The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was kept by Dana boomer 02:02, 24 April 2010 [1].
The day this was TFA, there were concerns raised that it was subpar in quality.
1a. Choppy prose. One-sentence paragraphs in "Geology" and "Ecology" sections.
I have asked for another set of eyes to look at the prose.
1b. "Demographics" section is only four lines. Could this not be fleshed out?
Because it is not a local government district or other census area this is difficult but I could add populations for the specific parishes mentioned if that would be helpful?— Rodtalk21:44, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1c. Lots of sections lacking in sources:
First and last paragraph of "Geology."
Refs added
"the Latin "EX ARG VEB" stamps on the Mendip lead pigs specify a de-silvering process and cast silver ingots have been found. The silver coinage of the Dobunni and Durotriges is also likely to reflect the availability of silver from the mines." — Unsourced.
EX ARG VEB now sourced
Second paragraph of "government and politics" is unsourced.
Second and third paragraphs of "Transport and communication" are unsourced.
Now sourced
First two paragraphs of "sport, leisure and tourism" are unsourced.
The stock car racing & folk festival are sourced - the others are general activities, rather than anything specific - but lots of stuff about walking atc available if needed?
"Walking" section — should this be in list form?
Made into prose.
"Augustus Montague Toplady was inspired to write the words of the hymn "Rock of Ages" while sheltering under a rock in Burrington Combe during a thunderstorm in 1763." — Also unsourced.
None of the print references cites a page number. Most are also lacking ISBN and Publisher info.
Page numbers provided for books. ISBNs done except for Johnson which was published in 1967 & doesn't have one.— Rodtalk21:44, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A large number of the sources are primary — from parks associations, the businesses themselves and whatnot. Where are the online news sources?
In short, this is yet another article that got promoted to FA ages ago and continued to rot even as the bar for FA quality increased. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer)01:15, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - you beat me to FAR'ing this. One of the books does give a page number, but the other ten(!) do not. The PDFs also need page numbers. Many web references point to mendipsociety.org.uk, which is a primary source. Why was it TFA'd in this state? —Ed(talk • majestic titan)01:25, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The English Heritagesource is very reliable, exactly what leads you suppose otherwise? If in doubt, the first line of the Wikipedia article on English Heritage should make it quite clear why works published by them are considered reliable. And yes, the Renewable Energy Association is a suitable source; they work with local government so should be able to get their facts right (see their website), however the page seems to have changed and no longer supports the text in the article. With regards to the demography section, it may be best to dispense with it or merge it with another section (although I'm unsure which). I refute the suggestion that the article fails criterion 1b. In an article a range of hills it's fair enough to talk about the people who live on them, however it is unlikely that there will be more information available than currently in the article. We are not talking about a settlement or a local government area, where there are detailed records from the UK census, so I expect that tracking down coherent data on the demographics of the people who live there will be a fruitless task. Despite TPH's pessimism, the article's in decent nick. There's room for improvement, so let's see what we can do. Nev1 (talk) 02:34, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I have fixed some dead links and tagged two others which don't appear to be archived from Somerset Council Council. Concur with Nev1 that English Heritage and REA sites are RS. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:56, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - another 1c issue is/could be the requirement of "high-quality" sources that are "a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature on the topic." —Ed(talk • majestic titan)03:47, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if the system failed but I was not informed as part of the FAR process, until a friendly editor dropped me a line. Therefore can we have a few extra days to work on the areas identified?— Rodtalk08:00, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've now has a chance to visit the library for the page numbers etc & along with others have added several more references. I have asked for a copy editor to have a look at the prose, but would be grateful for others to review again & specify what else needs doing.— Rodtalk21:44, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No major issues with the prose now, but I still think that the references need a once-over. Way too many primary sources and PDFs. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer)16:07, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I will look to find alternative sources where the PDFs are newsletters from the AONB etc but where they are things like SSSI citation sheets from English Nature, I would argue there are no better sources.— Rodtalk16:51, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've replaced the AONB newsletter references, could you suggest others where you feel I need to look for alternative sources?— Rodtalk10:09, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've added another ref to cover the designation under the act in this & next para
Are refs 82, 83, 90 and 91 reliable?
With the additions the numbering has changed now:
84 The Ramblers’ Association is a company limited by guarantee, registered in England and Wales. Company registration number: 4458492. Registered Charity in England and Wales number: 1093577. Registered office: 2nd floor, Camelford House, 87-90 Albert Embankment, London SE1 7TW
85 Monarchs Way Association - a small voluntary organisation, part of the long distance walking association, but does produce a range of maps & books on which their web pages are based.
92 Dr Who locations is a fan site, but does have an extensive & updated list - this bit is trivia so the article wouldn't really suffer if it were removed. I'd be happy to remove it if other think this is appropriate?
93 Worldwide Guide to Movie Locations - The author Tony Reeves has written a book with the same content - but I don't have a copy of this to cite
I hope your points about the references have been addressed - however I don't understand the last citing the page & no link for 89, do you mean it needs a page number from the Le Carre book?.— Rodtalk10:08, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the trivia related to Le Carre, Dr Who & Hot Fuzz as I can't find suitable RS. I have changed the reference for Thomas Hardy to a book.
Strong delist now keep - possible factual errors, citations that don't cover what they claim to, referencing still not up to standard (mostly becuase I just skimmed before)....major problems:
What makes Gerry Brooke a reliable source? (ref 3)
He is a journalist employed by the Western Daily Press - beyond that I don't know - is every journalist employed by a daily newspaper going to be challenged? I have wikilinked Western Daily Press
No, but I don't feel like a journalist is a "high-quality" source for that kind of statement (he's not a language historian or anything like that)
A "student's guide" for ref 9? Not reliable. (ref 9)
Why do you think this book may not be reliable? It was published in 1985 by the Nature Conservancy Council (a government funded body) & has an ISBN number supplied - is every published book going to be challenged?
Atthill is referenced way more than once; he should be moved into a bibliography and the citations converted to short-style
This book is cited 3 times, each with different page numbers (& included in further reading as a key source). I thought this was an acceptable way of citing a book where different pages are cited - could you point me to a guideline saying it is a requirement to cite in other formats, I've looked at Wikipedia:Citing sources & don't see this - I work on verifiability & believe this is shown.
Weather Online is a company (483 Green Lanes, London, N13 4BS, United Kingdom, Phone: +44 (0) 8458 694748, Director: Dr. Ulrich Römer, Registered in England and Wales No. 4619915) as shown on their About page.
Their About Us page shows a 16 year history, 1.5 million web pages, served over 295 million pages to 110 million unique visitors. Published by Crawbar Ltd, 64 Burlington Lane, LONDON W4 2RR, Tel: 0871 716 2350, or fax 0871 716 2355. I had changed it to this ref because the newsletter of the AONB was challenged previously. I have added another independent ref
Now ref 31 - I have added location=New Delhi, India
What makes ref 31 reliable?
Now ref 32 - wide experience of wildlife photography (see about page). A search of Somerset Historic Environment Record (published by the county council) with the Category "Round Barrow (MON)" & Area Designation "Mendip Hills AONB" gives the figure of 286, however I can't find a way to link to the search output URL, without adding 26 refs to pages of 10 results at a time (eg records 1-10) - help appreciated.
What makes ref 36 a "high-quality" source? (this question applies to many of the references...)
(Not sure if you mean 37 or new 37 here) 36 is an academic journal - see Publications page for more info where it says "has been published continuously since 1959. The Bulletin contains a large body of information on mining history, both in the Peak District and elsewhere throughout the world. It has grown from the original 14 page publication to a professionally produced journal of between 60 and 140 pages, and now circulates throughout the world." Are specialist journals published by experts in a particular field to be challenged? Ref 37 is published by the County Council & I would argue is therefore reliable & high quality. Do you have other examples where you feel journals etc are not "high quality" sources?
Somerset County Council has responsibilities under various laws to catalogue aspects of history and culture. This is carried out by the Records Office (with a 400 year history) see SRO about page.— Rodtalk09:19, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have replaced all of these with a planning application document published by the district council
Ref 46 says that the plant started operating in December 2006, which doesn't jive with the article. Actually, it doesn't support any of the information supplied in the sentence.
Now refs 50 & 51 - I've changed the year to 2006 from 2007 (when the report was published) & the output to 60KwH - which I believe may have changed since the original publication (from 75KwH) although my memory isn't that good.
That still doesn't follow your refs; one says 50KwH, that other says 55.
Ref 52 lacks a publisher etc. and doesn't cover the paragraph it cites.
I presume this is Ref 53 (but I'm getting a bit confused on numbering) I've added the Mendip Society as publisher but believe it does cover the claim re 700 members. I've added another ref (a sub page from the same web site) for the date of formation (now ref 53)
I'm now confused (but this may be because of the changed numbers) I presume these are the demographic information which are all published by the Office for National Statistics a government body or local councils - which are relibale because they have statutory duties to maintian information on their populations - all based on the United Kingdom Census 2001
This was meant at current refs 70–72.
I've added several book ref re the canal & coalfield. For BRLSI see about us where it says "Bath Royal Literary and Scientific Institution is an educational charity based in Queen Square, Bath. Bath Royal Literary and Scientific Institution Trustees 16-18 Queen Square, Bath, Bath&NES. BA1 2HN Company number 02857000 Reg. Charity no:304477.— Rodtalk10:20, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't 67 be citing the book itself?
I presume this is the Wrington Vale Light Railway book - if so changed
Ref 69 doesn't cover its accompanying paragraph.
I presume this is now ref 75 Mendip Quarry producers? if so their about us page says "Mendip Quarry Producers (MQP) is an association of quarry companies with operations in Somerset who have formed a partnership to keep people informed about quarrying issues and to provide a forum to share best practice."
What makes refs 70, 71, 72, 73, 75, 77, and 78/82 reliable?
Again I'm not quite sure which ones are being referred to here (? 76, 77, 78, 79, 81, 83 & 84) but: Mendip Society dealt with above. Somerset guide - I would have thought the claims about flora, fauna & activities was non controversial, but I've added another ref (78) from Enjoy England (Corporate Info says VisitEngland is the strategic leadership body representing the public and private sector stakeholders of English Tourism. It works in partnership with VisitBritain, the Regional Development Agencies and local authorities, and the private sector, creating a national tourism strategy, optimising marketing investment, and developing the visitor experience across England). The BMC (British Mountaineering Council) is the representative body that exists to protect the freedoms and promote the interests of climbers, hill walkers and mountaineers, including ski-mountaineers. The site includes suitable terms & conditions & the opportunity to report errors. The Somerset Tourist Guide is a private company promoting accommodation and attractions in Somerset - I have deleted this ref & added one for the official web site of Wells Cathedral. Priddy Folk Festival is organised and stewarded by volunteers. All funds raised by the Festival go to the Priddy Charity Trust.
@the refs that don't cover what they cite -- I didn't go through and read every reference, so someone needs to go through and fact-check the entire article. —Ed(talk • majestic titan)02:40, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks you for your comments. I hope I have dealt with them - but I got a little confused about the numbering of refs towards the end. If there are still outstanding issues please say and I will do my best to address them. Another set of eyes to fact-check would always be useful.— Rodtalk11:58, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Rod, I'm running out the door right now, but this was the version I was commenting on. It should have the right numbering so you can double-check. [2] :-) Regards, —Ed(talk • majestic titan)12:45, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've had another go at the outstanding issues. I will be out of the country for the next week (with no internet or others sources) so will not be able to respond to any further queries until my return. I will ask for help from Wikipedia:WikiProject Somerset, but would ask for a bit more time. It would also be helpful if you could strike-through any issues you feel are resolved or just start a new list of one to be dealt with as again the numbering of refs has changed.— Rodtalk10:47, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Designated an AONB ... by which agency? The UN? "The ? has designated it ...".
The overlinking was just appalling. I've stripped away most of it. And there were examples of deceptive piping. This alone was worth demoting. Rainfall, sheep, cement? And 50 others. Mining (twice), lead (four times).
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.
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.
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)[reply]
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. "
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. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲτ¢19:34, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
The lead is a basic and condensed summary of the rest of the article. Citations in the lead are generally discouraged/not needed for the simply reason that they should be present sourcing the information in the main body of the article. If they are not being used in the body, then they need to be added from the lead ASAP. If they are, then there is no reason to have them in the lead anyways. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 07:22, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Move to FARC for further review. This article is cluttered by too many images, which seriously impacts the load time. Citations are inconsistently formatted and have many typos. I haven't looked at content yet; will once the article is cleaned up. The {{main}} template is used incorrectly, and some should be switched to a different template. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:44, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I came here intending to help out, but I'm finding it very slow to load, and once I do get it open, I see the text is full of citation templates, which make it very hard, if not impossible to copy edit e.g.
From the early 17th century onwards, that part of [[New France]] that lay along the [[Saint Lawrence River]] and the northern shores of the [[Great Lakes]] was named ''Canada'', an area that was later split into two British colonies, [[Upper Canada]] and [[Lower Canada]], until their re-unification as the [[Province of Canada]] in 1841.<ref name=Rayburn>Rayburn, Alan (2001) (p.1-22).</ref> Upon [[Canadian Confederation|Confederation]] in 1867, the name ''Canada'' was adopted as the legal name for the new country,<ref name="Martin">{{cite journal| last=Martin| first=Robert| title=1993 Eugene Forsey Memorial Lecture: A Lament for British North America| journal=The Machray Review| publisher=Prayer Book Society of Canada| year=1993| url=http://www.prayerbook.ca/library/machray/issue5/machray5d.htm| accessdate=2008-11-05| quote=Strictly speaking, the official name of the new country was, simply, "Canada," but usage sanctioned "Dominion of Canada".}}</ref> and ''[[Dominion]]'' (a term from Psalm 72:8)<ref>{{cite book| last=Clarke| first=Michael| title=Canada: Portraits of the Faith| year=1998| page=60}}</ref> was conferred as the country's title;<ref>{{cite book| first=J. E.| last=Hodgetts| coauthors=Gerald Hallowell| year=2004| chapter=Dominion| title=Oxford Companion to Canadian History| location=Toronto| publisher=Oxford University Press| isbn=0195415590| quote=The title conferred on Canada by the preamble to the Constitution Act, 1867, whereby the provinces declare 'their desire to be federally united into one Dominion under the Crown of the United Kingdom.'| page=183}}</ref> combined, the term ''Dominion of Canada'' was in common usage until the 1950s. Thereafter, as Canada asserted its political autonomy from the [[United Kingdom]], the federal government increasingly used simply ''Canada'' on state documents and treaties, a change that was reflected in the renaming of the national holiday from [[Dominion Day]] to [[Canada Day]] in 1982.<ref>{{cite web| title=Government of Canada Events 2009 Canada Site| publisher=Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada|work=Minister of Public Works and Government Services Canada|date= 2009-10-19| accessdate=2009-10-19| url=http://canada.gc.ca/whats-quoi/nel_fg-eng.html#July| quote=Canada Day was established in 1879 under the name "Dominion Day" and became known by its current name in 1982.}}</ref>
Sandy, you wrote above that the images were slowing it down. Might it not be the templates, and is there anything we can do to stop people from filling texts with templates like this? It has almost become an access issue, because the articles are left practically uneditable, except by people with the special template-filtering eyes, which doesn't include me. :) SlimVirgin06:49, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Gimmetrow did an analysis once somewhere, and IIRC, images slow down load time more than cite templates. He might know where to find that info. He removed all the cite templates from an article and compared load times. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:48, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The page can be reduced in size without altering the templates by cutting out quotes which simply duplicate material. Also, it is unnecessary to use "ref name" when the reference is only used once. The paragraph above can be reduced in size by at least 20% (from 2374 to 1811 characters) without any loss or change to the article text:
From the early 17th century onwards, that part of [[New France]] that lay along the [[Saint Lawrence River]] and the northern shores of the [[Great Lakes]] was named ''Canada'', an area that was later split into two British colonies, [[Upper Canada]] and [[Lower Canada]], until their re-unification as the [[Province of Canada]] in 1841.<ref>Rayburn, Alan (2001) (p.1-22).</ref> Upon [[Canadian Confederation|Confederation]] in 1867, the name ''Canada'' was adopted as the legal name for the new country,<ref>{{cite journal|last=Martin|first=Robert|title=1993 Eugene Forsey Memorial Lecture|journal=The Machray Review|publisher=Prayer Book Society of Canada|year=1993| url=http://www.prayerbook.ca/library/machray/issue5/machray5d.htm|accessdate=2008-11-05}}</ref> and ''[[Dominion]]'' (a term from Psalm 72:8)<ref>{{cite book|last=Clarke| first=Michael|title=Canada: Portraits of the Faith|year=1998|page=60}}</ref> was conferred as the country's title;<ref>{{cite book|first=J. E.|last=Hodgetts|coauthors=Gerald Hallowell|year=2004|chapter=Dominion|title=Oxford Companion to Canadian History|location=Toronto|publisher=Oxford University Press|isbn=0195415590| page=183}}</ref> combined, the term ''Dominion of Canada'' was in common usage until the 1950s. Thereafter, as Canada asserted its political autonomy from the [[United Kingdom]], the federal government increasingly used simply ''Canada'' on state documents and treaties, a change that was reflected in the renaming of the national holiday from [[Dominion Day]] to [[Canada Day]] in 1982.<ref>{{cite web|title=Government of Canada Events 2009|publisher=Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada|work=Minister of Public Works and Government Services|date=2009-10-19|accessdate=2009-10-19|url=http://canada.gc.ca/whats-quoi/nel_fg-eng.html#July}}</ref>
If the entire article is similar, which it apparently is, the article is 20–25% larger than it needs to be, even before making any cuts to the actual article prose. DrKiernan (talk) 10:23, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, though it's hard to see where to make the cuts, because the templates made the text hard to edit. I was intending to go through it and do a copy edit for flow, which would have included tightening, but I can't do it with the templates in place. SlimVirgin10:25, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Citation templates are mis-used. Obvious non-publishers are listed in publisher fields. Invented names for official organisations are used. Inappropriate sources used: A world elephant conference on geographic formation; a Prayer book society publication on history. Gross repeated citation of inappropriate tertiary sources including non signed, non specialist, and low grade (worldbook) tertiaries. Failure to cite law and government proceedings correctly. Typos in names in citations. Works in works (book chapters, encyclopedia articles) not cited correctly). Bias towards full-text online sources. Use of low quality sources, lack of high quality sources. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:18, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Could you clarify some of your comments? For example, what would you consider an invented name?
"Be Bold" has become an informal slogan of WikipediaAgree refs are messed up,howerver from what i can see there is a genuine effort in trying to cite citations properly..this is one of the hardest things to do for new editors (as there is many many different templates now..like cite journal, cite web, cite book etc.). This copy that passed the FA level way back when, clearly was lacking in what wiki excepts today, so [citation] tags were add over time and then a reference added to get rid of a [citation] tag. So here we are today with an article that has a REFERENCE for almost ever sentence sometime 2 or 3. (some good and some bad ones). I believe we should remove lots of them....Do we really need a reference for things like .. "the war of 1812" [was in 1812]. After reading the original FA copy and I now hold copies of the refs books used.. i see most references used cover hole paragraphs and more. Lets all remove what we feel is over the top and/or bad references..then lets sit back and see what we need to cite after. I just dont see the point in fixing templates if the ref is no good ..so we should cuddle all we can then come back see if a reference is need for a statement....Then what i will do is a layout fix of the references so they stand out. Then someone with the skill to do a grammar and spelling check can go threw it. ......Remember be Bold .....Buzzzsherman (talk) 22:50, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Demographics
In the "Demographics" section, it is strange that one third (or 33.333...%) of the respondents are reported as giving "Canadian" as their ethnicity, but the "largest ethnic group" is said to be "English", at 21%.
I took a look at "Statistics Canada", reported as the source for this (mis)information (the link is broken, so I had to google it). Here is the relevant link: [5] What I saw is that Statistics Canada does not say that 21% of Canadians are ethnic English, but that 21% of Canadians (or rather an absolute figure that represents 21% of the total Canadian population) report an English "ethnic origin". So there seems to be a gross confusion: the article reports about "ethnic groups", while the source that should support this talks about something completely different: ethnic origins.
My own knowledge about Canada is too small to pretend that I can fix anything in the article. But evidently something is wrong there, and should be corrected, preferably by an editor who actually knows Canada (and, of course, the difference between "ethnic group" and "ethnic origin). Ninguém (talk) 16:57, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist. Many sentences were not being satisfactorily fixed with citation. The article do not meet the current FA standard.
e.g.: Using its spending powers, the federal government can initiate national policies in provincial areas, such as the Canada Health Act; the provinces can opt out of these, but rarely do so in practice. Really?
Really, and cited at end of paragraph. Nikkimaria (talk)
e.g.: In Quebec, British Columbia, Newfoundland & Labrador, New Brunswick, Ontario, Manitoba, and Yukon, hydroelectricity is a cheap and clean source of renewable energy. Hydroelectricity in Ontario at least is not cheap. An average household in Renfrew Ontario at least needs to pay around 700 - 800 dollars per month. Any evidence that you can give me?? pls!
Hydroelectricity is widely used, renewable, and cheap compared with similar alternative energy sources. Power in Canada, generally speaking, is cheaper than in most of the rest of the world. Nikkimaria (talk)
e.g.: In the 1980s, Prime Minister Brian Mulroney's Progressive Conservatives abolished the NEP and changed the name of FIRA to "Investment Canada" in order to encourage foreign investment. The Canada – United States Free Trade Agreement (FTA) of 1988 eliminated tariffs between the two countries, while the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) expanded the free-trade zone to include Mexico in the 1990s. Again, citiation is required.
e.g.: Newcomers settle mostly in the major urban areas of Montreal, Toronto, and Vancouver. Any evidence? how do you define newcomers?
Newcomers meaning new immigrants to Canada, as stated earlier in that section. Cited. Nikkimaria (talk)
e.g.: Canadian culture has historically been influenced by British, French, and Aboriginal cultures and traditions. It has also been heavily influenced by American culture because of its proximity and the high rate of migration between the two countries. The great majority of English-speaking immigrants to Canada between 1755 and 1815 were Americans from the Thirteen Colonies. During the War of Independence, 46,000 Americans came to Canada, exiled because of their loyalty to Britain. Between 1785 and 1812, another 30,000 moved to Canada—the so-called Late Loyalists—in response to promises of land, provided that they agreed to swear allegiance to the Crown. Any book I can find out from library?? pls! Oei888 (talk) 03:28, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not a book, but I have added a reliable source. Please keep in mind that there is no requirement for sources to be print-only. Please let me know if you have further concerns. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:03, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. From what I understand this is an FAR not an FARC so there should be no reason for vote like terms such as "Keep" or "Remove". On another note it should be pointed out there is a tension between a well-sourced article and a compact article. Well-sourced articles will have great difficulty being compact. If every fact needs a citation then an article with lots of facts (presumably a good thing) is going to get bogged down by citations very quickly. Add to that the requirement for alt text and it gets silly. If this is the kind of discussion that is going to emerge I think a concept of a what a FA country article should look like be made very clear. I have noticed recently a number of previously GA articles being demoted and at least one FA, now I see some comments here trying to move this article to FARC. There are pitifully few country articles as it is that are GA much less FA and I must start to question the wisdom of the current implementation of the review process if more country articles are being demoted than promoted. It would seem to suggest editors are more enthusiastic in tearing things down than building things up. Lambanog (talk) 14:55, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lambanog, this article has been moved from FAR to FARC, see the header of this section, "FARC commentary". That means that keep and delist declarations are appropriate at this point. At this point, one keep declaration and one delist declaration have been made, and so the article is far from being delisted at this point, especially as most of the concerns raised have been addressed. The article is simply waiting for a few reviewers to thoroughly go through the article, make final comments, and make their final declarations. Also, articles being promoted or demoted from GA/FA has nothing to do with their worthiness as a topic, and everything to do with their conformation to review process guidelines. These guidelines tend to change over time, and so articles must change with them if their editors want them to still maintain that status. It is not the reviewers' faults if main editors are no longer interested in maintaining their articles, or if there are few editors willing to work on a topic as large as an entire country. The numbers of overall GAs and FAs continue to increase, and so it may be that editors are just interested in other topics, rather than being interested in "tearing things down". Do you have comments on this article specifically that could be of help to the editors attempting to maintain its FA status? Dana boomer (talk) 15:24, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To those seeking to maintain the FA? Haven't looked at it too closely to make such recommendations. My impression though is that it is comparable with other country FAs. My comment would be this: For those who wish to have it demoted, point to the significantly better country articles and explain why. If these conflicting arguments based on its not having enough citations on one hand but also it's too big on the other are acceptable then I want to know what article successfully fulfills both concerns. With no explicit comparative standard, these arguments can simply be masking arbitrary nitpicking. Lambanog (talk) 15:42, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Saying that other country FAs are worse won't work as they would have to be FARed too, not the other way round. Lots of articles stand still and the standards rise and they get removed if they don't get renovated YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 23:07, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One must remember that this is a country article and as such there are certain additional format requirements imposed upon them. Going by other country reviews I have seen, not following Wikipedia country template standards has been grounds for criticism. I would like to bring it to the attention of reviewers that these standards applied to country articles have the potential to conflict with FA criteria. In my view there needs to be an assessment of whether the new FA criteria prejudice country articles. FA comprehensiveness is in direct conflict with country article summary style. I also see some FA reviewers criticism of content emphasis. Inescapably the indirect inference is that the reviewer knows more about the subject than the writers of the article. Maybe that is appropriate if it can be backed up, but writing style and execution is where FA reviewers expertise I think would mainly lie. Lambanog (talk) 04:23, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I don't understand why the foreign relation of Canada and military should be closely related in this article. Any special reason??? Don't you think the foreign relation of Canada not only include the aspect of military, but also the commercial relation with other countries in Europe, Latin America and Asia as well? The UK is by far Canada's most important commercial partner in Europe and, from a global perspective, ranks second only to the United States. Such special commerical relation between the UK and Canada should be elaborated more in detail. Anyway, the section of foreign relation in this article is not acceptable and comprehensive enough for the FA standard. Oei888 (talk) 01:45, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Commercial relationships are largely covered under "Economy". Other foreign relations issues, as far as I can tell, are in the appropriate section. This is closely related to military because, besides economics, a good proportion of Canada's relationship with the rest of the world has been through the military - alliances, relief efforts, war, and even diplomacy to some extent. Can you specify what aspects of Canada's foreign relations you feel need to be more comprehensive, given that commercial relations are under Economy? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:03, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Commerical relationships are not largely covered under the section of Economy from my personal opinion (in case you don't think to put that specific information under the section of Foreign Relation). Again, the special commerical relationship between the United Kingdom and Canada didn't mention. As far as I know, the UK is by far Canada's most important commerical partner in Europe, ranks second only to the United States in global prespective. I am more interested in knowing the foreign relationship and/or commerical relationship between Canada and China or Japan (or even Australia). As long as you specify those aspects I would feel that at least this specific facet is more comprehensive. In addition to this, still quite a few sentences in this article having neither situable citations nor correct sources. I've carefully checked already and I don't think the online information/citation you provided last time for hydroelectrity are vaild, for example; not to mention other citations. Extremely few citations correctly provided from journals or books. To sum up, this is definitely not an FA article but for GA, I don't object it! Oei888 (talk) 06:17, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've added two sentences about Canada's largest foreign trading partners (US, UK, Japan). As this is a summary article, we can't discuss Canada's relations with every country; I suggest you find a daughter article to read about the relationship with Australia or other countries. I've also added a considerable number of book and journal citations; perhaps you'd care to look over the article again and detail any remaining concerns? Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 03:17, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist. Underwhelming. A great pity for the flagship article on one of our main constituencies.
Goodness me, it's been here for a long time. Don't the Canadidan WPians care?
Why are items such as "country" linked (in the first line, too). Why are English and French (languages) linked? Why "United States", for heaven's sake?
Ah, sorry, I thought I'd checked that link-target (English). But in Canadian confederation, they do go to the plain language targets. Also under "Language". Tony(talk)11:18, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"United States" as a link is entirely appropriate here... differences of opinion regarding "common terms" aside, in this specific case we are dealing with a geography article. Beyond that Canada and the US share many, many close ties; a link to the article about the nation's neighbour, biggest trading partner, closest ally etc. is certainly reasonable. --Ckatzchatspy03:41, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tiny images: try 240px for many of them, please. The animated map is great, but who could ever read the text on it? Boost please.
Not really. You've chosen 210px for some of the pics; but all default thumbnails will soon be 220. Why smaller than that? I'm enlarging some to 230 or 240 or more, since there's so much detail in them. Such beautiful paintings; why hide them if they're free? Also, can you cope with more on the right side? Tony(talk)11:18, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
240px is far too large, in my opinion. The history section is now cluttered with stacked-up images, and looks bloated. Putting them all on one side just exacerbates this even further. If a reader wants to see an image in more detail, he or she can simply click on it and view the full-size version. Hayden120 (talk) 12:27, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I find the section on Government and politics inadequate.
Inadequate in what way? Could you expand on this point please, or give a general summary of what you perceive to be its inadequacies? Nikkimaria (talk)
Small point: "Unicameral provincial legislatures operate in parliamentary fashion similar to the House of Commons." Ambiguous: they're all unicameral, yes? This point needs to be explicit.
"Canada is also a constitutional monarchy"—"also" is inappropriate here.
Somewhat - Queen is legally head of state, Governor General acts as legal/ceremonial head of state (since the Queen is in the UK), but neither have real political power, or at least not a lot of it. While she's legally the head of state, the PM is very much running the show. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:34, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The big map of Canada is good, except (1) it doesn't explain what "clickable" really means, and (2) the key at the bottom is illegible.
Isn't it pretty damn obvious what 'clickable' means? How explicit does it need to be? "Left click on this image's text to view the corresponding page"? Also, it was suggested that the map was too big, hence I made it smaller (and consequently made the legend more difficult to read). I just can't win. Hayden120 (talk) 14:14, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's not correct, sorry. Clicking on the province or territory takes you to the corresponding article. For example, if you click on 'Ontario', you will be directed to the Ontario article. It's pretty straightforward. Unless there is something wrong with your browser, the only way to load a new page is by clicking on the image's text. To enlarge the map, you have to click the small blue 'i' circle in the corner. Hayden120 (talk) 11:55, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For me, just clicking on the map does nothing, while clicking on the name of a place (like 'Ontario' or 'Toronto') takes you to the article about that place. Hayden is right, only the 'i' takes you to a larger image. Does something different happen for you, Tony?
Map size has been increased; can you suggest a clearer wording for "clickable"? Nikkimaria (talk)
"Click on a province or territory to access a larger map"?
Geography and climate: overlinked, like much of the article. The caption to the satellite pic is humungously big: that could mostlyl be transferred to the main text.
Economy section ... not thrilling. For example: "In Quebec, British Columbia, Newfoundland & Labrador, New Brunswick, Ontario, Manitoba, and Yukon, hydroelectricity is an inexpensive source of renewable energy." What does "inexpensive mean in this context?
That specific instance has been clarified. Can you explain what you mean by "not thrilling"? Nikkimaria (talk)
Demographics: the box is very untidy, and those tiny pics of city skylines are underwhelming. The histogram of religions is unsuitable for the data, isn't it? So there are exactly 345,345 native Spanish speakers? Too precise. Tony(talk)12:06, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've made some adjustments to the box, including slightly increasing the sizes of the pictures. The data is from Statistics Canada, and they report 345,345 Spanish speakers as of the last census; we merely record what they report. As for the histogram, could you clarify we you believe it to be unsuitable? Thanks for your comments. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:03, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments I've only read the lead and ==History== section, but looks great so far. With 39 kB (6124 words) "readable prose size", this article is just fine size-wise for a country article and the sections I've read so far are tight, very readable and employ Summary Style well. There were a few long and/or awkward sentences that I fixed as I read but there a few more issues below that I'd like somebody else to address. Once addressed I'll continue my copyedit and review:
General
Images should not be placed left-aligned directly below headings per MOS.
Alt text still missing from images in infobox. I'll let others comment on the quality of the alt text since that is something I'm still learning myself.
Several dead external links need to be fixed (might have to go to archive.org) and several more are redirects that should be changed to direct links. Just check the external link tool above.
Fixed most of the dead links, except two that weren't available through archive.org - I'll see if I can find another source for those. Nikkimaria (talk)
Canadian Confederation
This sentence needs to be broken-up but I'm not sure exactly how since I'm not sure what the middle part about the Métis is trying to say. A full stop is likely needed at the comma at the very least.
I'm also not sure how you would formulate the sentence with a full stop. What it's trying to say is Canada got two new pieces of territory and merged them, and the Metis in that territory were upset, which led to the Rebellion and the creation of the province. Does that help at all? I'm not sure how to edit it. Nikkimaria (talk)
Keep - I finished my read and copyedit and have found the article to be generally excellent now. Quality of sources now look good and the article is full of inline cites. Prose reads well and text/image layout is good. Very informative and an interesting read. --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs) 23:57, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
JB50000, can you explain why the article should be demoted from FA status? In addition, when an article is promoted to FA, it loses its GA status, so when an article loses its FA status, it is not GA but simply an FFA (former Featured article); the WikiProject assessments default to unassessed. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:00, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are two dab links that still need to be dealt with.
I've dealt with one; I've searched he edit text, but haven't been able to find the other. If anyone could locate it, that would be appreciated. Nikkimaria (talk)
The alt text in the table under the demographics section needs work. It gives information that is not discernible from the image itself, such as the name of the city and the population.
The Further reading section still needs a trim. Works that are used as references should not be duplicated in the further reading section, and other non-essential works should be removed.
Multiple issues with refs - inconsistent style of author (sometimes first name last name, other times reversed), full information not given until the fifth use on the Desmond Morton ref, incorrect ref templates used (i.e. the Jacques Cartier ref in the Etymology section should use a cite book, not a cite web), inconsistent use of ref templates (i.e. the Creighton, Donald. ref in the Etymology section, which produced inconsistent formatting), etc. A thorough check needs to be made to polish this up.
I've gone through and fixed a lot of inconsistencies; please let me know if there's further work to be done here. Nikkimaria (talk)
Still lots of work to be done. Books using page vs pages wrong (page= for one page, pages= for a range, i.e. the Creighton ref in the History section), many books missing ISBNs (OCLCs are acceptable if books don't have ISBNs), etc. Please check every ref
As SandyGeorgia mentioned in the FAR section, there is an overabundance of images. This is especially true in the Etymology and History sections, where text is being sandwiched between images and between an image and the infobox, going against MOS:IMAGES. The mass of images also scatter the reader's attention away from the images that truly convey the information the editors want to be shown.
Interesting - I get no sandwiching on my screen. What's your screen resolution? In any event, I've shortened the infobox slightly, so hopefully that will no longer be a problem there. IMO, all of the images in History convey useful information - are there a few in particular that you feel are extraneous? Nikkimaria (talk)
I'm at a 1280 x 800 resolution on a relatively small 15.6" screen, and there's crowding all over the place. The Cartier and fur trade images sandwich with the infobox and the Vimy image sandwiches with the animated map and the WWII image (the second one worse). There are other slight sandwich spots, but these are the worst. As for what images are extraneous - ask yourself which ones actually convey useful information through the image itself? For example, the WWII image IMO conveys nothing unique about WWII in Canada - although an evocative image, it doesn't show the reader anything about Canada specifically. Also, statistical information in the captions needs to be removed or sourced, and would be better placed in the body of the article, although this is optional.
The International rankings section needs to be sourced. Only two out of the fourteen rankings have sources, and these are statistics that need references. Also, the external links should be removed - preferably by turning them into references.
Rankings are now sourced, and external link section culled. I've left some external links which I feel are relevant, as well as the links to sister projects and the audio file. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:50, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, I meant that the external links in the International rankings section needed to be removed. The actual External links section does look better now, thought!
These are basic things that should have already been taken care of as we are standing two months into the FARC process, especially as many of them have been mentioned before by various reviewers. This article needs an overall MOS and sourcing cleanup before prose of a "professional standard" is even an issue. Dana boomer (talk) 23:08, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I get the feeling that the main editors are simply fixing the problems made explicit and making little effort to actually comb through the article and bring in copyeditors and sourcing experts to get the article back up to FA status. Citation formatting issues have been pointed out since the very beginning of this FAR, and yet they are still present. Also, many sections of the article feel like a deliberate attempt was made to pack the greatest number of sources into the article, regardless of relevance or scholarship, and that facts were simply thrown together with little connecting narrative. For example, the Government and politics section is five short paragraphs long. However, it contains fourteen different refs, including seven books, three journal articles and four websites. Are you telling me that there are none of these references that cover more than a couple of sentence in this paragraph? And instead you need to use tertiary, general refs such as "Politics: An Introduction to the Modern Democratic State"? Also, why are 160+ year old refs (Martin), 80+ year old refs (Wallace) and 50+ year old refs (Creighton) being used in the history section? I'm sure any of the basic, more recent Canadian history refs that are also being used in that section could be used to cover information. Recent refs are also more likely to contain the most recent information known about the subject. Sometimes even the most basic "facts" that someone knew 160 years ago have changed in the intervening time. Consolidating references can also help to satisfy editors/reviewers who complain that there are too many ref templates in the article or that the byte size is too large and the article loads slowly. At this point, I don't believe I will be revisiting this FAR to support either keeping or delisting. There are too many little things wrong with the article, so although I'm not going to list a firm delist, I'm not comfortable with supporting keeping until MOS, prose and sourcing experts (looking at not just reliability, but high quality) have been through the article and the issues they find addressed. Dana boomer (talk) 02:52, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ckatz, above, claims that linking "United States" is appropriate. Could someone explain exactly what it is about the article on the US that will be of particular relevance to the reader at this point? We need particular aspects or statements or facts in the US article that are relevant to understanding the topic of Canada, which are not dealt with explicitly in the article on Canada. Tony(talk)12:55, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For starters, the two nations share one of the longest national borders in the world and the U.S. is the number one trading partner of Canada. If United States is not appropriate to link in the Canada article, then I don't know where it would be appropriate. Really, all this fuss over a link. Don't we have better things to do? That this is an issue is beyond silly. --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs/PRs) 21:31, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Further, the fact of the above (and other ties between the two nations) means that any reader of the Canada article just might be interested in the United States article; to learn about the same aspects covered by the standard country subsections. --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs/PRs) 02:03, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Language and material under "Science and technology" is not neutral. "Canada's high-quality scientific and technological development is renowned throughout the world"??? "Canada is the home of the largest producer of video games in the world" but no citation. etc etc
The "Culture" section is seriously impoverished. No mention of Canadian visual arts (not even a link to Canadian art) such as the Group of Seven or Emily Carr; no mention of Canadian contemporary musicians (dunno: are there any? Wait, k.d. lang, Celine Dion "best selling international female artist of all time", and Rush, to start with). Does Canada have any writers? Margaret Atwood perhaps? Michael Ondaatje? Both Booker Prize winners? I'm just sayin'. Compare this with England#Culture, which is a GA, not an FA. Not even close.
The coverage of Aboriginal peoples is seriously inadequate. My quick scan suggests you could read this article and not realise that there are three groupiings of Indigenous Canadians (First Nations, Inuit, Metis); that there are treaties between Indigenous Canadians and the Crown; that there are distinctive arts created by these people; etc etc.
Foreign relations section contains fairly recent info of limited interest, such as "Canada's Disaster Assistance Response Team (DART) has participated in three major relief efforts in recent years; the two-hundred-member team has been deployed in relief operations after the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake in South Asia, Hurricane Katrina in 2005, and the Kashmir earthquake in October 2005."
I would reluctantly recommend a delist, unless i can help add an art section, Bzzzsherman (?) could deal with the omissions on Aboriginal Canadians, and someone could tackle the awful science section. Even then, the culture material generally is not great. Cheers. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:36, 6 April 2010 (UTC) Strike that. With a bit more work (mainly just the addition of Canadian literature) I would say keep. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:04, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comments. Please feel free to help add an art section. I've pinged Buzzz to take a look at Aboriginal coverage. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 13:24, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Buzzz here ok will look over Aboriginal section soon today or tomorrow...PS i am back to using the name Moxy...Moxy (talk) 14:00, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As per above (Aboriginal omissions ) ....I think that i should get others to review what i have in mind to add being the high profile of this article...All of the new section i propose is a copy edit that comes from info on the Aboriginal peoples in Canada article that we got to GA status not long ago. Keeping in mind the new text is a summery of the Aborigianl page, all-be-it a reasonable size for here.. Pls see copy of proposed changes here .... If no real objections i will add it in the next day or 2............Moxy (talk) 23:38, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Moxy. I have edited your initial version, including the integration of some facts and sources from the old text. I am proposing that it be integrated in three separate locations: a para replacing the old first para in the history section; a para to be added to the "Law" section; and a para probably for adding to the "Culture" section. The last one needs a bit of expansion, and i haven't yet thought about the exact location or a possible subheading. Cheers, hamiltonstone (talk) 00:13, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
ok i add a section bellow that we could add to culture.....Its a direct copy from the Aboriginal page that i have always thought said alot in just its 3 sentences or so.. Moxy (talk) 00:22, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent - i have further edited and integrated material. I have split off a sentence that belongs under Demographics, and consolidated the cultural stuff. I think this is looking much better. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:27, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(Music concerns). I have added some music stuff...I dont think its all that good :( and needs a copy edit. Just trying to say as much as possible in only 3 to 4 sentences, as article is long ...Plus dont need to say much as most will just click on the Music of Canada link to read more ..So i think 3 -4 sentences is fine!!...Moxy (talk) 00:45, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article could stand without it, but I've left it as I feel it illustrates the subject well and provides value to the section. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:23, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Paragraph "When Canada was formed in 1867 its provinces were a relatively narrow strip in the southeast, with vast territories in the interior. It grew by adding British Columbia in 1871, P.E.I. in 1873, the British Arctic Islands in 1880, and Newfoundland in 1949, Its provinces grew both in size and number at the expense of its territories." needs [a] citation[s]
This was actually alt text mistakenly left in the article after an image was removed. I've now removed it from the article body and restored the image. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:23, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Following several constitutional conferences, the Constitution Act, 1867 brought about Confederation, [...]" Weird wording, "brought about Confederation"
I would say not, because "Canadian Confederation" is a unique and proper noun, so "a Canadian confederation" doesn't really work...Nikkimaria (talk) 01:52, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"(most notably the Canadian Pacific Railway)," -- why is the CPR the most notable?
"Britain's declaration of war in 1914 automatically brought Canada into World War I." -- that probably needs to be explained a bit more, some people (especially Americans) probably won't understand why it was automatic
"The Great Depression brought economic hardship all over Canada. In response, the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (CCF) in Alberta and Saskatchewan enacted many measures of a welfare state as pioneered by Tommy Douglas in the 1940s and 1950s." -- Douglas didn't pioneer them in the 40s/50s if they had already been tried in the 30s.
The fact that Canada had the second-largest economy after WWII ought to be mentioned.
It did? I've never heard that...you wouldn't happen to have a source? A Google search mostly turns up stuff about how Japan became the second-largest, but nothing really on the Canadian economy. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:23, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The "Modern times" section focuses much too heavily on Quebec, and has nothing on the 80s, 90s, or 00s...
Expanded, should hopefully be more balanced. I've left most of the information about Quebec, because it played such a huge role in the politics of Canada in that era, but hopefully the new additions should balance it out. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:23, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"In August 2007, Canadian sovereignty in Arctic waters was challenged after a Russian expedition that planted a Russian flag at the seabed at the North Pole. Canada has considered that area to be sovereign territory since 1925." -- is this really important enough to be included? —Ed(talk • majestic titan)17:16, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What's up with File:LeopardC2shoot.jpg? The smoke in front of the gun barrel looks awfully fake (IMHO, at least)
I'm not sure, I'd say it's plausible (AGF and all that), and I'm not seeing any amazing tank photos in the Canadian military category. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:52, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Canada is unusual among developed countries in the importance of its primary sector, in which the logging and petroleum industries are two of the most important." -- citation?
"and more recently, the totem pole and Inukshuk." -- citation?
Just page numbers. :-/ As of this revision, refs 23 (Dickason), 55 (Stacey), 61 (Bickerton and Gagnon), 64 (Dickinson and Young), 176 (Newlands), 177 (I know you have a link, but you need to cite the page; attributing Google Books is unnecessary (it's a convenience link) —Ed(talk • majestic titan)04:23, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have added the page numbers...All the books i found online...Now as for the music section, I dont like the new list of music artist all form the same era!!...the original list had the most important people from the past century, now its a list of modern rock artist....Moxy (talk) 15:49, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but one more thing: what volume of History of the Canadian Army in the Second World War is it? I know there's more than one because I've read parts of it before. :-) —Ed(talk • majestic titan)02:30, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Science and technology section - again
This section looks much improved. But when I went to check two references - the fact itself just looked wrong - the refs appear to have no resemblance to the text. Text: "Canada is one of the world’s biggest publishers, publishing the highest number of scientific publications in the fields of medical science, natural science and engineering in 2005." Two footnotes - i looked at both, and apart from not being that user friendly, they seemed to have no correlation with the claimed facts. Anyone got any thoughts? hamiltonstone (talk) 05:18, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Argh. As mentioned above, this section was added recently, so it wasn't covered by my earlier attempts to improve referencing. I'll take a look later today, to see if I can figure out what's going on. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:55, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I've cut that sentence, as it didn't seem to be supported by those refs, and I couldn't find any refs that did support it. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:10, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was kept by Dana boomer 11:51, 17 April 2010 [7].
I am nominating this featured article for review because of major 1c issues which were not raised in the FAC. Yesterday I spent an hour standardising the references to use the {{cite news}} template in the nine instances where newspaper articles are cited, only to be reverted a few hours later (diff). This was not a controversial change, and the swift reply from User:Wehwalt drew my attention to the article history (looking for some previous conflict over citation style) and the speed at which the article has developed. I notice that in the eleven day period from 28 February to 10 March when the bulk of the article was written, there is no real pause in editing which would indicate that the references were being checked against secondary sources. I believe the author has not read through the media coverage of the election, necessary for any meaningful discussion of the campaigns and the election outcome.
There are several instances where it is appropriate to list the sources cited in each reference. For instance:
In the "Campaign - Progressive Conservative" section, an entire paragraph is spent quoting an editorial from the Winnipeg Free Press. There is no date given for the editorial, and no mention of whether the paper ran negative or neutral pieces about Diefenbaker's performance in British Colombia earlier that week.
Also in the "Campaign - Progressive Conservative" section, it is claimed that "Diefenbaker's intensive campaign exhausted the handful of national reporters who followed him." Apparently, Smith 1995 cites just one journalist in support of this claim. I know for a fact that the frenzied pace of Diefenbaker's election tour was international news. There was an article in the London Times ("Mr. Diefenbaker's Struggle For The Canadian Vote", The Times, May 13, 1957; pg. 8) which reported that after falling behind campaigning in western Ontario, there was "a brief appearance before television cameras, before the Diefenbaker caravan sped across the countryside at 75 miles an hour."
In the "Campaign - Liberal" section, it is noted that by April 1957, St. Laurent was taking breaks from campaigning for ten days at a time "when Diefenbaker was already actively campaigning and making daily headlines". Was he making daily headlines with new policies, or simply by drawing a crowd at each speech?
Also in the "Campaign - Liberal" section, it is claimed that at times St. Laurent "seemed unaware of what was happening around him" and at one stage "shook hands with the reporters who were following him, under the apparent impression they were local voters." This is an exceptional claim, which requires exceptional sources.
In the "Campaign - use of television" section, it is noted that a survey taken in southwestern Ontario showed Diefenbaker was the best performing candidate on television. Saying that the area is "populous" doesn't tell us the survey was conclusive.
International media coverage should be used to determine whether the following is worth including:
In the introduction to the "Election" section, Beck 1968 is cited on the overall mood amongst journalists covering the election. Beck is not the authoritative source here. According to a review by John Wilson in the Canadian Journal of Political Science (vol. 2, issue 1 (March 1969), pp. 132-133), there is "[nothing] in the final chapter of Professor Beck's [book] which will stand up to serious analysis, not because [his conclusions] are not well-argued, but because he simply does not have the empirical data in his earlier chapters to sustain the claims he makes." He obviously did not speak to enough journalists to make such a claim.
In the "Aftermath" section, it is claimed that "even in reporting the election result, newspapers suggested that Diefenbaker would soon call another election and seek a majority." This clearly fails WP:V, a Canadian newspaper should never have been used to make such a claim.
These are my most pressing concerns. I could go on, but would prefer to read up on the topic before commenting further.
Ottre07:13, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Request for speedy close. The FAR rules says that "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." This article was promoted March 30. I will look at the concerns in due course, but this is just silly. You don't nom for FAR because you missed the boat on the FAC, or because you are annoyed about a reversal on citation style. To say I wrote this from scratch in 11 days ignores my research on the Diefenbaker article, also an FA, which began in December.
I should note that these concerns are trivial, should have been addressed on article talk page, where Ottre has failed to engage. For example, the statement about St. Laurent's shaking hands was from Peter C. Newman's book, a very prominent Canadian journalist who followed the campaigns (and was disliked by) PMs for thirty years. Regarding the London The Times, has Ottre obtained the name of the person who wrote the article there and checked to see if he is a Canadian journalist whose stuff was picked up by The Times (or written moonlighting) or if The Times actually had a reporter following the campaign before using it as a pretext to bring this to FAR? As for the new election bit, almost every source, including those online says so. Diefenbaker had a minority governmetn, the first since 1926, most minority governments in Canadian history proved unable to govern for very long (none has lasted more than three years without a new election), of course they were speculating immediately!
I will respond more comprehensively if need be, but Ottre's concerns are trivial and he wastes the time of reviewers at a time when the FA processes are exhausted by bringing it here. If Ottre truly has concerns, and is not nomming out of pique at being reverted, he needs to engage on article talk page. This is ridiculous.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:56, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was kept by YellowMonkey 02:27, 10 April 2010 [8].
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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
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.
All images in question now have proper fair use rationales. However, I'm inclined to believe that the first image may be relicensed as PD (although I didn't do it, pending any opposing opinions). --Sky Harbor(talk)15:36, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That must have slipped my mind: I originally used logo templates (by accident!) for all images, but replaced them with standard FUR templates. I'll switch that now. --Sky Harbor(talk)17:19, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments, as you may have noticed, the FA criteria are a lot tougher now than three years ago. There are quite a number of substandard issues with this text now, and to be frank, it would fail even a good article nomination. Below are some, but I would encourage you to start with references, that are lacking for probably half the prose. Other content/style issues are:
A lot of very short paragraphs, such as "Each LRT line uses different fare structures." That is a twelve-syllable paragraph. But also a lot of other paragraphs are very small
Many headers are too complex, for instance "Station facilities, amenities and services" should be "Stations", and perhaps add a {{main}} to List of Manila Light Rail Transit System stations. "The LRT network" should be "Network".
There is quite a bit of overlinking. For instance, "stairway" is linked.
The blockquote is not appropriate, as it is very remote to the subject at hand. If you want to say something about post-WWII Philippines, say it in the text.
The images are unbalanced. The top third of the article contains no images at all (except a 100-year-old tram), and a picture of an actual train is not available until almost the end.
Measurements, such as kilometers, are not converted to their imperial counterpart. (use {{conver}})
Entities, such as "Manila Tren Consortium", which are industrial joint ventures to make a single bid for a project, are normally not notable (because all that can be said would be a duplicate of the information about the project) and therefore should not be linked (unless, of course, I am mistaken about the scope of the consortium).
The incident list troubles me a lot. First it claims that "[i]ncidents and accidents are rare aboard the LRT", but then it goes on and describes about four a year. The Rizal Day bombings are clearly notable, but should perhaps be integrated into the history sections. Rail operations will always have a number of smaller and larger operational discontinuations, some for mere minutes, others for a days. Using trains for suicide is commonplace around the globe, but is usually not considered newsworthy, and definitely not encylopaedic. Although Wikipedia is not censored, naming a suicide person is a very unethical move and can permanently blackwash the person, who has obviously had a tough and difficult life (even if there is media coverage of him). I would say that to include an incident, at minimum, there must have been fatality (excluding suicides) caused by an error from the system (again, not people being pushed into the tracks), or so substantial damage to the rolling stock that it was rebuilt or scrapped. Simple "closed for the day"-issues are not sufficient. If you would like to have more detail about this, it may be suitable with a subarticle. Also, the list is plagued with recentism.
Do not use "pesos", but the ISO-code.
The see also section is littered with links that occur in the text.
I find the section on rolling stock very confusion. First of all, I am actually expecting to see some specifications (if only basic) of the train, beyond the number of cars. For instance, max. speed, length, power output, width and years of delivery. It doesn't even say how many trains there are.
"Passengers at LRT stations are advised to not stay too close to the red tiles at the edge of the platforms (or yellow tiles in the case of the Purple Line) to avoid falling onto the tracks." is a very redundant sentence, as it could be said about virtually any railway in the world.
Safety and security are not subsets of each other, so the section should probably be called "safety and security". Safety is as you probably know related to the operations per ce (i.e. incidents caused by the regular operation and any technical failure). Security is related to damage (to people or property) caused by third-party people (riders, criminals, terrorists etc.)
It is common to have a WP:TRAIL-style map, among other things to provide easy access to the wikilinks for the stations, lines etc.
I would like to have seen more on the infrastructure, such as gauge, station design (island or side platforms), interchange with other systems (the metro, mainline railway, buses), and if necessary tone down the details of the fare structure.
I'm currently very busy right now with schoolwork so I apologize for not being able to address concerns in time, but I'm trying my best to do what I can. The only remaining issue with citations in fact is the long incident list (aside from a few in future expansion which I'm trying to finish first) which I plan to spin off into a separate article. The prose should be next. In addition, although WP:WIAFA states that FAs should be backed up by "high-quality reliable sources", what exactly does the qualifier "high-quality" entail? --Sky Harbor(talk)03:52, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist, simply does not meet most of the criteria. The lack of large-scale work by the main contributor the last two weeks makes me rather say: take it down to B, find and add references, clean up the article and then take it through GA and PR before FA again. Arsenikk(talk)10:41, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm currently following the FAR in class, and I did that rewrite last night. I'm planning to rewrite smaller sections this week before working on bigger sections this weekend (and I'm thankful it's a holiday on Monday). --Sky Harbor(talk)06:46, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just finished rewriting the history section, and it took quite a while to rewrite because I had to get the ordering of events right for the sake of flow. Work will continue on this one. Meanwhile, events beyond 2001 are the only ones with verifiable sources online. Any older and I will have to dig through (offline) newspaper archives. I left these references unchanged as I intend to spin this section off into a separate article. --Sky Harbor(talk)14:39, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist. I was never happy with the prose when it came (?twice) to FAC. The rot sets in during the second sentence: "It is comprised of two lines". Tony(talk)11:45, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The lead has been shortened and that problematic "comprised of" bit rewritten. At least now another editor has decided to help the article get back to FA prose-wise. --Sky Harbor(talk)16:01, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hold - I see that Lambanog has been editing the article a lot lately. --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs) 4:55 pm, Today (UTC−5)
Could you provide an example that uses {{BS-alt}}? Looking at the template page, I see article pages linked to it but when I go to them and open the article edit pages I cannot seem to find the template and figure out how it is used although they show up under the heading "Pages transcluded onto the current version of this page". Lambanog (talk) 05:15, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Editing seems to have settled down. I think it is time for third parties to take another look at the article. Haven't re-read it myself yet, but referencing seems much improved (except for one cite needed tag). Unless somebody tells me they still plan to make a lot of edits, I'm going to re-read the article and give my vote. I'll keep Arsenikk's comments in mind while reading. --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs/PRs) 03:02, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lots of images are still missing alt text; please see the "alt text" button in the box at the upper right of this review page. {{BS-alt}} needs entries to fix the two "Unknown route-map component" messages in the alt text. The alt text for File:Manila LRT map-en.png should be revised to reflect the gist of the map rather than not-that-relevant details such as colors; please see WP:ALT#Maps. Eubulides (talk) 05:02, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've been busy the past week so haven't been editing it as continuously as previously but I plan on getting back to it if nothing else comes up on my end. There are still a number of areas I wish to improve and also include recent developments. Most of the issues Arsenikk raised I think have been dealt with, but if there are others, I might be able to address them too. I was starting with the alt text when I got pulled away. Will start by dealing with that again. Lambanog (talk) 02:49, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Update - I think I'm close to a crossroads in my editing of the article. I'm willing to improve it further but I'm having doubts about the best way to do so. I have a couple of ideas of things to add but am concerned it might require significant overhaul of what is there currently and go off on a tangent resulting in diminishing returns. If there is someone willing to take a quick look at the article with an eye to pointing out areas that still need strengthening and an impression of how close or far it is from FA standard, that would be welcome. I think I've improved the prose enough so that if there are defects they can be remedied without too much effort. But maybe I have rose-tinted glasses on. Basically I'm looking for a nudge in the right direction. I'm currently aware of a couple of areas that could use tweaking like one picture that still doesn't have alt text and some references are still formatted slightly different from the others. I'm thinking of changing the picture. As for the references, if someone is going to take issue with the formatting please specify the preferred version. Know that I may argue the point. The only reason I haven't changed them already is the worry that the format chosen will be opposed and that I'll be asked to change them all back again to another one. Thank you. Lambanog (talk) 20:00, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional keep - Sourcing and prose looks pretty good now. Just one cite needed tag that still needs to be fixed. Alt text looks good. Too many non-free images for my taste. I say keep but fix the cite needed tag. --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs/PRs) 23:49, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
Four months have passed, and while the article has improved, it is still a long stride from meeting FA criteria. Large chunks still lack references. The prose is still substandard, and I will present some examples (with the odd content remark as well):
Regarding references I am generally following WP:When to cite. Is that generally considered an insufficient standard? While not every single factual statement is tied to a reference those remaining are in my view easily verifiable in person. I've removed those I find questionable, followed the general rule I've seen used by some that roughly every paragraph should have a ref, and have striven to verify the accuracy of all statements by riding the line myself and calling customer service to clarify fuzzy details. Articles shouldn't be based on OR but for generally insignificant or obvious details I'm wondering at what point it gets frivolous. It's hard to know what needs a cite and what doesn't absent a citation needed tag for every disputed part. There are certain cases too where judgment I think can be exercised. The numbering for example of the trains: 1000, 1100, 1200. The first two are not explicitly stated in any document I can find and the third is vaguely stated in one company source. However, if you go to an informal site in the external links section, one of them has a photo gallery of some LRT railcars that show the cars following the numbering system as described in the article. Can that be considered reliable enough or are we going under the assumption those photos are doctored or the numbers don't mean what the photos suggest? There are also cases where I have a source but the information is erroneous. I can remove content and still have an article if necessary; but more thorough guidance on this topic would be appreciated. Lambanog (talk) 00:59, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Conversions to imperial/US units is lacking in many places, even the infobox.
The system is not a "metropolitan rail system", but a "rapid transit". The former could mean anything. Also, there needs to be an early in-prose link to rapid transit.
It is described as a metropolitan rail system to differentiate it from the originally more nationally oriented inter-regional Philippine National Railways. "Rapid transit" is hyperlinked at least twice from what I can see once in the lead and in the infobox. Lambanog (talk) 00:59, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"over" refers to area, "along" refers to a linear line.
In the instance I think you are referring to the distinction I think isn't important but if "along" isn't being used too much I probably don't have a quibble changing it to that. Lambanog (talk) 00:59, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"no frills" needs a hyphen.
The "network" section could well be {{main}}ed with 'Yellow Line' and 'Purple Line'. These links do not need to berepeated in-line from the lead.
Under the section heading for 'network', add {{main}} with the links to the articles on the Yellow Line and Purple Line, as it is natural that the network and route description is in more detailed described in those two articles. Arsenikk(talk)22:24, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"4-station" should be "four-station".
Many of the few places there are conversions, the number of significant digits is wrong.
A lot of text, but no mention of the number of stations.
And should very probably be mentioned (even if slightly redundant, although adding numbers in another section is highly that) in the stations section. Have no fears about repeating all information in the lead; if it's there, then it's probably important enough to say twice. Arsenikk(talk)22:24, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The station section should probably use a {{main}} for the 'List of LRT stations'
I saw that. But would you not agree that a reference to a list of stations is more logical in the sections bout stations than that of the network? Or is it that the two sections overlap? In the latter case, consider consolidating them. Arsenikk(talk)22:24, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This was the section originally titled "Station facilities and amenities". One option I see is simply changing the header to something like "Station facilities" or maybe "Facilities" although I think that's a little too imprecise. Another is to change the "Stations" and "Rolling stock" sections to subheaders of a "Design" header. Repeating hyperlinks in a different section is allowed under MoS If I recall correctly and would make sense in this case. I favor that because it has the virtue of preserving the current logical top-down hierarchy of the header subjects: Network→Stations→Rolling stock. So my solution would be to hyperlink "30 stations" which I have recently written into the section to "List of LRT stations". Using a main template probably should only be used once and I think it makes more sense in the Network section. Please mention if you have a particular preference or alternate solution. Lambanog (talk) 05:12, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The way the sentence is written, it seems like the Inquirer Libre only runs out at selected stations.
In the lead is says no-frills. Does that simply mean lack of accessibility? If so, that should be stated more directly.
In general. The need to exit and go up and down stairs and pay a new fare to change platforms, the single washroom per station, the original lack of air conditioning, etc. The no-frills statement is also in the lead. If the lead needs to be more specific I guess that can be done. But an idea of where to draw the line in summarizing would be helpful. Lambanog (talk) 00:59, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Stores where passengers can purchase mobile phone credits and other goods and ATMs" needs commas to distinguish what is sold at the store and what is elsewhere, so aid the reader's flow.
27,000 passengers per hour per direction (pphpd) to 40,000 pphpd should be 27,000 to 40,000 passengers per hour per direction (PPHPD)
If I recall correctly the sentence is describing a shift, not a range. The suggested phrasing might lead one to believe the latter. Lambanog (talk) 00:59, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sentences are starting with digital numbers; they should always start with prose numbers.
As a railfan, I want to know the exact width of the cars, not an "around" value; do they meet the European standard of 3.15 m, or are they actually 3.2 m? It is normal for producers and other material to state dimensions to the mm, or at least the cm.
I will check the sources I have available to see if I can get a more definitive statement but I've endeavored to produce what I have in front of me as much as possible so we'll see if that ambiguity was unnecessarily introduced. Lambanog (talk) 00:59, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On a slightly more general note, the article uses a fair bit of "around" and "about". When a number of significant digits is presented, then the reader automatically presumes that that is the accuracy of the information, so the "around" becomes redundant. Arsenikk(talk)22:24, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article states that the Purple Line runs "heavy rail metro cars". The distinction between "light rail" and "heavy rail" is always vague (as neither really has a clear-cut definition), so the prose should describe how these differ.
A lot of words that should have hyphens lack these (for instances "first generation" and "light weight" when used as an adjective)
There are 139 railcars serving the line (40 trainsets); remove the parenthesis and write this straight into the prose.
The table about the rolling stock has vast amounts of capitalization errors. Also, why is the table not in standard format (i.e. class=wikitable)? Values should be converted to imperial/US units.
Copied the exact wording and format from the source for the most part. But will reformat the text if that's preferred. "Wikitable" not used probably because I was experimenting with table layout at the time and "wikitable" doesn't seem necessary as it seems to serve basically as a template. With sufficient table formatting familiarity I think it can be replicated using other syntax. I have not read any style related help file mandating its use. Is there any particular table detail you wish rectified? Lambanog (talk) 00:59, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Capitalization looks good now. Remember, most people can't spell, particularly engineers, scientists, academics and anyone else publishing official documents. As for the table formatting, I feel the present format looks ugly, and the use of "wikitable" makes it more consistent with the rest of Wikipedia. On a second thought, is it possible to move the images so the table has the full width of the screen?
There should be a between numbers and units for instance (1500 volts).
What is "low noise control"? I presume this means low-noise control and not low (noise control).
Copied exactly from source. From Toshiba so maybe an author more comfortable in Japanese. If you are confident in your assessment I don't mind changing. Lambanog (talk) 00:59, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Who has deemed the operations as "good"? This needs to be explained in the prose.
Why is it necessary to state the three codes of customer warning in a bloating table, when the issue is highly peripheral.
A legacy from earlier versions of the article created by the original contributor. I have no opinion either way. Will remove it if it is considered distracting. Lambanog (talk) 00:59, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The LRTA's website does not show the new three-color customer warning scheme, for one. And how exactly is it "highly peripheral"? I'm inclined to believe that although this information may seem to be irrelevant to some, it can be highly relevant to others: for example, if there's a Code Red, single-journey tickets are non-refundable. --Sky Harbor(talk)08:13, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In the sentence Eating or drinking is prohibited inside the platform area of all LRT stations and inside the trains., remove the "all LRT", since the reader will automatically presume this.
Why is "Passengers at LRT stations are advised not to stay too close to the red tiles at the edge of the platforms (or yellow tiles in the case of the Purple Line) to avoid falling onto the tracks." particular of the Manilla system? Doesn't this apply to all rail transport in the world?
I decided to keep the line because the one following it is about prohibiting drunkards from entering and causing trouble. This line preceding it I thought would make it clear the severity of trouble an inebriated person can get into in a rail station. Lambanog (talk) 00:59, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am not convinced; the latter is not dependent on the former.
US-style dates have a comma also after the year.
I think you may be referring to a style issue. Might depend on the particular sentence to determine how warranted it is. I'm not a big proponent one way or the other in the optional cases. Lambanog (talk) 00:59, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's a style issue but I'm not sure it is one MOS takes a stand on. For example in "On January 1, 2000, [...]" my understanding is the first comma after the 1 is covered by MOS but the second comma after the year is not and is optional.
Did not see it in the MoS but it does appear in the copyediting article. Will adjust article accordingly if there are still instances in the article present. Lambanog (talk) 11:05, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is not common to post the exact fares of public transport on Wikipedia; mainly because such information will tend to vary regularly and because Wikipedia is not a travel guide. I would recommend limiting the article to at most the minimum and maximum single fares. Presenting the full fare structure will probably fall withing WP:NOTDIRECTORY.
I will see how I can reword the section to reduce the impression. Repetition in text can probably be removed and system use description streamlined. Reducing the fare structure presentation to just a top and bottom fare, however, seems artificial. Compared with the LRTA's fare matrix, the table in the article is simple. Since the LRT presents itself as inexpensive the fare structure is also of more import to the LRT than it would be for the Copenhagen Metro. I do not agree the current presentation makes it a directory listing. The list of statistics in many sports related articles would dwarf the tabulated information here. WP:NOTDIRECTORY seems addressed towards the creation of articles as a whole. WP:NOTTRAVEL from the example given seems designed to prevent topics straying from their subject or taking on one dominant perspective. I do not think those are issues in this article. Furthermore, fare structure is enumerated in other featured metro articles. I have personally used such data from a Wikipedia metro article when planning a visit to a destination for the first time. It is one of the most useful pieces of information and would probably be of greater interest to non-railway enthusiasts than details like gauge, electrification, dimension, etc. Still the opening of the new station complicates the fare structure so overhaul of the section is required in any event. Lambanog (talk) 05:39, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can understand including a single fair-use image of one of the tickets, but I cannot see how our non-free image policy allows four images.
The information about the fares reads like a howto.
Are you saying it should be removed? Personally, I think anyone who forgets to take their ticket upon entering then arrives at their destination and finds they cannot exit without paying another fare would appreciate seeing it stated in the article. Lambanog (talk) 00:59, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am not saying everything about the fare needs to be removed, but it should be limited to a general discussion. But it seems to me the articles goes into excessive detail. See for instances how compressed the information is at Copenhagen Metro#Service, where the information is accurate, yet does not go into unnecessary detail. Arsenikk(talk)22:24, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Both 'List of Strong Republic Transit System stations' and 'Transportation in the Philippines' are in the body/navbox and thus should not be in the 'see also' section.
Why is the term 'tranvia' used instead of just 'tram'. Don't play around with people—call a spade a spade. Trams usually have different names in different languages, and are translated to tram (or trolley/streetcar if you like).
The Philippines is an officially English speaking nation yet I get the impression tranvia and tramvia when talking about the older system locally are more likely to come up than tram, trolley, and streetcar even in a discussion conducted in English. While I can understand how it might be perceived as a foreign word it possibly qualifies as an idiom in Philippine English. I believe it has been italicized in any event and used solely to refer to the pre-World War II vehicles. I will change the second instance in the text to strengthen the idea that a tranvia and streetcar are the same in view of your comment. Lambanog (talk) 00:59, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I see. If 'tranvia' is used in an English-speaking context, it is fine. The bilingual aspect of the Philippines confuses me, but that is my problem. Arsenikk(talk)22:24, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Two more quick things: try to avoid using the term 'railcar' or a 'car', 'wagon' or 'coach', because a railcar normally refers to a single-car multiple unit. Also, in the diagram map (the one coded with BS and the like), it is unclear which is line 1/2 and yellow/purple. Otherwise, looking much better today. Arsenikk(talk)22:24, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm following the convention laid out in the trail map help files. Both lines are urban metro lines so are colored the same. If you have a specific example in mind of how the problem can be addressed I might be able to adapt it but the map is a composite of more than 30 separate image icons so changing the color of the station and track icons for example is not simple. I'm thinking of changing the color of the text but the experimetal results I've seen in my view don't look attractive. Lambanog (talk) 05:53, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Update - Willing to work on this further but without clearer idea of what needs work I may not end up addressing the core problems. Possible philosophical differences with Arsenikk on what belongs and what does not, so may have arrived at an impasse on a couple of his criticisms. By my count, vote is currently split 2-2 if the editor working on it has an implicit vote. Would it be all right to solicit further opinion on the article in another forum? Lambanog (talk) 10:31, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, just. Prose is very compressed & jargon-ridden. What is "headway" here? The intervals between trains? Is any of the track underground? How are the trains powered? These points weren't clear. Johnbod (talk) 02:01, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think this is just about there now. Like Johnbod I'd like to see just a few words explaining what "headway" is – could be as simple as the distance between two trains – and I also found "stored value ticket" a little odd. Why isn't it "stored-value ticket"? Anyway, one thing I did find confusing was this comment in the last paragraph of the History section: "connections between the Yellow, Purple, and Blue Lines completed". I'd thought up until then that the network consisted of two lines, the Yellow and Purple, and that maybe I'd missed something earlier, so I went back and checked the maps before I followed the link to Blue and discovered that the Blue line is part of the Manila Metro Rail Transit System, not the Manila Light Rail Transit System. I think that ought to be clarified. MalleusFatuorum14:37, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you both for your reviews and comments. Will reword and attempt to clarify and address the concerns raised. Was not sure about stored value either but that is what appears on the LRTA website so that is what I used. Lambanog (talk) 17:40, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I still have issues with the content, but the quality of the prose, MOS issues etc. seem to have been fixed up—it is looking a lot better than when it was nominated. My concerns are related to that the article still reads like a travel guide, providing information which is not encyclopedic, in particular the excessive amount of information on the fares and the codes for disturbances, both which are provided in a table. The "fare" section is longer than any other. My neutral is because, as far as I can see, these are the only issues left for which I would not support the bronze star and if all other reviewers do not have an issue with it, then I will not put it between the article and FA status. Otherwise, I would like to congratulate Lambanog on the good work with the article. Arsenikk(talk)10:53, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was kept by Dana boomer 01:25, 3 April 2010 [9].
Non-comment-comment: This article has been on my watchlist and my things-to-improve list for years, and I'm actually quite glad that it's been brought to FAR because it needs fresh perspectives on what its areas of weakness are and fresh estimates of how much work will be required to make it satisfactory. In case anyone's wondering, I'm not going to be the least bit offended if it gets delisted ;) I'm very interested in seeing others' comments. Cheers, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 06:45, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - yeah, needs some work. Prose is funny in places and there is some material needing referencing. Taxonomy (as in what it is most closely related to) is missing..anyway, plenty to do. Looks otherwise fairly comprehensive content-wise. Casliber (talk·contribs) 20:12, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The article goes from strong to very weak the more you scroll down the page, which is really quite dissapointing. 68 references is good, but for an article that's over 65 000 bytes, it's not actually that much, especially for a subject that is pretty well covered in both scientific and general literature. I would also like to see a lot more of the references provided using the {{Citation template}}. The section Whaling seems really short; what exactly distinguishes it from Killer whales and humans and Conservation? — IoKataiᵀᵃˡᵏ19:06, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's not required that references use citation templates, simply that they be formatted consistently. At the moment, the bigger problem is the lack of information in many references - web references lacking publishers, access dates and language notations for non-English references and books missing page numbers. There are also several areas that need more referencing, some of which are already marked by citation needed tags. Also, the reliability of the references needs some attention, in a quick look I saw multiple YouTube videos and a blog being used. Dana boomer (talk) 19:44, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The reason I mentioned the citation core template was because it encourages users to provide more details than the reference tags alone, and also encourages other users to follow the same format (the copy paste effect). I know it's not mandatory, but it does impact the reference details and the overall stylistic appeal of the article. — IoKataiᵀᵃˡᵏ09:17, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that the section on whaling is overly short. Whaling was never a serious threat to killer whale conservation as it has been for many other whale species. It is mentioned only very briefly in the books I've seen about killer whales. I don't know how to address the concern about how to distinguish the Whaling section from the "Killer whales and humans section," as the former is a subsection of the latter. Can you state your concerns in a different way? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 04:21, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well the entire Killer whales and humans section looks different from when I posted and looks better balanced out now, previously I couldn't really see the purpose of separating that tiny section on its own. (Though I still think it's not very detailed, and provides information that could be merged into the Conservation section - which btw, I don't understand why it's separate from the Killer whales and humans section ). Looking at the sectionnow, the last two sentences are really out of place; you start off talking about commercial whaling in the mid 20th century, and end abruptly with killer whales helping hunters to whale a century earlier. You might want to say "other whales", or do they help whale themselves? In the lead, what stocks of larger species have been depleted? Is this really the only reason people decided to commercially whale them? What about commercial and subsistence whaling in other cultures, such as Canada[10]? — IoKataiᵀᵃˡᵏ09:17, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
*Comment, The following paragraph might come from here.
("Individual Killer Whales can be identified from a good photograph of the animal's dorsal fin and saddle patch, taken when it surfaces. Variations such as nicks, scratches, and tears on the dorsal fin and the pattern of white or grey in the saddle patch are sufficient to distinguish Killer Whales from each other. For the well-studied Killer Whales of the northeast Pacific, catalogues have been published with the photograph and name of each Killer Whale. Photo identification has enabled the local population of Killer Whales to be counted each year rather than estimated and has enabled great insight into Killer Whale lifecycles and social structures.") ceranthor18:58, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Ref improvement and copyediting is in progress, and I have good sources for expanding taxonomy and cultural significance. I am grateful to reviewers for your constructive comments so far. Please add [citation needed] tags to specific claims needing refs; otherwise I'll aim for a minimum of 1 per paragraph. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 04:06, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Further update: There are no {{fact}} tags left at present, and apart from the "Social structure of resident communities" section, which has four uncited paragraphs, only a few isolated paragraphs lack citations. There's still a lot to do though. -- Avenue (talk) 14:09, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The following sentence seems overreferenced: "In late 2007, the Killer Whales known as the "southern resident killer whales" were placed on the U.S. Endangered Species list.[6][7][8][9]". Could we prune that down to the best one or two references, or is this a fact that is highly contested? DigitalC (talk) 15:20, 17 January 2010 (UTC) [Pruned] DigitalC (talk) 16:20, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
**Followup: Note that that sentence is in the lead, and typically we don't need to put refs in the lead, so long as it is referenced in the body of the text, where it should be. DigitalC (talk) 16:15, 17 January 2010 (UTC) [moved] DigitalC (talk) 16:27, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:I am slightly confused over information regarding the endangered status of the Killer whale, which makes me think that it could be more clear. As posted above, the lead states "In late 2007, the Killer Whales known as the "southern resident killer whales" were placed on the U.S. Endangered Species list". The body states "In 2005, the United States government listed the southern resident community as an endangered population under the Endangered Species Act.", which is unreferenced. One of the references in the lead is from 2004... [corrected] DigitalC (talk) 16:20, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Also, the lead states "Although the Killer Whale is not considered to be an internationally endangered species", but the body states that the IUCN "[recognizes] that one or more Killer Whale types may actually be separate, endangered species". Are the IUCN not international? DigitalC (talk) 16:15, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've tried to clarify it.[11] The lead contained a mixture of statements from before and after the IUCN changed the status from "conservation dependent" to "data deficient", and I can see how the statements could have been seen as contradictory. The message that I'm hoping to communicate is that if you assume killer whales are a single species, they are not endangered. However, as we don't know whether they're a single species or multiple species, we do not have the information to determine whether they are endangered. That is a subtle message. Any help or feedback you can give to make it clearer would be great. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 04:10, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Alt text done; thanks.Please do not capitalize "killer whale" or its common-name alternatives such as "blackfish". Reliable sources rarely capitalize these names nowadays. Also, alt text is mostly present (thanks), but it has some problems. Alt text is missing for File:Orcas and penguins cropped.JPG and File:AT3.jpg. A couple of of the phrases cannot be verified by a non-expert who is looking only at the images, and need to be removed or moved to the caption as per WP:ALT#Verifiability; these are "killer whale skeleton in museum" (it's a skeleton, but a non-expert can't tell that it's of a killer whale, or in a museum), "females" (a non-expert can't tell the sex). Some of the alt text descriptions are too sketchy (e.g., "Killer whale at surface"; please include details to explain to the visually impaired reader what's distinctive about these images). Finally, please omit phrases like "photo of" as per WP:ALT#Phrases to avoid.Eubulides (talk) 22:30, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: The page was moved from "Orca" to "Killer Whale" (title case) about a year ago, with the new title being put forward on the grounds that this (with caps) was the common name listed in Wilson and Reeder's Mammal Species of the World, 3rd edition (MSW3), and this was an agreed authority for our mammals project. See Talk:Killer_Whale/Should_the_page_be_at_Orca_or_Killer_Whale#Requested_move.) There is also a current discussion at the cetaceans project about capitalisation of all cetecean names (Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Cetaceans#Capitalisation). Although I would personally prefer it without caps, I don't think the opinions of a few reviewers here should necessarily trump the outcomes of relevant discussions elsewhere. I do think capitalisation in the article should be consistent, and should match whatever title is agreed on. Good points about the alt text. -- Avenue (talk) 14:31, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that someone is messing around with the article, under feeding there are two references to killer whales eating humans as main prey. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.5.39.83 (talk)
A lot of progress has been made and a few things still need to be done. I've put a to-do list at Talk:Killer whale. Avenue has done some really painstaking work and I see he/she is still actively working on it. I've been unusually busy lately but I plan to work on the outstanding items this week. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 16:05, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Almost there. The number of inline citations has approximately doubled, all or nearly all references are complete, prose has been improved in many places, and comprehensiveness issues have been addressed. We're just fixing some details now. Shouldn't take much longer :) Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:25, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The original uploader of that image, Pcb21, is the person who got this article its FA star in 2004. He claimed to own the image's copyright, and I think that as an administrator he would know what that meant. So unless there is something specific that throws doubt on his claim, I don't see a problem here. -- Avenue (talk) 14:12, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Plenty of inline cites now and prose is excellent. A very interesting, engaging and fact-packed article. I learned a lot and had fun; what more can be asked of an FA? --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs/PRs) 02:11, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I believe all concerns raised in the FAR have been addressed, and we've also made improvements that weren't called for specifically by the FAR reviewers. Terrific work has been done on this article, and teamwork has made it fun! Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:57, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not yet I've gone through and fixed some, but there are still hyphens instead of dashes, inconsistency in bracketing the years of pubn, use of p and pp for multiple pages, citation is consistent yet. Also there's overlinking everywhere, puget, BC and WA are linked repeatedly, that stuff needs a check, and some of the short paragraphs have to be restructured properly YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 07:08, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like p. and pp. have been addressed. I noticed that Wikilinks to locations were reduced. SHould they be reduced to a single instance or is a second acceptable when they are way downCptnono (talk) 12:49, 1 April 2010 (UTC)?[reply]
Keep. Just a few things I noticed:
WP:OVERLINK: "ocean", for heaven's sake? Do we need a link to "culture", which isn't specific to non-humans, and is therefore of dictionary function?
"preferred prey items"—can "items" be dropped?
"signaled"—this is unclear: researchers using morse code on the open seas?
That accursed convert template: "from 6–8 metres (20–26 ft)". This is against what MoS says about preceding prepositions, although it's OK for the conversion, I think. "from 6 to 8 metres (20–26 ft)". The whole para needs a look.
Dorsal fin pic: the caption and the image description page are coy about who took the pic, what research party it was a part of, and what the NOAA is. Tony(talk)13:30, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The accursed template in question actually accommodates the "from ... to" format, as this edit proves. It is strictly a matter of how the template is used—though, from the aspect of respecting civility, it may be better to curse the template rather than the editor who (mis)uses it. I agree about keeping the dash in the parenthetical conversion, and the template supports both versions, namely 6 to 8 metres (20 to 26 ft) and 6 to 8 metres (20–26 ft). I wasn't sure about the conversion of the female's weight; it is the same format, but I think the to makes reading easier with the two alternative units. Waltham, The Duke of18:33, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On the dorsal fin pic, I think if anyone is being coy here, it is the NOAA. I have looked around a bit and can only find it in this gallery, with no information about the photographer or the research party. I have added the NOAA's full name to the image description. -- Avenue (talk) 22:14, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keepbecause aquatic beasts are cool per large amount of work done. Minimial issues such as overlink can easily be taken care of without compromising FA quality. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer)15:56, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was kept by Dana boomer 01:25, 3 April 2010 [12].
I am nominating this featured article for review because -- despite the high quality of writing -- there are some glaring gaps. Specifically, his notable and controversial role as NFB commissioner, where Newman actively worked to suppress politically sensitive works by French Canadian filmmakers (please see the chapter devoted to him in a book cite at Talk:Sydney_Newman#Missing_info, which offers a good overview). Furthermore, in his roles as head of the NFB, and in positions at the CRTC, CBC and Secretary of State, Newman would have been in a position to shape audiovisual policy: there's no analysis of that. Overall, the article focuses rather dotingly on his role in British TV, while his senior positions in his native Canada are mentioned only briefly; or in the case of his leading and controversial role in political censorship in Quebec, not at all. I believe the article fails to meet criteria 1b, 1c as well as 1d, in that it is obviously not comprehensive, thoroughly researched and has a geographical/culture bias towards his UK work. I have added a more balanced perspective to the article lede and intend to do more work on it in the near future. But I leave it to those with experience in these matters as to whether or not this article should be delisted. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:22, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's certainly true that there could be a lot more on his later Canadian career, and we should work to address this. I wrote most of the article, and I must confess that the reason it focuses so much on his British television career is because British television is all I know about, and all the sources I had really covered. But if there are good sources for the later Canadian work, we must certainly make use of them. Angmering (talk) 06:21, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As I explained to Angmering on his Talk page, I'd be glad to help as Canadian film and TV is an area I'm knowledgeable in, but I'm just a little swamped off-wiki right now. I'll do what I can, as soon as I can, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:58, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My only concern is relying too much on a ref like Historicist, which is just a blog and may not even be RS. Have you tried a Google book search yet, as I'd suggested? In addition to the Evans cite, which I had added, Newman's role in Canada is documented in other books that have a limited preview on Google such as"Canadian content: culture and the quest for nationhood". Do have a look. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:20, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I have put one other Google Books cite in there so far. In theory I was hoping to replace / expand the blog refs during the week with more reliable sources, but I thought it was a good start in expanding the text. Angmering (talk) 21:25, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've had a good go at this over the last couple of days and tried to expand it as best I can. I think the section on his Chairmanship of the NFB is now much more representative, and I have also tried to beef up the section on his earlier Canadian work at the CBC somewhat. I have also updated and added references, and broken up the old "Critical analysis" section, which wasn't really very Wikipedia-like. One thing that does concern me is that I have probably written most of the article in British English, when of course by rights it ought to be in Canadian English, so it will need a Canadian editor to go through and fix any errors of that sort. But I think it is at least coming along? Angmering (talk) 20:51, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's much better. There's still more to do regarding the political context. I think. I believe Evans makes clear that the problem with On est au coton wasn't just its misrepresentation of management's position on the textile industry but the fact that the film included calls for revolution from two FLQ members?! Obviously, detail should go in the film articles not here, but I do think we need to make clearer that a number of Newman's decisions were justified in his and the board's mind by the highly charged war-like atmosphere of the October Crisis. I wasn't aware that Brault self-released Les Ordes, I DO know that Newman's successor (and assistant commissioner during his tenure) André Lamy played a role in unbanning most or all of these films and I think that ought to be mentioned briefly. I'll try to help moreShawn in Montreal (talk) 21:04, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lamy's role in the banning and subsequent un-banning of these films is now in the article, as is further mention of why Newman considered these films so controversial and didn't want to release them. I don't know if there's much more than can be added to the NFB section now? Angmering (talk) 22:30, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I for one would never have dreamed of taking it to an FA review if it looked like this. I think you've done an outstanding job on this and all the other related articles. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:35, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, it's been a while since I was involved in Featured Articles. What is that, and how do I do it? Angmering (talk) 12:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC) Sorry, I'm an idiot! You linked to the page which explains all... Angmering (talk) 12:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but I'm afraid that it still needs some work. Alt text should describe the visual appearance of the image, giving information that can be verified simply by looking at the image (see WP:ALT#Verifiability). It typically shouldn't contain dates or context or proper names (see WP:ALT#Proper names) and shouldn't repeat the caption (see WP:ALT#Repetition). Please see WP:ALT#Portraits for advice about that portrait. At first this may all seem like a pain, but it doesn't take much work once you get the hang of it: just pretend you're describing the image over the phone to someone who wants to know what they're missing if they read only the caption and other text. Eubulides (talk) 17:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thanks, much better, but there are still some phrases that cannot be verified by a non-expert simply by looking at the image, and which need to be reworded or moved to the caption as per WP:ALT#Verifiability. These phrases are "Screen grab from a 1980s film interview", "Speaking to an off-camera interviewer", "digital", "from the mid-2000s", "closed former theatre", and "Northern England". Also, please remove "in a white room with a pot plant in the background" as per WP:ALT#Essence and WP:ALT#Brevity.Eubulides (talk) 06:23, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
File:Sydneynewman.JPG runs into problems with the notorious WP:NFCC #8. We don't actually need to see a picture of him to understand his life and work, unless you're going to comment on his fashion sense or style. Anyway, as #8 is probably overprescriptive, personally I'm OK with its use here. Stricter reviewers may disagree.
My understanding (which may be incorrect or outdated) was that for deceased individuals for whom it is reasonable to assume that no free photograph exists, it was acceptable to use a single fair-use image for the purposes of identification. Identification of the subject is generally considered a primary encyclopedic function, isn't it? When there's a possibility of getting a free image (as there is for most living people) it makes sense to exclude non-free images, but I don't understand why that would apply in this case. If "stricter reviewers" do think that this usage is inappropriate, I'd like it if they could explain why. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:32, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not really criticism, but I feel the article could benefit from a couple more images in the latter half of the article.I know how hard it can be to get the right image, but there ought to be some available of important projects worked on, maybe some images of Newman at different ages? Lee∴V(talk • contribs)14:56, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is I can't think of how we could get copyright-free images of Newman from anywhere... There are already possible issues with the single image we have of him, as the above discussion shows. As for important projects he worked on, the same debate over whether fair use would cover it applies, although I suppose it might be possible to get some sort of fair use Doctor Who or NFB images. Angmering (talk) 16:44, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just to say that I am very willing and hopefully able to continue to work on the article. The only reason I haven't done so for the past couple of weeks is simply because nobody had raised any further issues with it in the above review, and those who had raised issues were apparently satisfied that they had been resolved, as you can see. Angmering (talk) 23:10, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - After reviewing the cur diff from the date of this FAR nomination, I think that the comprehensiveness concerns have been addressed. Other issues appear to have been minor and have been addressed. --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs/PRs) 23:04, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's a bit ordinary, but on the "Keep" side, I think.
The dash, common term and date-link scripts had plenty of work to do. It's still overlinked: work permit, Canadian Government, science fiction, a time machine larger on the inside than the out [all piped?], production assistant,
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
Notified: WikiProject Music, WikiProject Illinois, User:Staxringold. Note that I have the second-highest amount of edits to this page, after Staxringold.
Yeah, yeah, I'm always whining about how few country music articles are of GA or FA quality, and then I go and nominate the only country music FA for a FAR. Bear with me... I kind of didn't want to do this, but I'm doing it anyway for about a bajillion reasons, mostly 1a, 1b and especially 1c. My goodness, the sources are terrible terrible terrible.
1a — Quality of prose
Under 1992-1999: "Some critics said it was "untraditional" and "likely [to] change quite a few…minds about bluegrass." Who are "some critics"?
1b — Comprehension
Only two sentences explicitly about each album under the 1992-1999 section. Surely there's more to say about each album — more in-depth discussion of the critical reception, chart performance, etc.? I mean, I was able to get two full paragraphs on In the Vicinity of the Heart in Shenandoah's article (which is GA), and that was even after extensive digging turned up only one actual review of the album. Entertainment Weekly and Billboard have certainly reviewed at least some of her albums, not to mention more country-centric publications such as Country Weekly or Country Standard Time.
No mention whatsoever of her guest appearance on Shenandoah's "Somewhere in the Vicinity of the Heart," surely an important song as it was her first Top 40 hit before "When You Say Nothing at All." This song's article says the song's success boosted her own. I added a mention, and am amazed that there was previously no mention of it.
1c — Unsourced content
All but the last sentence of "Music Videos" is unsourced.
Under 2000-present: The section on "Whiskey Lullaby" is entirely unsourced.
Also: "The album was very commercially successful, but was received with a lukewarm reception from critics." — unsourced. In fact, that entire paragraph is source-free.
"in a breathy yet penetrating style using little to no vibrato" is not supported by a source.
I've slapped a few unsourced sections with {{fact}} tags.
Source #1 is broken. This should never have been credited as being part of billboard.com anyway; before the June 2009 redesign, Billboard's bios were mirrors of Allmusic (which is currently ref #11).
Is Askmen.com, currently source #3, a RS?
Sources #6 and #7 claim to be from interviews with Krauss and Tyminski, but provide absolutely no way to verify that they did. Shouldn't this, at the absolute minimum, be a {{cite episode}}?
Source #8 is a promotional piece for some event, not looking reliable.
Source #13, LP Discography, has been declared unreliable in the past.
Is source #14, Second Hand Songs, reliable? I see no editorial policy.
Source #15, a Last.fm link, is definitely not reliable.
Source #16 lists a #53 peak for "When You Say Nothing at All," not at all verifying the claim of "It was her first album to rise onto the Billboard charts, peaking in the top seventy-five on the country chart. The album also was a notable point in her career as she earned her first Grammy Award, the single "Steel Rails" was her first single tracked by Billboard[…]"
Is source #17, Music Video Database, reliable? I see no editorial policy.
Sources #18, #21, #31 and #72, from Alison Krauss' own website, both redirect to the front page.
Sources #20, #25, #29 and #30 are Amazon.com links. Surely something better, like Allmusic, could be used here.
Source #27 is an IMDb bio, obviously unreliable.
Source #28 looks dubious.
Source #32, from Rolling Stone, doesn't credit the author.
Source #33 is a bare URL.
Source #36 is broken, pointing to some sort of placeholder/domain squatter.
I feel bad stepping away from an article like this I worked on for so long, but the article has morphed so much during my long several year Wikibreak and I'm just not linked into the topic anymore. I can't really see myself saving this article. :( Staxringoldtalkcontribs03:00, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
TPH, please quit asking us to ignore process and move articles along more quickly. The focus of the FAR process needs to be on saving articles, not delisting them, and pushing them through in a few days would not be in line with this focus. Articles will remain in the FAR section for at least two weeks, and in the FARC section for at least two weeks. Dana boomer (talk) 13:02, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Pruned most of the dead or egregiously unreliable sources. Also, I thought that the music clips didn't have sufficient fair use rationale, so off to FFD they went. Issues with prose and uncited information still stand. Also note that none of the citations uses a template; while this is not mandatory, I still believe that use of citation templates should be encouraged for GA and FA. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer)03:25, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
This 2006 FA fails 1c because of a lack of citations in many paragraphs. Many sentences and paragraphs are also very disjointed. —Aaroncrick (talk) 09:00, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sources 3, 4, 10, 14, 15, 18, 19, 22, all from corporationofcochin.org, give "bad request/invalid hostname" errors.
Working on these points. Reg. corporationofcochin.org, can't help that the official corporation website is down. The dead links are accessible via the archives. However I'll update them with newer sources if I can find any.--thunderboltz(TALK)18:33, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist All corporation refs are out, could be fixed to link to archives. Along with that, Education is uncited, and Geography, Demographics, Culture, Transport and Media all need more refs, with some having only a few. If these refs can be obtained, and a few general fixes made, I'd be able to see this as another FA. Buggie111 (talk) 02:47, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
I am nominating this featured article for review because... the article seems to have fallen into disarray and may fail numerous FA criteria.
1(a) - there is some junk prose in some areas ("Youthanasia was released on November 1, 1994, Oct.31st 1994 (Halloween ) saw a live broadcast on MTV"). The "Popular culture" section is now 4 paragraphs long and has become a dumping ground for any time a song of the band's has appeared in so much as a TV show. There are currently 4 links to disambiguation pages and a broken link to a section within the article.
1(c) - the aforementioned "Popular culture" section is almost devoid of citations.
2(a) - the lead features 5 paragraphs of disproportionate size. One paragraph is 7 sentences long, while the following paragraph is a single sentence.
3 - the article features several 4 non-free promotional photographs of the band, not all of which may be necessary. The article features over 20 inline sound samples - this seems excessive and it is my impression that inline sound samples should be used primarily for pronunciations. Several samples are missing separate 'non-free media' fair use rationales for each article they appear in.
4 - the article has reached a length of 100kb (it was 82kb when first nominated). Although the band has continued to persist since the article's promotion to FA and the article has required updates to the band history, some trimming to exhibit summary style is necessary. Several sections dedicate 5-7 lengthy paragraphs to only a 2 year period in the band's approximately 27-year history.
Some of these may not be violations of the FA criteria, but they are areas where I see improvement can be made. Overall, the article does not strike me as one that should be considered among Wikipedia's best, at least not in the state it is now. I hope that improvements can be made to address these concerns. Thanks. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 21:10, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Few concerns from just skimming through the article just now.
I have added a couple of CN tags. More are needed though as I didn't go through the whole article.
There are also a lot of punctuation errors. I fixed some of them, but most likely didn't catch them all.
Some of the references aren't located to the right of the ending period as per TCMOS.
There are a lot of weasel words used, e.g. "Considered to be a landmark thrash metal album..."
Megadeth is not a French band – It seems some pranksters have been inserting this on the page - look at the first paragraph. Just to let you know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.185.113.198 (talk) 11:13, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist unless the 24 non-free media usages can be severely trimmed. Music samples should only be used if they demonstrate some notable style or type of performance which is sourced and referenced in the text. Some of the images are problematic as well. As mentioned above, prose and length are dubious. Black Kite (t)(c)17:28, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was removed by Dana boomer 22:26, 17 April 2010 [16].
Toolbox shows five dead links (which I removed, as they were all unreliable sources anyway) and two disambiguation links. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer)14:37, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was removed by Dana boomer 22:26, 17 April 2010 [17].
FA from 2005, has some 1c issues, and some copyediting needs and specifically a few too many short paragraphs/sections. A bit too many non-free images claimed under fair-use. 10 images total are used in the article, of which 8 are used under a fair-use claim. The majority of these do not satisfy WP:NFCC#1, and could be described in text without the need for all the claims of fair-use images. Cirt (talk) 22:16, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I support demoting it for prose and possibly fair use issues; they're too much to fix over a FAR period (especially as most of the project are busy over The End of Time, or are preparing for exams, like myself). Sceptre(talk)22:22, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, when it gets to the actual review of the status, that would be my argument. Or it would have been; now that Josiah's doing a lot of work towards keeping its featured status, I'll check on it when it comes to the review of the status. Sceptre(talk)21:57, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's only been three years since the previous FAR; have standards (or the article) really changed that much in that time? I'm willing to do some work on the article if someone else can point out specifically where the problem areas are. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:49, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I see. In that case we can only show either one or the other (which is currently done), since both show the same design, and if we show both then we do not meet NFCC#3 "minimal usage". DrKiernan (talk) 12:40, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've started to add alt text to the images; please let me know if the description for the first image is too detailed. After the description of a Dalek in the alt text for the first image, is it OK to say "a Dalek doing such-and-such" in subsequent alt text? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 00:54, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've now written alt text for all the images. I'd appreciate it if someone more familiar with the conventions of alt text could review them to make sure I've not gone into excessive detail or left any key visual information out. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:23, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Time permitting, I will continue to work on the citation issues. What copyright concerns still remain? The images which might be used to replace the non-free images are under deletion discussion at Commons here and here (and have been since mid-January; a Commons admin is needed to close the discussion). My opinion is that there are no suitable free images which can replace the copyrighted images used in the article, and thus the copyrighted images meet the minimal use and FA requirements. (Note that some nonfree images have been removed from the article since the FAR process began.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:03, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Still remaining citation issues. Check the linkchecker for dead links and inactive links. I see lots of one-sentence paragraphs and very short paragraphs. These should be merged together into larger paragraphs, or removed. I also see lots of non-noteworthy trivia listed in one-sentence paragraphs simply as fancruft because it has something to do with the subject matter. Cirt (talk) 17:16, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist: The entire article really needs to be slimmed down; the quasiparagraphs to me are evidence that many subsections aren't really that important and could be cut to a single mention elsewhere or less. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk)12:56, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I'm continuing to work on this as time permits. I've fixed the worst of the citation problems, and will continue to go through the article to make sure that the formatting is consistent. As for the "quasiparagraphs" and the agglomeration of tangentially related material (which is mostly in the "Other appearances" section), I plan to address those after I finish going through the citations. I know that I've been slow on this, and that the FAR has been open for quite a while; I thank the reviewers for not closing it yet. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:52, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Further update: OK, the citations are finally all finished, checked and polished (so that things like date formats are consistent throughout). I've also made a first attempt at dealing with the "quasiparagraphs" and extraneous trivia. I'd be interested in feedback from any FA reviewers on what further trims should be made. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 08:21, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Seems as if some of the one-sentence-paragraphs were just smushed together in some places. Also, the Daleks have been used in political cartoons to caricature: is just a list, with no analysis. This could be removed. -- Cirt (talk) 15:00, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are still lots of one/two-sentence groupings, and as Cirt mentions, there's a lack of flow in some of the merged content. There's been excellent work made on addressing the involved issues, but my main concern still remains that large sections of content are trivial. The article is 700 words longer than it was at last FAR, and not in a good way. We've got almost 300 words on whether or not they can fly up stairs. My suggestion is that anything that cannot be cited to a secondary source be cut and then very selectively re-added, because I think it's this use of primary sources that is contributing to much of the bloat. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk)23:27, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect that if I had the time I could find plenty of secondary sources discussing the Daleks' ability to go up stairs. But I've had much less time in the past few weeks than I'd hoped. If anyone else is interested in trimming this fat, please have at it. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:30, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
EXTERMINATE!... Sorry, had to say it. Delist as a very bloated, fancrufty article. I agree 110% with David Fuchs' excellent analysis of the high level of trivia in the article. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer)16:09, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My time has not allowed me to perform the pruning that it seems may be required. I invite any other interested editors to take an axe to the article, if they are so inclined. If the presence of trivia is the only thing standing in the way of this article retaining its star, it seems to me that it should be possible to save it. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:30, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist because of OR in the "Dalek culture" section. Individual videos of episodes are cited to prove that Daleks are typically evil etc. Examples from primary sources are synthesised and weighed up and summarised to reach conclusions. In the historical development section more than half is about what happened in the last five years, so undue weight. Inconsistency in BBC1 <->BBC One, surname-forename and forename-surname, italicisation of episodes not consistent YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 07:43, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — for what (little) it's worth, some of the apparent inconsistencies noted here are actually correct. For example, italics are used for multi-episode serials, while quotation marks are used for individual episodes, as per the manual of style. Similarly, our article on BBC One indicates that the station's official name was "BBC1" from 1964 to 1997, whereupon it was changed to "BBC One". But these are minor concerns compared to the OR and WP:WEIGHT issues, which are legitimate problems I don't have time to address at the moment. Perhaps I or other project members will be able to attempt a full rewrite and resubmit the article for FA consideration later. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:27, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - although it appears from the votes above that the article might well be delisted, I have pinged Sceptre one last time to see if he or other project members have the time/interest to finish work on the article. I am not delisting at this time due to a hope that the article will be able to be improved and kept, but if further work is not completed by the next round of archiving (most likely next Tuesday), then the article will probably be delisted. Dana boomer (talk) 00:38, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
1(b) and (c) concerns. Where is the information on politics within the city? What industries are present? Demographics? If anyone takes up the article, it needs to be modeled more on Washington, D.C. There are also many paragraphs with missing citations, and some that do have cites only cover the preceding sentence, not the entire paragraph. Banglapedia, while possibly meeting WP:RS, should not be used, as it isn't neutral and encyclopedias shouldn't cite other encyclopedias. —Ed(talk • majestic titan)04:19, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are assuming it is a city ... rather it is a neighborhood in Dhaka city. Actually, the very first sentence makes it clear. (Shahbag (also Shahbaugh, Bengali: শাহবাগ Shabag; IPA: [ˈʃabaɡ]) is a major neighbourhood and a police precinct or Thana in Dhaka, the capital of Bangladesh). The other points can be handled, but your first assertion about politics/industries etc. are based on a wrong assumption. Once again, it is clearly not a city/town article. --Ragib (talk) 04:49, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that politics could be included. Things like which parties represent the neighbourhood at district, state, national level etc. --RedtigerxyzTalk11:32, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have incorporated the only information available. City Corporation Election will happen in May, and till then there are no elected bodies anywhere in Dhaka. Aditya(talk • contribs)12:13, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I tagged about seven or eight different sources with {{dead link}}. All of the Banglapedia links give me a 404, and since it's agreed that they shouldn't be there in the first place, I removed them. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer)15:31, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All the work needed was done. All dead ELs fixed. Mistakenly removed cites reinstated with 404 problem fixed. Mistakenly raised politics issue addressed to the maximum. There is nothing left to do. Aditya(talk • contribs)02:41, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was removed by Dana boomer 01:17, 13 April 2010 [19].
Citation tags needed and dead links should not be taken at face value; they are sometimes added to information that does not require citation (see Wikipedia:When to cite) and dead links can sometimes be recovered from archive.org.
Discussion of whether a revert to the reviewed version would address problems, along with a full description of the alleged problems, would be helpful. The FAR page is significantly backlogged at more than 24 noms, so careful consideration of when to add a FAR, and how else problems might be addressed, will also be helpful. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:24, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take a crack at elaborating:
Intro
"Thou was later used to express intimacy, familiarity, or even disrespect" — followed by a [citation needed]; using "or even x" is inappropriate tone
"For this reason, many falsely associate the pronoun with solemnity or formality, connotations at odds with the word's history. Many dialects have compensated for the lack of a singular/plural distinction caused by the disappearance of thou and ye through the creation of new plural pronouns or pronominal constructions, such as y'all, yinz, youse, you lot, your lot, and you guys." Also informal in tone and weaselly. ("Many dialects" - which ones?)
Many of the points in the intro, such as the two cited above, are mentioned nowhere else in the article.
Grammar
Table at "declension" is entirely unsourced .
Conjugation
"The anomalous development from -es to modern English -est, which took place separately at around the same time in the closely related German and Frisian languages, is understood to be caused by an assimilation of the consonant of the pronoun, which often followed the verb. This is most readily observed in German: liebes du > liebstu > liebst du (thou lovest)." — also unsourced
Comparison
Absolutely no source in the comparison to Frisian and German. Pure synthesis.
History
First two paragraphs are unsourced.
"In French, tu was eventually considered either intimate or condescending (and, to a stranger, potentially insulting), while the plural form vous was reserved and formal." — Unsourced. Is the parenthetical even needed?
"Thou persisted in a number of religious, literary, and regional contexts, and those pockets of continued use of the pronoun tended to undermine the obsolescence of the T-V distinction." — Unsourced.
Use as a verb
"Many Indo-European languages contain verbs meaning "to address with the informal pronoun", such as Dutch jouen, German duzen, French tutoyer, Spanish tutear, Russian тыкать (tykat'), Polish tykać, Romanian tutui, etc." — Not only is that unsourced, but using "etc." is a major copout.
Religious use
"When referring to God, "thou" is often capitalized for clarity and reverence. While Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic (the languages of the Bible) do not have a special orthography (such as capitalization) for indicating that the Deity is being referred to, their grammars are more successful than English in making noun/pronoun agreement unambiguous." — Unsourced, as is the paragraph under it.
I snipped out this paragraph, which read more like a thesis, using an unqualified "recently" and a dash of first-person:
More recently, the philosopher Martin Buber has been translated into English as using the words I and Thou to describe our ideal familiar relationship with the Deity. Most languages which maintain both a formal and familiar second person pronoun address God with the familiar pronoun (the Dutch language is an exception here), since its usage derives from older times when the distinction between the pronouns was in number only, not in degree of familiarity. Because in current English usage thou is perceived, however wrongly, as more reserved and formal than you, the translation does not convey the intended meaning well—a closer, colloquial translation of the idea would be Us or You and me, or in Australian English, "Mates".
Literary uses
"Thou is often falsely interpreted as having been formal; its use today can give an impression of stiltedness." — Unsourced.
Snipped out some egregious tl;dr synthesis and inappropriate tone, which ended with "Note that in the last sentence, the first "you" is nominative, and thus "ye" could have been used, whereas the second "you" is the object of "awaits" and therefore "..awaits ye all.." would be incorrect."
Sources
This (#34) definitely isn't reliable. What's it even doing here?
Overall, none of the sources is formatted properly: minimal attribution to author, publisher, page number, etc.
Did you review the current version, or the 2006 version I linked that passed FAR? The main query here is, does the older version provide a better sarting place? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:19, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that it does. The 2006 diff is just as laden with OR and just as lacking in sources, questionably relevant information, a weak intro — it would need just as much restructuring as the current form would, if not more. For instance, that revision had a bunch of coatrack info on British Isles' usage of words that aren't "thou," and still has the German synthesis. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer)20:20, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not very impressed with these arguments. several of the tags were added in a bout of questionable edits by Matisse in January [20]. I have removed one from the lead as the point was, contrary to your point above also, adequately covered further down, though it could certainly have been expanded on. I think the article is rather thin for an FA, but find the tone & substance of the comments above unimpressive. I'd like to hear what a proper linguist thinks. Anyone who thinks "In French, tu was eventually considered either intimate or condescending (and, to a stranger, potentially insulting), while the plural form vous was reserved and formal" is "OR" is not only wholly ignorant of the language but excessively confident in offering his "views" as well. But then we knew that already. The verb form table may (or may not) be unreferenced; that is is "OR" seems wildly unlikely. Johnbod (talk) 23:57, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How is that not OR? There's no source in the article that supports the statement about "tu was eventually considered condescending," so it's OR. And when is "eventually?" Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer)18:33, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's a difference between OR and unreferenced. The trouble is TPH, if you go round, as you often do, describing statements like "Paris is the capital of France" as "OR", people just discount your views as, well whatever. Johnbod (talk) 21:47, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Article covers a term, not a concept; encyclopedia articles are not supposed to be about the meaning and use of a term. The entire article is on usage of the term thou but WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The article cannot be completely translated into other languages, since the article is specifically about the title. If you accept that pronouns are valid, this raises the question as to whether we need pronouns from most or all other languages as well, since the English Wikipedia is not about English, it's about summarising all knowledge.- Wolfkeeper14:58, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Article is not sufficiently well referenced for current FA standards. Most FA articles use the cite format, unlike this one- Wolfkeeper14:44, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is that all that's wrong? The article goes well beyond dictionary material, and plenty of similar linguistic articles exist. Would a change to History of the usage of thou, or similar help? There is absolutely no FA criterion requiring the use of cite formats, and suggestions that there should be are always strongly rejected on FAC talk. Johnbod (talk) 15:01, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That would theoretically help the title, but the WP:NAD policy also states that articles aren't usage guides. I don't think just renaming the title is really following the spirit of the rules.- Wolfkeeper15:06, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Points one and two from Wolfkeeper both daft and irrelevant; this is not afd. Point 3 is annoying and refuted I notice. Ceoil (talk) 17:20, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree this is not an AFD but for an article to be FA quality the policy specifically says it must meet the requirements for all Wikipedia articles. The policies linked under requirements include WP:ISNOT and it in fact fails that. I don't think we should hold up articles that fail policies to be featured articles, and I'm therefore voting for delistment.- Wolfkeeper01:54, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To justify this a little further. The wikipedia deliberately doesn't have individual articles on verbs. It doesn't have individual articles on adjectives. It doesn't have articles on individual prepositions. It doesn't have individual adverbs. It's not supposed to even have articles on nouns; the articles are on what the noun word refers to, not the noun itself. This is not accidental; encyclopedias are about things or types of things, not words for things. That's what dictionaries and similar works are for. But somehow, somewhere, people thought it was a really great idea to have articles on individual pronoun words, and then hold one of them up as the best work of the Wikipedia????- Wolfkeeper02:07, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist FA articles should not violate policies. They're supposed to be showcases for the Wikipedia. Either the policies need to be changed or this article, because it has been shown not to meet them. I also agree that the referencing is somewhat substandard for FA quality right now.- Wolfkeeper14:44, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist, regrettably, because of inadequate sourcing. This vote is only because of the reference problem, though, not because of the encyclopedicness of the topic. Wolfkeeper's points above are largely irrelevant to how good or bad the article is, his use of FAR to further a campaign to change WP:NOT (i.e., voting on an article based not on its own merits, but in order to ring up a "win" in his quest) is inappropriate, and my vote should not be taken as support of that crusade. rʨanaɢ (talk) 13:34, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was removed by Raul654 16:21, 10 April 2010 [21].
Not sure this article needs a FAR, but if people want to improve the article go for it. But be aware this article is heavily sourced. And all the quotes also have sources (although a few of them are not sourced immediately after the quote, but are instead covered by the source listed later on).--SouthernNights (talk) 00:10, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment
The sources in the article do need to be improved. There are entire sections that have no references, as well as opinion statements "neighbors recounted..." and quotes in paragraphs that include no references at all. "Ibid" should not be used, as the ease of editing on Wikipedia often leads to the "ibid" being separated from the reference it is supposedly repeating. There is unnecessary bolding in the references section, missing access dates for websites and at least one dead link in the external links section (which needs a trim anyways - links used as references don't need to be repeated in the EL). Why are you relying on the Ku Klux Klan, of all groups, for information about what the citizens of Bath felt about the memorial services (ref #25)? The lack of references in the body of the article is the biggest issue right now, though. Dana boomer (talk) 02:03, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
File:Tbsd-001.jpg: This image was scanned from M.J. Ellsworth, The Bath School Disaster (1928), and so may not be in the public domain.
File:Bath School clean-up crew.jpg: no evidence of first publication, original source not given, description missing, and the date should be in the 1920s. I can see from the original upload log that it was labelled as a non-free historic image.
Delist. Only a layout tweak (made by me) and a very small copyedit to the lead have been done since the beginning of the review, leaving all of the above concerns about references and images still unrectified. Dana boomer (talk) 22:51, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was removed by YellowMonkey 02:27, 10 April 2010 [22].
I agree that this is not up to current standards, but I can make some fixes in the next week or so. And there may be a few others still active at WPGermany who will also do that. Will that be acceptable? I've already de-dabbed, and will add alt text. Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:00, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist It has serious pov issues, plus equally serious issues of comprehensiveness. I was going to try to work on it but I don't have the time. Other things have priority, either through work, dissertation deadlines, or interest. I'll be glad to assist if someone else want's to take charge of the project. I've listed it on the WPG talk page, but the project is fairly inactive right now. Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:28, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was removed by YellowMonkey 02:27, 10 April 2010 [23].
This article no longer meets the FA criteria, so I am nominating it for review. My main concerns are the undue weight and overall size of the article (1b and 4), and the article needs more prose to meet FA criteria. There are also a number of style issues and the prose is far from the quality expected at FA. Some of the issues are:
done There are two diambiguation links ('bird flu' and 'BAA')
done There are two dead links
done More images should be added (there are historic and non-redundant images available at Commons)
done Sentences two through four (first paragraph of the the lead) all start with 'It'.
done Sentences such as "...at its peak Biman operated flights to 29 international destinations as far away as New York – John F. Kennedy International Airport (New York City) in the west and Tokyo – Narita in the east..."
done Use of in-prose slashes ("cancellations/delays")
done Acronyms for EU and US at first mention, while linking to the two .
done There is no content under 'history', only a {{main}} and a {{seealso}}. The history of the airline article is incorrectly capitalized.
done A single section (incorrectly capitalized) about "New Corporate Livery".
done Sentences such as "Biman is notable for poor customer service and disruptions to its flight schedule which is reflected in its Star ranking from Skytrax,[7][10] a United Kingdom-based consultancy whose research has been used by the UK government in formulating air transport policy." reek of POV. Starting off the entire service section with a single, subjective opinion on customer service and then justifying it based on the UK Government using (probably unrelated) information from the same company is not good. A factual presentation should be presented first, and then criticism should be presented fairly and based on its own merit.
The prose under 'Destinations' does not summarize the airlines destinations and routes, but talks largely about competition and overfocuses on the Dhaka to London route.
The Hajj section should in part be incorporated into the history section and in part be reduced slightly.
done Why on earth does the 'New York and Manchester' service have its own section?
Because of the major significance of this route to Biman and interest at Bangladesh government level.
done Codeshare agreements is so short that it should be incorporated into other areas.
done The fleet list uses hyphens instead of endashes.
done The fleet section should have some prose to explain and summarize the table.
done There is no discussion of the historic fleet, nor is a table included.
done The accident and incident section uses IATA codes for airport names; these should never be used in prose, as only aviation geeks actually manage to keep track of them.
The refs are not properly formatted. Authors for news items are never included (I presume this information is available for at least some of them), there are some bare links and works are not properly in italics.
done Seem to me there are an excessive number of external links.
Thanks for pointing this out. After looking at the article history, it seems that one particular editor removed massive amounts of text, and restructured the whole article and caused all the mess over the last 2 months. To begin the fix, I have reverted to a previous version of the FA. This should fix most of the problems you mentioned above. I have also started making the other changes you asked for. Give me about a week to fix these. Thanks. --Ragib (talk) 16:33, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks from me also for bringing this up. The article is now somewhat in the guise it was when it got FA and some of the recent edits have been reverted. The other points will also be addressed. → AA(talk) — 23:35, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've already added them. Is it not showing up correctly? Also, more images of new livery to be added shortly. → AA(talk) — 22:17, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The alt text is present for all images except for the McDonnell Douglas DC-10 landing image. However, the alt text needs some work. The point of alt text is to convey the gist of the image to sightless or sight-impaired readers. It cannot contain information that is not readily apparent to a non-expert with no other information than looking at the photo. So, instead of saying "Biman Boeing 707", it should say something like "A large blue and white aircraft stands on a runway. In the background are several other partially-dismantled aircraft". Please read WP:ALT for details. Dana boomer (talk) 23:18, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the pointers. I've updated them all again but please assist and modify if any of them need changing. Thanks again. → AA(talk) — 23:40, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
BL, this is surprising. The issues raised during FAR seems to be all resolved. So, what are the new issues that you allude to? It will be helpful if you, rather than making vague comments, be more specific. Since a lot of editors are willing to fix any possible shortcomings, it will be helpful if you be specific about your objections. Thanks. --Ragib (talk) 01:13, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please realize that when moving articles from FAR to FARC, YellowMonkey simply lists all of the concerns that were noted at any point in the FAR section. His listing in no way implies that he agrees or disagrees with any of the points, or believes that any of the points still need to be addressed. Dana boomer (talk) 02:47, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - major concerns raised by Arsenikk have been resolved by reverting changes made by one editor and it has been brought up-to-date with images featuring the new livery. → AA(talk) — 10:20, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - all the major concerns addressed and no further concerns raised in specific apart from quoting the policy vaguely. looks better than the article that passed through the FA process. Aditya(talk • contribs)17:34, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I did a copyedit, and I did some changes (these are all fixed):
I've delisted links to countries (except of course Bangladesh) because it constitutes WP:Overlinking.
I've also removed where the aircraft were bought from, since this is rather irrelevant for the understanding of the airline itself.
The MOS states to use the ISO codes for currencies in most instances.
There were also a number of other MOS issues, such as incorrect italics and erroneous use of dashes and hyphens.
The prose has been substandard, using such things as in-line ampersands (&) instead of "and".
I removed the statement about the DC-10s of Northwest Airlines operating, because neither of the sources mentioned it. It also seems to me that the reason for the ban was not the DC-10s in themselves, but the security equipment onboard, so simply operating a DC-10 in itself is not a safety hazard.
Douglas merged with McDonnell in 1967, so the DC-10 should be referred to as the McDonnell Douglas DC-10
There is a awful lot of overlinking when it comes to aircraft.
Never use terms like lakh or crore on Wikipedia. While common in Bangladesh, India, Pakistan and Nepal, they are completely un-understandble in the rest of the world. Stick with the common terms thousand, million and billion, which are unambiguous and common terms even children have heard of.
Don't use cryptic phrases such as "the largest international airport in Bangladesh", instead use "Shahjalal International Airport".
Being diverted to another airport is not a notable incident in itself, nor is the cost of putting people in a hotel.
However:
Reviewed A few of the references are still incorrectly formatted (bare link).
Reviewed The cargo village section is unreferenced.
Reviewed A number of news articles use the "publisher" instead of the "work" tag, which causes the newspapers to not be in italics.
Reviewed A lot of information about Hajj flights, but no mention of which airport(s) it operates to.
Reviewed The "fleet" section begins as almost a duplicate of the history section.
Reviewed Isn't a Dakota and a DC-3 exactly the same thing?
Reviewed Is it really necessary to state both the date of the memorandum of understanding and the final contract? (under aircraft purchase)
Reviewed When seeing the heading "Biman Bangladesh Airlines subsidiaries", I am expecting to see at least two, instead there is only a single one about catering.
There are two described in the section (BFCC and BPC) along with a seealso link. → AA
It would be more notable if Biman had only suffered a single strike that that a nine-hour one is notable. It should probably be moved to the history section if notable.
The shutting down of the country's major airport stopping all domestic and international flights due to action by Biman staff is notable and was covered in both national and international media, IIRC. Furthermore, the action resulted in shutdown of services to the airport (power, water, etc.) → AA
Reviewed VIP is a rather subjective term, particularly when talking about government officials.
Added new source which lists the VIPs – includes ministers. → AA
This can be removed as the main ref is Jatree but since Jatree does not have an online link, this serves as an image to show there was a DC6 in Biman's fleet. → AA
Thanks for your comments and I do understand that is not necessarily a valid argument but since all airline articles use it, if it is felt that this is not a reliable source it would be beneficial to raise the issue with the WikiProject so that it can be discussed and dealt with in one place than in piecemeal fashion across every article. I have just reviewed the primary source which surprisingly has been updated recently, so I'll update the sources in the article appropriately. Thanks again for your comments. → AA(talk) — 11:32, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Biman has only just undergone re-branding and many readers will be familiar with the old logo so it does serve to "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic". → AA
Completely agree with Ed. There is generally considered to be some kind of "automatic" entitlement to a company's logo in the article on the company, but this does not extend to historical logos. If the historical logo is so important, why is it not discussed in the article? This is a fairly clear case of a non-free image not meeting NFCC#8. J Milburn (talk) 01:04, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Still too many primary sources to the airline's website
How is Skytrax reliable?
Ref 53/54 are citing in-fight videos? I fail to see how an in-flight video can support sentences like "While other airlines using modern aircraft are able to provide more personal in-flight experiences via seatback LCD screens, Biman's ageing fleet has maintained the standard equipment available when the planes were manufactured." (also: videos were taken down off the site)
The prose is, at best, just OK for a featured article.
I'm unsure why the interiors and exteriors of what are aircraft models used by many airlines are featured in images.
Reviewed Once "US" dollars are referred to, the reader will expect all $ signs to refer to US dollars. There is no need to repeat it.
Reviewed This sentence is a monster: "The eight aircraft include four Boeing 777-300ER with an average price of US$182.9 million per unit to be delivered in 2013 (in the months of July, August, October and December) and four yet to be launched Boeing 787–8 Dreamliners with an average price of US$133.31 million per unit to join Biman's fleet in 2017 (in July, August, October and November)." Punctuation so it can breathe and be grammatical?
Thanks Tony. I've rephrased the para and removed unnecessary detail. Not sure if the endash's are suitable or if commas should be used. Please correct if necessary. Thanks. → AA(talk) — 13:39, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why is "US$" linked? Why is the conversion to Bangladeshi currency not marked with an "as of 2010": surely it changes significantly over time.
"which had almost a ten-times larger fleet."
"Managing director", "CEO"—why linked?
Awkward with + noun + -ing": "and problems with Biman maintaining its flight schedules": just remove two words. Again, I wonder about the utility of some of the images; it's weird to read about incompetence and inefficiency on a grand scale—the airline crumbling, frankly, next to swish photos of cabin interiors. Bizarre.
"along with Biman's in-flight magazine, Digonto (Horizon) which is published quarterly"—another comma required. That whole paragraph about the blessed in-house magazine is really boring.
"by 4.6% and 6% respectively"—see MOSNUM about using the same number of decimal places.
The smuggling of
In order to (spot two redudant words).
I am not satisfied that this meets FA standards; it's fascinating as an account of developing-world public-sector corruption, and how not to run an airline, and how the utter failure of public policy combines with corruption to rip off the people; but that is not enough. Although I don't have enough energy to say "get rid of it" by myself, but it would be good to put this through the FA process again after polishing. Tony(talk)01:09, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just wanted to comment that, today's newspapers in Bangladesh mentioned that the cabinet has decided to revert back to the old logo. Here is a link to the news report. [28]. --Ragib (talk) 02:32, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist. This has obviously improved very substantially from the version that was nominated here, but I share Tony's concerns about the prose; I've given some examples below. I could be persuaded to switch my vote if the article was given a thorough copyedit though. MalleusFatuorum19:30, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Biman also fell behind millions of dollars in payments to its fuel supplier, the Bangladesh Petroleum Corporation." Strange word order.
"The airline was wholly owned by the Bangladesh government through the Bangladesh Biman Corporation since its inception." "Was" and "since" seem to sit strangely together in this sentence.
"After an early period of expansion and growth, Biman entered an era of nose-diving profits and slow growth, exacerbated by incompetent and corrupt management; with padding of purchases, falsified repair bills and unprofitable routes kept in operation for political reasons." What comes after a semicolon should be a proper sentence, and "with" rarely make a good linking word in any case.
"In the 1992–93 fiscal year, accounts under the Ministry of Civil Aviation and Tourism ...". What does "accounts under" mean? Accounts produced by? Accounts sumbitted to?
"... but intends to offer 49% to the private sector while retaining majority ownership". Why "while"? Isn't is self-evident that it would have majority ownership with 51%?
"Biman's service as a whole is reflected in its two-star ranking (out of five) from Skytrax, which is indicative of the poor standard of service provided by the airline that falls below the industry average." Really quite awkward "reflected ... indicative".
"The incident put an end to the route, which had been losing $80,000 per flight, owing to its use of obsolete DC–10s.[80] Biman decided to axe the route ...". We've just been told that the route was "ended"; is that different from "axed"?
"Fourteen people suffered minor injuries and the aircraft written off." Shouldn't that be "was written off"?
Please stop adding "Done" or "OK" templates to FAR, normally I remove them myself, as they cause archives to exceed template limits, but there are too many here to remove myself. Also, please stop altering reviewer comments by adding unsigned templates to them-- we need to know who claims something is reviewed, done or OK, and that should be done by adding a separate signed statement after the reviewer comments, so delegates don't have to go back through diffs to see who's done what. If the article is as messy as this FAR, we've got issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:59, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was removed by Gimmetrow 04:59, 3 April 2010 [29].
I am nominating this featured article for review because in my view it does not meet the criteria for a featured article, and I don't hold out much hope for salvage. It was originally listed in 2006.
Lets look at the article against some general criteria (synthesising the FA criteria).
1. Well-written
The prose is generally long-winded and unwieldy. The opening sentence is 45 words. There are also grammatical errors:
"In 2005, the issue of the Constitution and its provisions were also brought up by several politicians within the government itself." - Incorrect plural were.
"While the Gerakan party issued an apology the next day, UMNO announced a counter-procession starting from the head of Selangor state Dato' Harun bin Idris on Jalan Raja Muda." - how can you have a procession (ie a protest march) starting from a person? and is the head of the state the Sultan of Selangor or the state's Chief Minister?
Entire paragraphs, and many contentious claims, are totally unsourced. A FA article should not have "citation needed" notes scattered throughout. See for example:
The entire first three paragraphs of the "Controversy" section. This contains many facts and assertions that are totally unsupported by inline citations, and are not a lead-style summary of the subsections that follow.
"In the end, Lim stated that the Malay press had blown his comments out of proportion and misquoted him." - no citation for this.
"The social contract is a term used to describe the Constitution's provisions with regard to the different races' privileges—those who defend it and Article 153 often define the social contract as providing the Indians and Chinese with citizenship in exchange for the Malays' special rights or ketuanan Melayu." - no citation
"The Constitution of Singapore contains an article, Article 152, that names the Malays as "indigenous people" of Singapore and therefore requiring special safeguarding of their rights and privileges as such. However, the article specifies no policies for such safeguarding." - Constitutional interpretation without any sourcing.
"In particular, it was not entirely clear if Article 153 was predicated on the Malays' economic status at the time, or if it was meant to recognise Bumiputra as a special class of citizens." - again no sourcing for this analysis of Constitutional history.
I've focused on a few glaring issues here. The examples I've highlighted are my no means exhaustive; they are a mere selection. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:15, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A quick response to some of the sourcing issues: in academia, you don't cite things which are common knowledge to scholars in your field (you don't need a citation for the fact that the sun is bigger than the earth in physics; actually, you probably don't even need one in any general circumstance). The social contract is easily verifiable -- it has its own article with a ton of citations. What is stated in the article is uncontroversial (see here for example), and in any case, can easily be fixed if you so desire since the social contract article is well-cited in itself. Likewise, Article 152 is easily verifiable, and the article makes no interpretation other than paraphrasing exactly what it says here. Lim's statement is in fact sourced in footnote 44, which though it is not on the Bernama website any longer, can easily be found on Archive.org. The statement on the purpose of Article 153 is supposed to communicate that there are two different points of view on the issue. It can easily be reworded. The picture of Khir Toyo originates from concern when the article was going through FAC that it did not have enough pictures. You're damned if you do and damned if you don't when it comes to pictures in FAs, it seems. Johnleemk | Talk04:16, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note about images; in the old days in 2006 and early, FAC was totally different to now, most FACs just had 10 pile-on, one-line supports, quality wasmuch lower, but then often people didn't ask for improvements on proper stuff like better content/prose etc and just did a token thing, on more pictures, looks more entertaining, that kind of thing. Nowadays, no pictures are totally fine and opposes on that basis are being ignored, so no need to be worried about complaints from opposite sides of the fence YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 01:07, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, a lot of the statements which lack citations actually do have them; the citations were removed contra to the policy (or at least, it was policy the last time I checked a year or two ago) that even broken links must remain, because there needs to be a record of where the statements were originally cited from. This removal of broken links as supposed non-citations is annoying and unfortunately egregiously common. If you look at a revision of the article from 2006 or 2007, a lot of the [citation needed]'s have perfectly fine citations. Now it's just a question of adding links to archive.org where they are broken, or otherwise finding a replacement source. Simply deleting such citations wholesale and replacing them with {{fact}} is, AFAIK, completely in error. Johnleemk | Talk04:25, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist as nom. None of the concerns have been fixed. I would also add that I find it strange that there is no coverage of this Constitutional provision from a legal perspective. Has article 153 ever been considered by a court? Or by legal academics? --Mkativerata (talk) 03:14, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was removed by Gimmetrow 04:59, 3 April 2010 [30].
Found this August 2006 FA at FLC talk, of all places. It was mentioned there how this was a likely candidate for an FAR, and I agree 100% after looking at it. There are major problems regarding references (both lack of them and dead links) and prose, among other things; this gives a good summary of several issues. In addition, the non-free images require a check, as standards are different now than they were in 2006 (or so I'm told), and I see a few sources of questionable reliability. Unfortunately, this is a long way from meeting 2010 FA criteria. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 20:19, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I endorse this summary, per my comments on the talk page and at FLC. I think it's worth repeating that on top of the technical issues and sourcing, this could do with a copyedit. WFCforLife (talk) 21:45, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per issues raised above. In addition, I see WP:ACCESS issues in the table and unsourced POV statements/paragraphs littered throughout the article (e.g. "The Bears dominated the league in the early years"), and the "2004–present: Lovie Smith era" section of the article degenerates into proseline, with no real flow. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:37, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Done. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 14:27, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
_2.jpg){kind=link}
