “Point” includes a personal interpretation of WP:RS described at this WP:AN/I[15]. The present “disruptions” are several: a) The nom results from an edit dispute with no prior attempt at resolution on the talk page. b) The nominator’s objective[16] is stated as “I am acting to delist the FA status.” (last line) rather than article improvement. c) Moreover, the nom, appearing on two pages and in three sections [17] [18] and [19] is among the most long-winded and poorly referenced against indexed WP:FARC criteria to be found in the archive. These disruptions set horrible precedent, and invite future “FA muggings”, or at least will significantly degrade the quality of future FARs.
  4. Coverage concerns are largely per the nom’s personal judgment, not WP criteria. This article’s coverage is more than sufficient, and is traditional (compare to the BBC chronology [20]). The nom’s insistence that the (123KB+, > 170 sources) article lacks coverage AND requires removal of existing WP:RS sources, is puzzling and somewhat contradictory; NB that no specific coverage issues were raised during the FAR by any other editor, indicating that this is a subjective, not objective, concern. Instances where coverage can indeed be strengthened fall squarely within WP:SOFIXIT.

This article contained the same general coverage profile and body of references as it did when it achieved its FA status and appeared on the main page[21]. As it has now been improved via implementing good faith recommendations, and at the end of the day, conforms to WP:FARC, I urge to retain its FA status. István (talk) 21:07, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment Fifelfoo has objected to a mountain of sources, more or less all of which appear to have been in the article from when it received FA status. His reasons for objecting to these sources are at times bizarre, and not related to Wikipedia policies - a source is rejected as 'too old', rather than 'out of date', another is rejected because it is a textbook. Two, which are timelines, are rejected because they are timelines - it appears that in Fifelfoo's world, university History departments apply different (and significantly lower) standards when putting their names to timelines and textbooks to those applied to other items. A clearly secondary source (the UN report) is rejected as a primary sources. Other sources are rejected because they are from the wrong kind of historian (ie one that Fifelfoo does not care for), and so have produced a synthesis - surely something that historians are supposed to do. He also appears to want it to be an article about something else - I'm not exactly clear what. If the FA criteria have changed since this article received FA, then Fifelfoo should state clearly and concisesly where the article does not meet those standards, however it actually appears that the only standards not met are this editor's own. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:58, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes, in my world academic Historians do apply different (and significantly lower) standards when putting their names to timelines and textbooks, the lowered standard of editorial supervisions is part of the academic publishing process, and clearly recognised in career advancement and research reporting by the Australian government at a relatively high order level for example, (22-29) in the PDF. I think I've voiced one objection on Hungary 1956 due to the historian being the "wrong kind" (When someone cited David Irving's "Uprising" as a credible narrative). That the sources are from a FA application in 2006, demonstrates that 3 years of change in sourcing behaviour have occurred, editors in 2006 got it wrong, and the article was hastily promoted (for good reasons) with an inadequate coverage of the scholarly secondary literature in English available at the time. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:44, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
You can't fob me off just by pointing to a 54 page document and thinking I won't read it - I work in local government and have to read these kind of things with breakfast!! For the record, what Fifelfoo has referenced is a document (of the sort called a direction by the equivalent UK authorities) issued by the Aussie government to Higher Ed establishments, instructing them on how to make a return relating to the research activities (getting income for research, carrying out research, publishing research) which will qualify for a government subsidy. The document is from 2005, and relates only to the collection of data for 2004. Certain kinds of publications qualify as research activity for the purposes of receiving government subsidy. The publication of textbooks does not qualify to receive a government subsidy. Nothing whatsoever is said in the document as to the quality of the content of textbooks. Next! Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:05, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
The 2004 criteria are an example of the standard publication reporting criteria that's been present since the early 1990s, and continues today. I'm not "fobbing you off" by referencing a large source: I provided a reference to the relevant pages. "Qualifying for government subsidy" is an understatement due to the Australian tertiary sector's revenue stream being 90%+ government funding, and the dependency of institutions on research reporting funding. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:26, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Fifelfoo, unlike you (it would seem), I have read the entire document. This document in no wise supports your assertion that qualifying for government subsidy and being of sufficient standard to be considered a high quality source for Wikipedia are in any way related to each other. It is a complete non-sequitur. The government funding is predicated on the university carrying out a particular TYPE of activity (one that introduces new knowledge into the field), which is unlikely by itself to make money for the facility. The document does not assert that textbooks do not qualify for government subsidy because of the quality of the content. The likelihood is that it is because (unlike research publications) textbooks are normally a source of income for a university which can make its money back on them by flogging them to its students. Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:47, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment - Given his lack of familiarity with the process that developed the UN Report, and his mischaracterization of the 2004 Australian government report that he uses to support his objections to this article's FA status, should any of the statements made by Fifelfoo in his lengthy discourse be taken without substantial verification? Ryanjo (talk) 02:44, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
That's a fairly tendentiously uncivil characterisation. That I feel that politicians separated from an event by an interview table and a year, producing a political report, are in terms of history producing a primary source; and that secondary sources in history have an expectation of time difference, highest reliability sources a greater expectation (commercial or academic publisher). I last read the report of the special committee in full in 2001; and I'll admit I'm largely unfamiliar with the Bang-Jensen Affair's impact on the report quality, but that seems to have been largely due to political pressure being deployed on a personally unstable administrator, rather than affecting the quality of the report. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:03, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
When two major points that you have brought out in this FAR are faulty when closely examined, or at the least colored by your personal opinions, it is fair to raise doubts about your other arguments. Ryanjo (talk) 10:42, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
My experience is that accusations of "tendentious" and "uncivil" are used by editors pushing their POV in lieu of answering the question. The question(s) here:
  • is Fifelfoo demonstrably aware of the the process for generation of the UN report, and
  • does he have reputable sources which agree with his interpretation of the 2004 Australian government report which show that his characterization merits consideration?
That Fifelfoo's response is charges of slanted editing and uncivil behavior would appear to speak for itself until shown otherwise.
   On another note, I just (yesterday) obtained an English language source detailing the "official" response to/version of the 1956 events. That it would essentially be another primary source, if you will, is immaterial as long as what it contains is presented in appropriate context. VЄСRUМВА  ♪  12:53, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment - Despite the nom's vote changing to "retain"[22] and remark that "there's no value to this process for the article" I would urge all involved to complete this process per normal procedure. There is indeed value to this process. FAR/FARC exists firstly to improve Feature Articles. I believe the editors who have worked hard on this article certainly welcome the community's help in improving it. I would urge the mods and community to continue this FARC normally to completion. After all, here we are, having already invested so much time and effort in this, let's finish the job. István (talk) 04:47, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
It won't being closed early. Obviously there is an incongruency in saying that the article is not up to standard and then advocation retention anyway. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 05:00, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Do what? I can't see YellowMonkey pointing to any specific concerns, just drawing attention to some recent changes in FAC that may affect this article. He never responded to the request for diffs. If I'm missing something (and with the volume of text I might be), then point these chaps to it. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:42, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
The specific problems with formatting of citations pointed out by YellowMonkey at the start of this FARC have been fixed. YellowMonkey's reminder about "high quality sources" has been addressed by several of the responding editors; there are many such sources referenced. Are there specific sources that need examination? Ryanjo (talk) 17:41, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Retain - no evidence anywhere that the nominator has put any effort into improving the article. So the points made above, in case valid, if you can update or improve the article that has been identified as one of the best produced by the Wikipedia community, please do so. Simply attempting to delist a featured article would improve it exactly how?--Termer (talk) 19:26, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
    • I don't follow your argument. The aim of a FAR is to improve the article, sure, but if it still doesn't meet the FA criteria during the FARC phase, then why should it stay featured? —Ed (talk • contribs) 05:21, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Retain, I don't see any problem with the sources, the article is well-written. – Alensha talk 15:43, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment Is the "Famous Quotations" necessary? It's uncited and just seems like trivia. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:53, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, this very recent edit has now been undone István (talk) 16:18, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Statue Image has been removed from mainspace to talk pending copyright clarification.István (talk) 16:24, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
TIME magazine cover image was nominated for deletion on 15 Sep 08 and retained for this article (though not for others) please see discussion and decision here. István (talk) 16:27, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
As was said the second image was already kept in a discussion. Hobartimus (talk) 01:34, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
The image discussion page has a header that states that the consensus was to retain the image, after it was nominated for deletion. Ryanjo (talk) 01:41, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Retain - I agree with Ryanjo, Hobartimus and Elen of the Roads-- B@xter9 16:20, 19 October 2009 (UTC
  • Remove Citations still in a mixture of formats, fulldates or yyyy-mm-dd and the firstname lastname or lastname, firstname. Some are broken. Also per "high-quality" they refer to scholarly sources, current accepted scholarship, not the UN, which is a political body and can be politically influenced. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 04:27, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
I've begun to repair the dead and broken links and will tend to the date and name issues as well. The interpretation of 1(c) "...high quality..." is not in question however the moderator's objection to the UN document as of a "political body and can be politically influenced" is essentially hypothetical, given that the document has been in the public domain for over 50 years. By now, the primary consideration should be: *Was* it politically influenced? - neither the past 5 decades, nor this report's critics, have revealed any evidence of real controversy, or undue influence, much less the nature of such influence. Politically biased? 50 years attest that it was not. István (talk) 16:51, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
But is still not scholarly. And also, I will not be closing this, I've taken my moderator hat off and decided to comment as a normal person YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 01:06, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Are you defining "scholarly" as per A) method used, or B) identity of the author(s)/publisher? Also, thanks for the clarification. István (talk) 04:33, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
What is needed are secondary sources, taking an approach similar to Nikita Khrushchev—using three to four books that focus on the entire topic and write up a summary-style article. That would, however, require a fundamental rewrite and the obtaining of sources from a library and/or inter-library loan and/or Amazon. —Ed (talk • contribs) 04:40, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
The enquiry relates solely to the UN report (a secondary source, as defined here); specifically, to User:YellowMonkey's use of "scholarly" and its relation to 1(c) "...high quality reliable sources..." its a rather important point, and different from the primary v. secondary point.István (talk) 05:15, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Retain - I'm afraid the "Wall of Text" approach of this nomination has done some damage (it may have had some good "wake up" effects as well). But that approach is rather unfair. I don't think that any article could survive a similar FA review unscathed. Every article needs a tune-up from time to time, and a stricter rule on reliable sources has been instituted since it was written. I suggest a bit of time - say a month - to come up to speed on the new rule, do the tune up, and get out of the shadow of the "Wall of Text" in a less pressurized atmosphere. A very little work here will go a long way, and reviewers can regain some perspective with a short break. Smallbones (talk) 03:51, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment "What makes th[is] reliable? - http://www.hungarian-history.hu/lib/revolt/rev16.htm." This happens to be a digital version of a scholarly book, you know one of those "high quality sources"?

    THE HUNGARIAN REVOLT October 23 - November 4, 1956 by RICHARD LETTIS C.W. Post College and WILLIAM I. MORRIS Ohio University; Charles Scribner's Sons, New York, 1961

    I'll take a look at some of the other issues raised when I have some time over the weekend.--Paul (talk) 05:41, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Copyright © 1961 Charles Scribner's Sons

  • Thank you for the additional information; I did not realize it was a book. I've struck the site. Cheers, —Ed (talk • contribs) 05:45, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
  • In addition, I agree with YellowMonkey above; to meet the FA criteria, the article needs to utilize 'high-quality' sources i.e. secondary sources that have analyzed all possible sources of information—including the UN documents and hopefully old Soviet archives—in their books. —Ed (talk • contribs) 04:53, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
  • first of all any UN documents and/or Soviet archives would not be secondary but primary sources that no wikipedia article should be based on. At the same time it's a known fact that any related "old Soviet archives" have remained closed to researchers. And finally, instead of taking an easy path here and coming up with not that serious reasons why the article should be delisted, anybody who's not happy with the articles current state should feel free to improve Wikipedia by fixing the problems that bother you. We should build Wikipedia, not WP:DEMOLISH it.--Termer (talk) 05:12, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Well, the UN documents are technically secondary sources. I don't know if that is "a known fact", hence why I phrased it with the word "hopefully".
  • The article is not fully referenced, there are hidden comments on content issues that have not been addressed, some websites are possible not reliable, and the article seems like it uses overview books on this topic only sparingly. How can you say that these are not serious and major reasons that the article should not be delisted? I'm totally at a loss as to how to respond to you on this point.
  • As to your WP:SOFIXIT comment, it's not really applicable to this FAR. Yes, I could possibly fix it by walking up to my university's library, checking out seven books and spending the next two weeks rewriting the article from scratch, but I don't have the time nor will to do that. Unlike OMT, this isn't a subject I am terribly interested in. Instead, I chose to take less time out my life and inform you—the editors who have greater knowledge and are intrigued more by this topic—of the problems I see in this article so that it will not lose its star. So, the ball is in your court; will you bring the article up to the current standards? —Ed (talk • contribs) 05:44, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
  • WP:SOFIXIT is always applicable, especially about articles "that have been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community". If you think you can do better, please feel free. For the rest, there is no serious concerns put forward because the article doesn't suffer from inaccuracies. And I haven't seen any hidden comments in the article that would need to be addressed. That's my opinion, your's is different, that's fine. The bottom line that I'm not getting: what's more important here, delisting the article or improving it? In case improving the article is the priority, this discussion should be closed here and taken to the talk page.--Termer (talk) 06:11, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
  • This isn't one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community anymore though. Why? Because I can't verify that all of the text in this article was checked with high-quality sources.
  • Hidden comments: "does this reference cover all three facts in this paragraph?" "Stick with the source. Do not re-interpret. Source makes no reference to Suez and mentions Egypt only once, as per edit" "Non academic, PRIMARY?"
  • The aim and goal of any FAR is to improve an article, yes. But if the article is not improved to a sufficient standard, it can and will be delisted. It's that simple.
  • For anyone who wishes to improve the article's citations to the 'high-quality' criterion, Worldcat has a nice list here. Click the links to see if it is in a library near you. Cheers, —Ed (talk • contribs) 07:05, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
re: user:the_ed17's concern regarding hidden comments, i.e. the <!--notes hidden in the text -->: Please understand that the majority of these date from this article's AID, Peer Reviews and FAC, and were dealt with at the time; in too many cases, these comments were not removed as they should have been. Nevertheless, I will go through them and try to untangle them one by one. As to the two specific examples given above, i.e. 1) Suez/Egypt, and 2) PRIMARY: 1) The Suez/Egypt comment dates from FAC, the editor Gk1956 having embedded his previous edit summary into the text (for whatever reason) AFTER having corrected the issue himself. We know this because the resulting text (which survives to the present) is taken directly, i.e. verbatim, from the source. You can see it for yourself. In any case, the comment was addressed.
Secondly, 2) PRIMARY results from this edit, was part of an EDIT WAR between the nominator of this FAR and another editor who initiated an WP:AN/I over it. Sparing the details, the edit stands, there are two references supporting the text, and the issue was most certainly addressed and resolved, by the a.m. AN/I. I will now remove both of these hidden comments (as should have already happened) from the body and look for others. István (talk) 22:19, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
And another thing, the disambiguation links have been corrected. István (talk) 22:23, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
I've struck the two issues, but the major part of my argument—{{cn}}s, reliable source questions, and a consistent citation style—have not been addressed. —Ed (talk • contribs) 17:40, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
...yet. This is a WIP, in fact all should note that most "Review" phase work is now being done during FARC.István (talk) 20:34, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Hold and refocus
  • Hold, this article has not yet received a thorough review, this FAR is a mess; can someone please summarize the remaining issues briefly, and will reviewers please use Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/Hungarian Revolution of 1956/archive1 for lengthy commentary, to keep the FAR readable? I'm seeing at least citation needed tags, that a MOS review has not been completed, and that external links desperately need pruning. I didn't go any further. I will point out that, although citation formatting should be fixed before the article is Kept, it is not a good reason in and of itself to delist. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:46, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Spot-on correct. This FAR was already off the rails at its start and never got back on track. István (talk) 05:33, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
      • The biggest issue is that the article does not meet FA criteria 1c; the United Nations documents were written soon after the event, and so while they are technically reliable and secondary sources, much better and more modern secondary references could be and should be found. —Ed (talk • contribs) 06:07, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
        • Can you please, briefly, list some sample text that is sourced to the United Nations, and provide specific examples of better secondary sources that have not been used? With the amount of excess and off-topic verbiage on this page, I'd like to see, for example, a list of three or four pieces of text that you consider not well cited, and specific examples of sources that you have identified that should have been consulted in those cases. "Much better and more modern secondary references could be and should be found" is unhelpful unless specific sources that have been overlooked for specific topics or text or that differ with the UN are identified. Vague assertions about the quality of the sources, in the absence of specific examples, do not help the delegates evaluate the concerns. As far as I can determine, after wading through the mess, the only Delist declarations are from YellowMonkey and Ed17 (Cirt often enters a "Delist per" with no additional input or review). Can both of you please summarize, briefly, the remaining issues (besides those I mentioned above, which I hope are also being addressed). Also, it would be helpful if you place your responses in the following context: Fifelfoo is well known (at least to me, via FAC) for being an ardent supporter of the strongest possible sourcing in History articles: considering his stances on other FACs and FARs, I would be inclined to take his striking of his Delist very seriously. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:26, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
See talk page for off-review summary of events around Fifelfoo.Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:42, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
  • For my strike, see the talk page. Regarding holding and focus (as suggested by SandyGeorgia): Seconding the_ed17 on 1c, the inappropriate state of research. Seminal works in English are missing (Lomax, Bill, Hungary 1956. London: Allen and Busby, 1976.). The scholarly output of major research units in English are missing (East European monographs [Series], [ie, Hungarian workers' councils in 1956. ed. Bill Lomax EEM Series 294., 1990] ; and, the Woodrow Wilson International Centre for Scholar's Cold War International History Project's scholarly output). The research output of the Institute of Revolutionary History is used poorly, and non-scholarly electronic output at the level of secondary textbooks has been preferred. Generally, items are sourced to inappropriate scholarship (Country Studies; CIA World Factbook being used for "After World War II, Hungary fell under the Soviet sphere of influence and was occupied by the Red Army.", where a scholarly history monograph (book) should be used). Fifelfoo (talk) 01:12, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Are you suggesting that "After World War II, Hungary [DIDN'T FALL] ... under the Soviet sphere of influence and was occupied by the Red Army."??? If not, what's the difference what reference is used for this obvious fact?--Paul (talk) 02:20, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I believe he is suggesting that the reference used is not of a "high quality". High quality != reliable source. Fifelfoo, thank you for finding those unused sources; I have been not online and/or away for nearly all of today, and so could not go looking for them myself. —Ed (talk • contribs) 06:55, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
  • The underlying concern in this sort of Oppose (or Delist) is not whether the UN accurately or does not accurately source the statement; it's whether the article even consulted other, higher quality sources to present a *comprehensive* accounting. Please focus examples on specific text or items or viewpoints missing or poorly sourced in the article. Closing delegates need to know precisely why the failure to consult other sources may impact the article. No one has yet provided a specific example of poorly cited or missing text or viewpoints. Amended: See "Specific examples" section below. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:34, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Ryanjo said "The specific problems with formatting of citations pointed out by YellowMonkey at the start of this FARC have been fixed" after I put notes in the FARC header, then I explicitly pointed it out, and it's still inconsistent as of now. Also, above, someone implicitly accused Fifelfoo of pushing communist/Stalinist POV. The facts are clear. I don't need to say anything more to the insiders and people involved in writing this article, there's no point as its pretty obvious that work is being avoided. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (help the Invincibles Featured topic drive) 05:55, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Let's try to avoid re-stating facts from above, and stay on the issues needed to determine the remaining opposes. Fixing citation formatting is secondary to other concerns, and can be resolved if other issues are worked out. If sourcing concerns are resolved, others can work on citation formatting and MOS issues; I see that External links are still quite lengthy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:41, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
My response, quoted by YellowMonkey above, "specific problems with formatting of citations pointed out by YellowMonkey at the start of this FARC have been fixed" refers to the paragraphs below the start of the FARC, in which Fifelfoo details several citations which were promptly fixed. When there has been clear direction, there has been direct action. The regular editors on this article have raised questions with terms like "but its not scholarly", and I think deserve a concise answer before a complete rewrite. I am glad that "The facts are clear" to YellowMonkey that "work is being avoided". I personally don't have any sense on the focus of this FAR. Ryanjo (talk) 03:16, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Specific examples
  • These may be WEIGHTING issues, but even if written in summary style (with sections that should be created) they are concerning indications of a bias due to limited survey of available scholarship (note: not POV bias). §Postwar occupation misrepresents the unitary list by failing to mention the two controlled stooge parties (Smallholders and Peasants). §Political repression and economic decline fails to discuss the party's own purges which completed the salami process, and laid the grounds for Julia Rajk's campaign, or Imre Nagy (and the circle around him)'s oppositional line, essential processes in the creation of the revolution. The discussion of economic collapse does not discuss the disposal of the small production economy and the dislocation effects and comparative non-productivity of socialist consumer goods production. It makes no use of the studies of overplanning in relation to the 1951- socialist type "recession." §International events bizarrely doesn't discuss Yugoslavia and the immediate economic and political impacts of the Yugo-Soviet split on Hungary's economy and politics, with attendent impacts on impending revolution (like, for example, the judicial execution of Rajk). There is then in the article a gap between 1953 and 1956 which doesn't discuss the relatively controversial appointment of Nagy (in Hungarian and international Stalinist terms), the economic and cultural easing under Nagy that created a realisation that change was possible; the disappointment of the dismissal of Nagy, leading to a discussion of forming an illegalist faction versus his actual policy of sending a memo to the central committee; the formation of the Hungarian Writers' Union as a party section riven by internal discontent; the formation of Petofi circles by (predominantly) native communists (ie: those who served WWII in the Hungarian Socialist Party, or underground rather than in the Soviet Union) or the crisis in internal party politics that the Petofi circle; the displacement of Rakosi by Gero due to the purge list, and Moscow's intervention against this list. The change in popular reception of the Writers Union in late summer & autumn isn't discussed. The Rajk reburial is given a rather cursorial treatment. Additionally, its worth mentioning that Julius Hay had been soapboxing for workers councils under Writers Association authority in regional areas which lead to former HSP party members forming the first workers council prior to the 23rd. I wouldn't like to run on at the mouth, so I'll finish summarising at the 23rd of October. In specific relation to the United Nations report, its reporting on the workers councils is outdated due to more recent scholarship. On reading the article, it feels like everything about the revolution is discussed, except for the seizure of power by Hungarians organised through spontaneous democratic institutions: the revolution itself is missing. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:04, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps, then, the new wording of 1c is confusing some of the concerns here, which are partly a 1b (Comprehensive) concern? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:25, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
I've seen this through the lens of "a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature on the topic." I noticed the issue due to checking the bibliography. 1b seems intertwined with this, though my issues list above is necessarily my own, and arguably some should not exist in the main survey article (Julius Hay's stump jumping for example, or the specific content of Petofi society meetings.) Though the economic collapse is comprehensively represented, but mischaracterised in relation to (in my opinion) the scholarly literature. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:49, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
That was one of my concerns when that wording was added, and I see other problems in the wording, but I'll raise that after some other FACs and FARs close at WT:WIAFA. For this case, I'm seeing that your concerns are 1b and 1c. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:51, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
The points raised above by Fifelfoo are either irrelevant, trivia or too distant from the events of the revolution to include in this article. Postwar occupation is briefly mentioned as a precipitant. It deserves a section in a Hungarian postwar article, not here. The parties' purges are mentioned in a trends sentence. The politics of the personalities and details mentioned as so essential by Fifelfoo are so convoluted that each could compose its own stub. Finally "the revolution itself is missing", how theatrical! There are no examples here, just opinion. Whether to cover in detail minor political events 10 years prior to the events of 1956 is an editorial decision, not evidence of inadequate references. Ryanjo (talk) 02:36, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Shuttle–Mir Program

[edit] Review commentary

Notified: Wikipedia:WikiProject Human spaceflight

I wrote this article up to FA status some time ago, and am aware via my efforts at International Space Station that it probably doesn't meet the FA criteria any more. As a result, I'd like to get some input from the community as to what changes I need to perform in order to bring it back up to scratch. Many thanks, Colds7ream (talk) 19:42, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Alt text done; thanks Its images need alt text, but you probably knew that already.... Eubulides (talk) 20:41, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. :-) Colds7ream (talk) 20:43, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Right, that should be all the images alt texted. Colds7ream (talk) 16:00, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

There's a source reliability issue that needs to be resolved, and I think a few more references would be useful, particularly in the subsections under "Background". Also there appear to be two bare URL external links at the end of the references section, which should be correctly formatted, and either moved inline or to the External links section. Other than that, I think the article is still of a fairly good standard. --GW… 21:01, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'll have a hunt round and do some referencing. Incidentally, I've just dealt with the bare links in the References section - thanks for pointing them out. Colds7ream (talk) 21:21, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Right, I looked into the dodgy sources and they were indeed somewhat dodgy, so I've removed the relevant paragraph. I've also begun work on the alt texts, if someone fancies checking my work so far, and as per a suggestion on the talk page, removed all the redlinks from the references. Colds7ream (talk) 17:21, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
I've begun some work on finding more references, and continue to add alt text to the images. Colds7ream (talk) 17:51, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

The source given for File:Shuttle-Mir Astronauts.jpg is spacefacts.de not NASA. It is watermarked by Spacefacts on their website [23], and Spacefacts say that they have been forced to watermark their photos "because several websites are using our portraits without asking for permission" [24].

Are the Russian logos on the navigation templates, e.g. File:Mir_insignia.svg, really free use? DrKiernan (talk) 14:52, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, I dealt with the portrait by selecting a NASA-based source, and applied the correct copyright tag to the insignia image. Colds7ream (talk) 17:04, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, folks, I think I've dealt with all these issues - anyone got any more concerns? Colds7ream (talk) 16:00, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Thanks. In reviewing the alt text I noticed two instances of Image:Mir insignia.svg, obtained via templates, that did not render at all in the article, botching the display. The first, via Template:Mir modules, generates the HTML '<img alt="Mir insignia.svg" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d2/Mir_insignia.svg/120px-Mir_insignia.svg.png" width="120" height="79" />', but that image doesn't seem to exist on Wikimedia; when I try to retrieve it I get:
     HTTP/1.0 500 Internal Server Error
     Server: Sun-Java-System-Web-Server/7.0
     Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2009 19:37:08 GMT
     X-powered-by: PHP/5.2.8
     X-wikimedia-thumb: http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/thumb.php?f=Mir_insignia.svg&width=120
     Cache-Control: no-cache
     Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8
     Content-Length: 427
     Connection: close
The second, via Template:Manned Mir flight, renders the image to '<img alt="Mir insignia" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d2/Mir_insignia.svg/75px-Mir_insignia.svg.png" width="75" height="49" />', which has a similar problem. Assuming you can fix both images, please mark them with "|link=|alt=" as per WP:ALT #Purely decorative images. Eubulides (talk) 19:46, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Done and done. :-) Colds7ream (talk) 19:54, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, that was fast. Eubulides (talk) 20:39, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

Suggested criteria are lack of quality/formatting of referencing. Also note the recent changed to WP:WIAFA requiring "high-quality sources" YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 03:24, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep, seems pretty good. Not sure how it would fare today at WP:FAC, but not really enough to delist. Cirt (talk) 21:14, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep, I'm happy with the changes made. Colds7ream (talk) 21:54, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep, the changes seem sufficient, per Cirt. -MBK004 05:19, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Remove, most of the sources are by NASA, so most of the sourcing is primary/non-independent. Also, Encyc Astro is a home-made website. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 04:31, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Remove per YellowMonkey. This still has major issues with sourcing, and Encyc Astro seems unreliable. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 03:20, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I have removed the Encyclopedia Astronautica references, but fail to see why the accurate NASA sources present a problem. Colds7ream (talk) 07:56, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Because there's so little that isn't sourced to NASA? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 14:50, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
  • And why is that an issue? The space agency that operated the programme is by definition going to be the best source of accurate information regarding any project - secondary sources regarding space operations are either completely incorrect (if written by non-space specialist journalists) or suffer from small errors that collect in writing up the info. All information written on the programme is based almost exclusively on NASA documentation, whether public or internal, so what's the point in using secondary sources for the sake of using secondary sources? Colds7ream (talk) 19:07, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
They are not independent, and don't appear to have been peer reviewed YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (help the Invincibles Featured topic drive) 02:21, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep per above, guess it works. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 22:54, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
  • This FARC has been going for over a month, and is 4-1 in favour of keeping - when can we expect it to close? If this were a FAC it would have been closed ages ago... Colds7ream (talk) 07:34, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
  • FAR usually proceeds at a much slower pace than FAC ... hopefully YellowMonkey or Marksell will close this next week. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:10, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Also, on another note, having the numbers doesn't mean that it will be kept, it isn't so much like AfD etc. FAC/FAR is less bound by that so people shouldn't assume that getting the numbers, even if no canvassing was used, is a guarantee of success. In this case I am completely sure that there wasn't any keep canvassing, so no worries there YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (help the Invincibles Featured topic drive) 03:26, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
  • No. I am working from the bottom of the list, and just started on this one. I am finding many unaddressed issues, for example, mixing citation and cite templates, incorrect section headings so far. This isn't ready to close. Some of the declarations appear premature, or that the article hasn't received a review worthy of FAR. I'll get back to this one. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:05, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Fixes needed. WP:MOS#Captions review for punctuation in image captions; mixes citation and cite templates (see WP:CITE); use of informal & in place of "and" (I corrected the faulty use of special characters in section headings, which others should have seen before, see WP:MSH); what is the story on the commented out text and why isn't it removed to article talk; do the citations at the end of "increments" cover the entire section; there are faulty endashes on date ranges, so a MOS review is needed (example: 1995 – 1997 should have no spaces since the date elements have no spaces, see Wp:MOSDATE); some measurements have conversions, others don't, they should all use the convert template; and more importantly, has anyone besides YM taken a serious look at whether the article overrelies on NASA sources? Will those declaring Keep please address the quality of the sourcing? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:21, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Most of this is done. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:51, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Someone still needs to take an indepth look at the sourcing issues; I don't know when/if I'll have time for that, but, adding to his comments above, YM is under no obligation to close this quickly if there are still concerns. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:44, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Isambard Kingdom Brunel

[edit] Review commentary

Notified WikiProject Biography, WikiProject Civil engineering, PopUpPirate (main contributor and FA nominator).

While a comprehensive article, several large sections lack inline citations (1.c), and sections of the prose, particularly the 'Early life' section, are quite poor. Image text does not conform to the manual of style, and there are two cleanup tags, including one requesting a citation (almost a month old). Parrot of Doom (talk) 10:22, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Done; thanks. Images need alt text as per WP:ALT. Eubulides (talk) 18:45, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment. It needs a prose clean up, as sections tend to be made up of many short paragraphs, making for a choppy read.

Dead links:

Keep Still worthy and one of the better Engineering-related articles which is under-represented. Non-conformance to a manual of style, and a couple of tags, do not automatically make a bad article! --PopUpPirate (talk) 23:24, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't ever suggest that were so - its still a 'good' article, but I doubt it would, in its present state, even pass WP:GAN. Parrot of Doom (talk) 23:35, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Also note that under-representation and "worth[iness]" are not considered in whether an article meets FA criteria. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:43, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Images File:Saltashrab.jpg: missing permission. File:Great Western.jpg is a copyright violation: Mark Myers (born 1945) is still living. This is a modern imagining of an historic event, not an historic picture painted at the time. File:Great-Eastern-At-Sea-.jpg and File:Brunel-Launch-Leviathon.jpg: missing permissions. DrKiernan (talk) 10:17, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Great-Eastern-At-Sea-.jpg has been commented out and File:Brunel-Launch-Leviathon.jpg appears to have been upladed by the copyright holder with a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.5 license. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:02, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concern are citations, MOS, prose, alt text, copyright. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. FAQ? YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 02:24, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Delist Poor prose: single line paragraphs, text doesn't flow, formatted almost as a set of bullet points. Images missing permission. Dead links. DrKiernan (talk) 15:24, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry but I'm still not happy with it. There are problems with comprehensiveness and focus. For example, the "Early life" section could be expanded with details of his schooling in Britain and his work for a French clockmaker, and there are single-line paragraphs which are really nothing more than adverts for the Swindon and Didcot railway museums. The lead goes into unnecessary detail over trivia, e.g. "Some 143 years later..." when it should explain his lasting legacy not some unreliable television poll that was hijacked by Brunel University undergraduates. DrKiernan (talk) 11:18, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Revisited. Still delist. DrKiernan (talk) 09:03, 9 October 2009 (UTC) 10:35, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Delist as per DrKiernan. The dead-link image is particularly grating. Also, all the images still lack alt text (see the "alt text" entry in the toolbox at the upper right of this review page). Striking my "delist" for now, as article is improving. Eubulides (talk) 06:02, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Delist, agree with DrKiernan (talk · contribs) and Eubulides (talk · contribs), as well as FA criteria concerns highlighted by YellowMonkey (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 11:18, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep, only just came across this discussion. Will work on this over the next week. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:25, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Yay, I was really hoping someone would step up to the plate to work on this. I can't help much with the lack of citations, but will work on prose, MOS, etc. Maralia (talk) 02:46, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
If anyone would like to cast their eyes over the references now (many have been changed, more added, that would be good. Maralia is still copy-editing, but feedback on the references would be useful. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:18, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for working on that. Could you also take a look at the alt text, as it's still absent? Please click on the "alt text" button in the toolbox at the upper right of this review page. Eubulides (talk) 15:16, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
I have added alt text for all images, the tool does not show it, but a right click on the image and a click on properties does show it. I don't know how to add alt text to the icon for the wikisource in the ELs. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:55, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. Good job on the alt text. The tool is sometimes delayed; I have a bug report in about that. I fixed the template generating the Wikisource image. Eubulides (talk) 19:21, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Just wanted to leave a note mentioning that I'm still working on this. It's in much better shape already (thanks Jezhotwells!). I should be able to get back to it within a few days. Maralia (talk) 04:14, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
It's going to need quite a bit of MoS cleanup ... on a quick flyover, I saw a lot of WP:OVERLINKing and WP:ACCESS issues. As it gets further along, I'll have another look, but Maralia is likely to address these issues. For now, the article is not in keep territory. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:20, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
It would be helpful, to me at least, to point out where overlinking is a problem. I have removed some duplicate wikilinks and one or two taht seemed redundant. I can see any other instances or over-linking. I would also apprecaite guidance on what access issues the artcile has. Jezhotwells (talk) 09:15, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
I added two sample edits, faster than typing it all out, hopefully you can take it from there, and review WP:ACCESS and WP:OVERLINKing. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:26, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
  • There are some dabs that need fixing.[25] And some more citations are needed, including one for a quote. —mattisse (Talk) 16:24, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Dablinks fixed and several fact tags resolved (3 as yet unresolved). Working offline on a rewrite of some sections. Will update status next week. Maralia (talk) 04:06, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
  • The prose needs work; it's saveable, but is someone going to organise it? I made a few tweaks at the top. Overlinking ("British"? "engineer"? bad piping of TA cable. Chain-links: "Portsmouth, Hampshire"—surely the second is at the opening of the first, so why link both? See WP:LINKING on adjacency. And please not "England, UK". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony1 (talk • contribs)
  • Still plugging away determinedly at this. Added the French clockmaker bit that DrKiernan has been asking for. Working like mad to improve the quality of the sourcing. I still have significant work to do in the 'text doesn't flow/single sentence paragraphs' arena. Will update here again when I feel it can withstand further scrutiny. Maralia (talk) 05:54, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I am still working on this, but the FAR is admittedly heading into its fourth month. I would love to see it kept (that is after all why I've been working on it), but I honestly don't feel that it's there yet. I really don't want my personal opinion to count here, though, because if the decision is to delist, I will probably bring it back to FAC after additional work. I am going to post at WT:FAR asking for more input here. Maralia (talk) 04:05, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Delist
    1. 2c Final fullstop in references inconsistent. Corporate authors inconsistently cited (fn 12 versus bibliography X and Y versus X; Y style). fn18 uses a title, titles are not used in cites. As a History of Science all works cited should be listed in the bibliography. Journal citation fn39 out of style (no pp). Dates in cites are inconsistent Month Year versus YYYY-MM-DD.
    2. 1c Buchanan 2006's publisher seems dodgy. I can't find Gillings 2006's publisher to be academic. Wilson 1994 is dodgy since they don't do academic history and do professional not academic engineering. Beckett2006 is straight dodgy, its a picture book publisher (but is not relied upon). Brunel 1870 is self of course (but not relied upon). There is far too much OR leading to PRIMARY, fn57 for example makes a judgement from archival documents that only a contemporary nursing journal should be making. There are large gaps in the narrative between authorative High Quality RS focused on the life story: fns 4-11, 7-30, 32-38, 56-66, 68-78. The verification filler is made up of newspaper articles, websites, commemorations, archival documents, and single use papers which I have not checked for publisher provenance because they're not in a History grade bibliography.
    3. 1c Scholarship since 2006 is missing on important topics to History of Science, for example, DP Miller "Principle, practice and persona in Isambard Kingdom Brunel's patent abolitionism" The British Journal for the History of Science, 2007 - Cambridge Univ Press. (Additionally, some Japanese Railway studies and a Geology Today paper appear possibly relevant). Fifelfoo (talk) 01:07, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
      • This example seems to be narrow for a broad, overview topic; can you explain why it's important, or do you have other examples of missing sources? Specifically, what information is needed in this article that is not covered? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:56, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Delist per Fifelfoo, dodgy sources, poor quality writing. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 05:06, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Please provide samples of poor quality writing, or your declaration might be considered invalid by the closing delegate. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:52, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
  • The many one-sentence paragraphs, for one. The first three headers each have a one-sentence paragraph that could be better put elsewhere. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 17:15, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm inclined towards delisting only because Maralia hasn't yet been able to get to this (last edit Oct 17). I do want to point out, though, that minor issues like citation formatting or alt-text are not strong reasons for delisting a FAR. If they were, we would have to delist most of our FAs, because the alt-text requirement was only recently added. I have never seen an FA delisted over citation formatting; the quality of the scholarship is a different matter, and in this case, a specific example of missing scholarship was provided. However, I am unconvinced that the sample given by Fifelfoo is appropriate for a broad overview article; it seems to be too narrowly focused. In summary, I'd like to see more care in delist declarations here, but I'm leaning to delist only because Maralia hasn't yet gotten to this article. Jezhotwells doesn't seem to be actively working on the article either. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:59, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
My questiones on Maralia's talk were mainly about the progress of work, not the state of the article YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (help the Invincibles Featured topic drive) 06:19, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
There haven't been any articles delisted when the only things remaining were ALT text or bits of formatting. Eubulides makes the same reminder on each page but there is no indication that it was the deciding factor. I don't think it ever has been YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (help the Invincibles Featured topic drive) 06:20, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_review"


The content of this page was copied from Wikipedia and is licensed by GNU/FDL, for the copyright information check the original page

BestFromWiki.org is a small project to bring some good features to search and use content from Wikipedia, it is all funded by affiliate programs and advertising only. You can help maintain this site donating any value through the button here.