Wikipedia:Featured article review/archive/April 2012

Kept status

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 14:17, 5 April 2012 [1].

---

Scotland in the High Middle Ages

Review commentary

Notified Users: Deacon of Pndapetzim, and GermanJoe. No other editors have edited the article since 2009. Notified Projects: Middle Ages, Scotland, and Medieval Scotland.

Talk page notice was made in December 2010 and seconded in January 2011. Some minor work was performed in September 2011 yet the major issues remain.

• 1a There is a narrative and essay-ish tone of writing throughout the article.
• 1c The source quality appears fine. Throughout the article there are unreferenced paragraphs. The first section on "Historiography" appears to be original research based on the lack of supporting sources. Overall the citations in the article have not changed much since article promotion in 2006. Some of the citations are in the spirit of "see also" pointing towards other WP articles.
• 2c Work needed here for missing page numbers and uniformity and the presence of some ibids.
• 3 Will check upon photo cleanup.
• Mos Work is needed with MOS:IMAGES in order to prevent crowding. Several photos and block quotes or boxes are crashing into each other and pinching text. Brad (talk) 16:35, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

• There are some issues. On sourcing, the are whole sections (e.g. Ecclesia Scoticana) without any references, and some where the only source is the reference for the quote (e.g. Geography). It feels resolvable with a bit of work. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:38, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Taking a wiki-break due to some recent problems with reviewing, but some minor additional comments:

• Agree with Brads analysis, i tried to tweak some of the most obvious "essay" parts in September, but a complete thorough recheck of the whole text is needed.
• The article f.e. uses 12 times "perhaps"-statements, most of those should be completely removed. If an important fact is still in discussion, more background would need to be provided (why is the fact in question? who is the most prominent supporter? what are opposing views?...). Somewhat vague information can't be avoided completely in a history article, but should be trimmed down where possible.
• The Christianity section is of course an important part of this period, but appears too detailed. Parts like the poem or the list of bishops would fit better in the specialized sub-article.
• The value and relevance of the modern jousting image for overall Scottish military is debatable.

Despite the very good and interesting content, the article fails FA criteria with the current style, missing sources and MOS problems. GermanJoe (talk) 12:04, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Without samples, this is unacceptable for a FAR nomination:

*1a There is a narrative and essay-ish tone of writing throughout the article.

So, if someone can document what issues there are, and examine whether anyone is working here, that will inform decisions about whether to move this to the FARC phase. This nomination is two weeks old, and no one has done that work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:19, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Quick samples of unencyclopedic tone and other prose issues:

• "G.W.S. Barrow, who has devoted his life to studying"
• "there is nothing special about his reign"
• "It was Máel Coluim III, not his father Donnchad, who did more to create the dynasty that ruled Scotland for the following two centuries, successfully compared to some. Part of the resource was the large number of children he had, perhaps as many as a dozen" - grammar, lacks clarity
• "As long as one remembers the continuities, the period can also be regarded as one of great historical transformation"
• "The MacWilliams appear to have rebelled for no less a reason than the Scottish throne itself"
• "There is a lot of evidence that the native Scots favoured pastoralism, in that Gaelic lords were happier to give away more land"
• "Cattle, pigs and cheeses were among the most produced foodstuffs,[41] but of course a vast range of foodstuffs were produced"

These in combination with the MOS and sourcing problems suggest that a move to FARC is appropriate. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:23, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

The image and prose issues should not be impossible to address. I have had a quick look at the sourcing issues and whilst I lack many of the sources themselves the problems don't seem as a difficult to address as I originally feared. I will start this at the weekend Insha'Allah. Of more concern to me is that the focus is very much on the development of the "Origins of the Kingdom of Alba" at the expense of other pertinent issues. To a degree this is editorial choice, but it might take quite a bit of work to incorporate some of the subject matter I think is missing. Ben MacDui 08:33, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Missing page nos

I have now covered some of the sourcing issues. I am unfamiliar with the sourcing style and have not attempted to amend it, but if it needs attention this is essentially a mechanical task. Note to self: in the first half, Foster 96 and Stubbs & Howlett still need attention. Ben MacDui 12:20, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I believe the page numbering issue has been addressed save for one ref to Foster 96 (#10) and Gillingham 2000 (#64) neither of which I have and nor do I have anything to hand as an alternative. The latter is part of a largely unreffed section which is going to need some other work anyway. Ben MacDui 16:00, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Peering beneath the clutter there is some inconsistency in the style of referencing so I am using a simpler method. It's less easy to see which source is being referred to, but much easier to see if the reference itself is in a consistent style. Ben MacDui 09:16, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Essentially done. Ben MacDui 08:36, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Image crowding

Done. Ben MacDui 16:15, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Prose *"The Christianity section is of course an important part of this period, but appears too detailed. Parts like the poem or the list of bishops would fit better in the specialized sub-article".

Agreed and removed/fixed.

• "G.W.S. Barrow, who has devoted his life to studying"
• "there is nothing special about his reign"

Now working backwards through this. Ben MacDui 09:16, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I think the specifics mentioned above are dealt with but there may be others. Ben MacDui 12:29, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Historiography

I doubt there was any genuine OR here but I have removed suggestions I can't confirm and added further information that is sourced. Ben MacDui 20:04, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Content

• Military now fixed, but:

lacks anything about seapower

odd image problem Ben MacDui 18:57, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Lack of references

• Christianity and the Church & Geography sections plus odd sentences here and there.

This is now the main issue. There may be others but I think that (generally speaking) the content bases are covered and most of the other issues raised have been addressed. Unfortunately most of the missing information is not available to me and I will now seek assistance from those more knowledgeable. Ben MacDui 08:36, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Various requests for assistance sent out and offers of help now made. Ben MacDui 10:03, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

If no one else has volunteered I will take a look at the geography section, which looks like it needs a bit of expansion and a lot of sourcing.--SabreBD (talk) 16:54, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Please do - I am hoping Billr will have a go at the Christianity section soon too. Ben MacDui 18:25, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

In addition to the Xtianity section the following remain unreferenced:

• Máel Coluim [III]'s raids and attempts to further the claims for his successors to the English kingdom prompted interference by the Norman rulers of England in the Scottish kingdom. He had married the sister of the native English claimant to the English throne, Edgar Ætheling, and had given most of his children by this marriage Anglo-Saxon royal names. In 1080, King William the Conqueror sent his son on an invasion of Scotland, and Máel Coluim submitted to the authority of the king, giving his oldest son Donnchad as a hostage. King Máel Coluim himself died in one of the raids, in 1093.
• The conquest of the west, the creation of the Mormaerdom of Carrick in 1186 and the absorption of the Lordship of Galloway after the Galwegian revolt of Gille Ruadh in 1235 meant that the number and proportion of Gaelic speakers under the rule of the Scottish king actually increased, and perhaps even doubled, in the so-called Norman period. It was the Gaels and Gaelicised warriors of the new west, and the power they offered, that enabled King Robert I (himself a Gaelicised Scoto-Norman of Carrick) to emerge victorious during the Wars of Independence, which followed soon after the death of Alexander III.
• In this period, little of Scotland was governed by the crown. Instead, most Scots lay under the intermediate control of Gaelic and increasingly after the twelfth century, French-speaking Mormaers/Earls and Lords.

although I think everything else is now covered. None of the above 3 items are vital in my view and could be removed or amended if need be. Ben MacDui 10:34, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

If Billr is too busy to take a look at the Christianity section let me know, I think I should be able to fill in a few references, but it may be possible that a rewrite is needed here, which might be a more complex job.--SabreBD (talk) 21:19, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

He has been away, but is now back and I pinged him on his talk page yesterday. I now have a copy of the relevant volume of Duncan's Scotland: The Making of the Kingdom so if he's not available we might be able to cover the bases between us. Ben MacDui 08:47, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Sounds fine. Ping me if you need the help.--SabreBD (talk) 10:02, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Bill's input is delayed so I have updated the Christianity section as best I can. Doubtless there is a great deal more that could be said but I think the most important bases are covered. It's a remarkable feature of this review that the additional edits it has provided to the article (so far) are about half the total that it took to get it to FA in the first place. Ben MacDui 14:57, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

• Keep. Not sure where we are in the process here but I think the article is now a credible FA. Ben MacDui 15:04, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Featured article criteria of concern mentioned in the review section include references, prose and images. Dana boomer (talk) 23:12, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

• Update: I see Ben MacDui is at work here. Hurray! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:38, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your enthusiasm Sandy - I hope it isn't misplaced. I think most of the issues raised above are now dealt with, and remaining unsourced material is now listed. There may be others of course. Ben MacDui 10:44, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

• Keep - if this is the correct place to list this - see also above. Ben MacDui 19:39, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

• Keep - the article is now sourced, the coverage more even and the tone encyclopedic.--SabreBD (talk) 19:19, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

• Keep - Essay-like elements toned down, sourcing and image context improved, article reads much more compact now. GermanJoe (talk) 12:59, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

Removed status

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 22:55, 27 April 2012 [2].

---

Montreal Screwjob

Review commentary

Notified: No individual editor notified, original nominator is inactive since 2007, WikiProject Professional wrestling

I am nominating this featured article for review because there is a major section that was added to the article three years after it passed FAC, this section was not reviewed under the criteria, and has been tagged with an original research tag (not by me, although after I raised concerns). I brought up some concerns on the talk page (and notified Wikiproject Professional Wresling), some/most of which have been taken care of, and the article has been improved since I brought them up. Having said that, it has been five years since the original nomination, with a lot of edits to it (including the additional section). I think it should be reassessed against the FAC, improved if possible, or delisted as a FA. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 09:23, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - Besides that whole last section which should probably be deleted, there are some other issues, some of which were raised soon after the article's initial promotion to FA status. One thing is the fact that it consists largely of ungainly blobs of text. There's a lot of "he said" sorts of sentences and there's not much flow. I have a fair amount of pro wrestling knowledge and understand the article's subject matter quite well but find it difficult to comprehend by reading this text. And I suspect that someone who is not familiar with the subject matter would be lost. A lesser problem is the article's reliance on Meltzer's report, which is cited far more times than any other reference. If the article can be copyedited for flow and tone, I guess that would be a start. --Jtalledo (talk) 10:32, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
• Move to FLRC FARC – Between the tagged Discrepencies section, the reference tagged as a dead link that appears unreliable anyway (number 55), and the presence of other possibly questionable sources such as About.com (ref 7), The History of WWE (refs 9 and 10), and Wrestling Information Archive (ref 70), I also don't think this meets current FA criteria. Needs quite a bit of work, unfortunately. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:06, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Why would it get moved to Featured list removal candidates?--kelapstick^(bainuu) 03:09, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

It wouldn't. This is what happens when you hold a director's role at one of these processes: you lose track of things when you go elsewhere. :-) It's fixed above, although the point I was trying to make stands. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:02, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Issues brought up in the review section include referencing, prose and original research. Dana boomer (talk) 13:55, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

• Delist – The issues brought up have remained unaddressed, and they are serious enough for the article to clearly fail the FA criteria. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:04, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
• Delist, nothing's happening. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:03, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

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 22:55, 27 April 2012 [3].

---

Night of the Living Dead

Review commentary

Notified: Dmoon1, DrJohnnyDiablo, WikiProject Horror, WikiProject Film

This article uses IMDB as references, yet IMDB is a self-published source. Keith Wayne is claimed to commit suicide as a result of death, but I could not find one reliable source in Google. Nevertheless, suicide is possible. Also, is the information about the cast intricate or necessary? I still don't know which other issues this article has, but the entry looks well-written, and citations look well-stylized. --George Ho (talk) 02:20, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

The cast information I believe works, but the section should be trimmed to only include entries with actual information—not to just simply list roles. IMDB should be avoided entirely, but I doubt any information sourced to it needs to be, as this is a well-known film and that information should be available elsewhere. Looking at it, though, a lot of that information is unnecessary. Judith O'Dea's filmography is irrelevant to the article, after all. I think this could be retained with a little work, and I'm prepared to go through the sources and find better ones within the next few days. GRAPPLE X 02:31, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

UPDATE: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Night_of_the_Living_Dead&action=historysubmit&diff=473655580&oldid=473089332 --George Ho (talk) 08:59, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

• Here's my take:
  • Several of the refs are malformatted, with <greater than and less than signs> around the links or [1]s for the links.
  • What makes Homepage of the Dead a reliable source?
  • Most of the revision section is full of red links. These should be combed over — I'm not sure how many, if any, are relevant.
  • The Revision section also contains citations to Facebook, YouTube and Amazon that need to be removed.
  • What makes House of Horrors a reliable source?
  • What makes Films 101 a reliable source?

Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:17, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I seem to recall pointing this out to you before, TPH; red links are not a valid reason to oppose a FAC or delist a FAR. If you can show that this article is incomprehensible or not comprehensive because of some missing information, then the red links might be relevant. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:49, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I know they aren't, but when you have too many of them, it looks unsightly. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:45, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

UPDATE: Keith Wayne should be considered a possibly living person. IMDB is unreliable, so the info was removed, and the stand-alone article of Keith Wayne was redirected to this article. --George Ho (talk) 07:11, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Featured article criteria mentioned as items of concern in the review section mainly focused on various aspects of sourcing. Dana boomer (talk) 15:24, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment - Can we please get some thoughts on whether this article should be kept or delisted? Thanks! Dana boomer (talk) 16:58, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• Delist, nothing's happening. Cast section is still clumsy and list-y. First section of "Music and sound effects" is unsourced. I see many unreliable sources like Homepage of the Dead, Bloody Disgusting.com, facebook pages, etc. Many refs also have bad formatting with bare URLs, <greater than and less than signs> and the like. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:41, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
• Pending Comment - I did the "citation <citation>" thing because... I figured it look unique and special, especially since Modern Language Association. I might vote for "Delist" because of some original research. As for the unreliable sources, I want to remove them, but they must have verified the "OR" stuff. --George Ho (talk) 00:37, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

• George, I'm not sure what you mean by "pending"? Are you waiting for something in particular? Dana boomer (talk) 19:07, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

• Now it's a comment, not pending. --George Ho (talk) 19:37, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

• After thoughts of considerations about interests of the film itself, I choose Delist. Making changes to the whole article itself requires a lot of effort, not to mention sandboxes in either a user sandbox page or an article's sandbox. Recently, someone added information about an upcoming remake. I mean, who's interested on this film, besides millions of downloads, enough to fix this article? Statistics of box office records and of home video sales are valuable to read but challenged by verification standards. Even some sections, such as Influence, are bad. --George Ho (talk) 13:39, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

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 23:48, 21 April 2012 [4].

---

Roe v. Wade

Review commentary

Notified: Andrew c, Atlant, Severa, and all active WikiProjects listed here

I am nominating this featured article for review because I think that it no longer meets the FA criteria, specifically that of 1a, 1b, 1c and 2a. I have not been the most significant contributor to the article, but I have done some work on it recently. The primary author of the page (User:Anythingyouwant) has retired from Wikipedia and has been banned from the topic, so I don't think I should inform him of this FAR. I will notify the next three editors by number of edits though, and will also notify WP:SCOTUS and the other WikiProjects which have claimed this article about this filing (I asked at WT:SCOTUS last week if people thought bringing the article to FAR was a good idea, and two people said yes).

Some of the issues I have with the article is that the prose isn't particularly brilliant at this time. That can be fixed by a good copy editor though, so I'm not particularly concerned about that. I'm more concerned with the other matters in criteria 1. The first four sections are built using relatively few scholarly works and far too many primary sources for my liking. That issue is somewhat better once we get into the "Controversy" and later sections, but those sections have a whole host of other problems. The controversy and Public opinion sections are poorly organized and need to be rewritten from scratch. There needs to be a deeper analysis of the overall legal thought about the decision, not just selections from a few authors. I also believe that the "Role in subsequent decisions and politics" is far too long—it gets too far into into the recent history of abortion in the United States. We don't need to recap every single matter that has happened in the past forty years.

Some of these issues might sound like a simple content dispute, but I think they are actually underlying structural problems. If the article still had active editors, I think that we might be able to solve the issue just on the talk page. But it doesn't, and I'm bringing it to here in hopes that we might be able to repair the article.

Best, NW (Talk) 16:21, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment
  1. "far too many primary sources for my liking" == WP:IDONTLIKEIT
  2. "poorly organized"? In what way?
  3. The analysis of the legal decision seems fairly comprehensive. I'm not a lawyer, so you'll have to elaborate here.
  4. The "Role in subsequent decisions and politics" does not seem overly long, and certainly does not cover "every single matter that has happened in the past forty years"
• You'll have to do more to convince me that what is underlying is structural and not political. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:25, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I think the first issue (too many primary sources) is something that should be looked at and improved on for this article. I don't see it as WP:IDONTLIKEIT, rather asking for sources that can lend a stronger foundation for some notes in the text. This is especially true for a controversial subject like abortion; that only increases the need to ensure the article is neutral and supported in the literature.

And...after a look at the article, there seems a large reliance on Linda Greenhouse's book to interpret the decision itself. As to sources discussing post-Roe politics and legal issues, that is likely fine. Lord Roem (talk) 21:02, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

1. WP:PSTS seems to cover this fairly well. Some of the primary sources, I have less of a problem with some of the sourcing, but I think that the "Prior history of the case" should be sourced by secondary sources, especially considering the political activity of Norma McCovrvey in the past several decades.
2. Poorly organized: See Talk:Roe v. Wade#Controversy section—User:Noleander and I will try to work on that soon.
3. I wrote much of that section about two months ago. I'm not a fan of its comprehensiveness, and I'm not entirely sure if it is a comprehensive and accurate summary of the decision and its history before the court. I would also feel much more happy if it didn't rely on a single source. The section on the dissents needs to be looked at as well.
4. It does rehash the cases to attempt to give a complete history of abortion before the High Court since the article. Over 20% of the body of the article is dedicated to it.

I'm also somewhat amused that you think that this is political. All I can do is try to assure you that it is not. I hope that you can accept that based on my editing record. Best, NW (Talk) 19:28, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

No need to check your editing record. Your word is enough for me. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:37, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I concur that this article in general is not very well written. Not bad, but not great. It also appears quite biased on the pro-life side; it gives quite a few examples of dissatisfaction or disapproval of the decision, with not many in support. This does reek of political bias and a violation of the neutrality of Wikipedia. The data is also outdated, and only one poll (Gallup) is cited. Because of this, I also agree that it's also not very comprehensive in original sources. Gimmethoseshoes (talk) 06:41, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - Apart from a need for copyediting, the only major problem I found is that the Legal section is completely devoted to legal criticism of Roe v. Wade. It doesn't even discuss Blackmun's defense of his own decision. This doesn't seem to meet NPOV. Kaldari (talk) 21:01, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Featured article criteria mentioned as items of concern in the review section include sourcing, prose and structure. Dana boomer (talk) 15:22, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: Looks like a lot of great work was put into this during its prior FAR discussion. What's changed since then? Has the article degraded in quality? Or have the standards changed? Or both? If it's simply the former, we could look back in the history and see about modifying with that in mind. — Cirt (talk) 07:04, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

• Cirt, I apologize for taking so long to respond to this. The answer to your question is "both". The last FAR was in 2007, and standards have changed since then, with the high-quality reliable source provision being added, as well as image, source and copyright checks being made standard. Also, the article has changed quite a bit since then, as can be seen just by looking at differences in the ToC between the two versions. Are you interested in working on this? Dana boomer (talk) 17:03, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for the reply. Not interested myself in working on it at the moment, but it certainly is a valuable, educational, and encyclopedic article on this project. — Cirt (talk) 16:50, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: It looks like the general prose of the article was an issue in the initial review above. I'm not an expert on such standards here, but I'm curious whether NW or others have attacked that in their recent rewriting/reworking of the article. Lord Roem (talk) 14:27, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

• Let's look at a block of text, for review in terms of prose:

The Court issued its decision on January 22, 1973, with a 7-to-2 majority vote in favor of Roe. Burger and Douglas' concurring opinions and White's dissenting opinion were issued with along with the Court's opinion in Doe v. Bolton (announced on the same day as Roe v. Wade). The Court deemed abortion a fundamental right under the United States Constitution, thereby subjecting all laws attempting to restrict it to the standard of strict scrutiny.

• That text is taken directly from the article, and I think it highlights the prose issue. There seems to be a lack of focus. The paragraph starts with the decision but then goes right into the concurring and dissenting views. Its a bit hard to see what the Court actually decided -- in a succinct way -- despite this being the 'Supreme Court decision' section. Lord Roem (talk) 14:33, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
  • To that end, I'd support a Delist if the prose issue is not resolved. Lord Roem (talk) 02:43, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. The Legal reception section is still absurdly biased. It consists of 5 paragraphs about legal scholars opposing the decision, and 1 paragraph that has nothing to do with legal reception. This needs to be fixed if the article is to remain featured. Kaldari (talk) 17:52, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
  • I agree with this comment by Kaldari (talk · contribs), above. :) Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 16:41, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

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 Nikkimaria 18:36, 14 April 2012 [5].

---

Chennai

Review commentary

Notified: Sodabottle, SpacemanSpiff, WikiProject India

I am nominating this featured article for review because of reasons given below in the last post of the Talk page. X.One ^SOS 15:40, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Secret of Success, please detail your concerns with this article's status - your post on the talk page only says that there are a lot of problems. Dana boomer (talk) 16:23, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, coming to that, firstly, the tag on the "Education" section seems irrelevant. An example farm tag was also put up before, but I cleared all the unwanted companies and institutes to remove it. Another section to be addressed is "Media". It has the same problems that education had, too many examples and no content. In "Geography", some things need sources like "A third river, the Kortalaiyar, flows through the northern fringes of the city before draining into the sea at Ennore. Adyar and Cooum rivers are heavily polluted with effluents and waste from domestic and commercial sources". I'm also not sure if the Chennai corporation website is a good source for some of the data, for it is more of an SPS. For now, that's all. But to address these alone needs a donkey's effort. X.One ^SOS 16:57, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

This article barely makes use of any published books. However, I don't agree with Secret of success' perception that the corporation website is not a good source. Stats on the civic amenities and utilize services in the city are given out by the corporation. Published books, too, if any, might rely on the stats provided by the corporation.-Ravi_{My Tea Kadai} 18:38, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

• Note Talk page notice was archived. It's now here. Brad (talk) 22:30, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Featured article criteria concerns mentioned in the review section focused mainly on referencing. Dana boomer (talk) 19:11, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

• Comment there may be issues with sources and references, but I'm finding some prose issues as well.

  Chennai is well connected to other parts of India by road. Four major national highways branches out from Chennai.They are National Highway 4 (India) to Mumbai(via Bangalore), National Highway 5 (India) to Kolkata (via Bhubaneswar),National Highway 45 (India) to Theni (via Tiruchirapalli)and National Highway 205 (India) to Anantapur, Andhra Pradesh (via Tirupati).Numerous state highways link the city to Pondicherry and other towns and cities in Tamil Nadu and neighbouring states.

  This section needs to have links piped, spaces inserted between sentences, and just a general copy edit. Imzadi 1979 → 19:01, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

• Done —Commander _{(Ping me)} 17:23, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

• The infobox should be switched over like was done on Kolkata; the current one has issues with text appearing too small, and it the other one can accommodate up to four leadership officials making the side table in the "Administration" section unneeded. Imzadi 1979 → 03:49, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

• Done —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 07:32, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

• The citations need a review with an eye towards making their formatting consistent. Newspapers whose names don't include their cities should have their locations listed separately, but they aren't. FN 9 has the article title in italics, but the name of the encyclopedia isn't. The article should be in quotes and the book title should be in italics. FN 10 should have its all caps reduced per MOS:CAPS. I could continue, but suffice it to say that each citation needs to be scrutinized and corrected for consistency. Imzadi 1979 → 03:49, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

• Can you elaborate a little more on FN 9. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 07:32, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

• Some stuff has been shifted making them FNs 12 and 13, but they are:

Wagret, Paul (1977). India, Nepal. Nagel's encyclopedia-guide. Geneva: Nagel Publishers. p. 556. ISBN 978-2-8263-0023-6. OCLC 4202160

"District Pofile – CHENNAI". Chennai.tn.nic.in. Retrieved 7 September 2009.

As you can see, the article title (India, Nepal) is in italics, and the title of the overall work (Nagel's encyclopeda-guide) was in plain text. I didn't audit through the whole reference list because there's 176 footnotes at the moment, but these two jumped out at me. Article titles should be in quotation marks as components of a larger work, and the larger work gets placed in italics. We also don't use all capital letters in our citations. The should look something like:

Wagret, Paul (1977). "India, Nepal". Nagel's encyclopedia-guide. Geneva: Nagel Publishers. p. 556. ISBN 978-2-8263-0023-6. OCLC 4202160

"District Pofile – Chennai". Chennai.tn.nic.in. Retrieved 7 September 2009.

A suggestion, but my personal preference is to avoid using domain names ("chennai.tn.nic.in") whenever possible since the group that owns the domain name should have their own name that can be used as the publisher. In this case, that's the district's website, so something like Chennai District should be used instead. Imzadi 1979 → 07:48, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comments I didn't get to this one before it went to FARC. At a glance I see many troubles. Citations to Britannica, citations missing retrieved on dates, citations with a mess of different date formatting dmy ymd mdy etc, citations with broken harvard refs, and citations with dead links. Education section has a synthesis tag placed last August. The talk page contains a list of "Good quality sources" (whatever that means) but they haven't been utilized. Discussion about article improvements has been going on for months. Brad (talk) 14:20, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

• dmy date format consistency -done --Anbu121 (talk me) 13:32, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
• All dead links fixed --Anbu121 (talk me) 06:05, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
• Citations missing retrieved on dates fixed --Anbu121 (talk me) 14:40, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment I was the one that posted a shortened version of the "list of troubles" on the talk page. Most of it still applies. As far as the good quality source listing, I just pulled up some books that are considered significant in the discussion of Chennai. I'll try to expand the list soon (per my commitment to Dana a few weeks back, sorry, just been away from WP) and/or try to edit the article, but as it stands I think the article is a candidate for removal. —SpacemanSpiff 06:33, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

• Delist Problems remain. For example, uncited statements and apparent original research in the Education section. I took a look at the first two sentences in the section: Schools in Chennai are either run publicly by the Tamil Nadu government or privately, some with financial aid from the government.[138] The medium of education is either English or Tamil, with the former being the majority.[139] I looked at each mention of Chennai in ref 138: there is mention of one "Matriculation School"; there is mention of "Corporation Schools"; I don't see anything about private schools receiving financial aid. In ref 139, I see mention of "teaching English" and "Tamil-medium schools"; I see nothing about "either" English or Tamil; nothing about English in the majority. DrKiernan (talk) 16:10, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

You seem to have missed out "government and government aided schools" in reference 138. That means government owned schools and other schools (private) funded by government. Regarding the second one, I have made a change in the source. X.One ^SOS 08:35, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I still don't see support for the statements in either source. It is a fair assumption that there is a government-funded and a government-aided school in every Indian city, but [138] does not seem to say directly "there is a government-aided school in Chennai". Nor do I see "the majority of schools in Chennai teach in English" and "schools in Chennai only teach in English and Tamil" in [139]. Given that The Musalman is published in Chennai, and the population is 10% Muslim, I would expect some education in Urdu, and for there to be madrassas attached to mosques teaching in an appropriate language. DrKiernan (talk) 13:16, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Dude, that PDF is published by the Government of Tamil Nadu. It applies to the whole of Tamil Nadu, and Chennai is a part. In case of an exception, it is mentioned specifically, like in page 67. It does not say directly that there is a xXx school in Chennai, but indirectly it is understood. I also happened to look at the corporation's website, which says "Education Department, Corporation of Chennai which was started with 40 primary schools in the year 1912, today manages 27 Higher Secondary Schools, 36 High Schools, 1 Urdu High School, 1 Telugu High School, 124 Middle Schools (Tamil, Telugu & Urdu), 141 Primary schools and 30 Kinder Garden schools with an overall enrollment of 1,42,387 Students and 4062 Teachers." That means that there are schools having a medium of education in Tamil, Telugu, Urdu and English, so all 4 need to be mentioned. I don't know if that is a good source, for it is an WP:SPS, but since the information is not self-serving unduly, I believe it can be used. And in the present ref 139, it says "Children hailing from Tamil medium schools are confident and happy individuals suddenly transplanted into a hostile and alien atmosphere are linguistically at sea as English is the medium of instruction in most institutions dispensing higher education." That means English has dominated as the medium in higher secondary schools, but for middle and lower classes, it does not say so. Can the sentence be accordingly modified like "English is the dominant medium in higher secondary schools"? X.One ^SOS 16:03, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I've no problem with using the corporation as a source, or the suggested wording. DrKiernan (talk) 14:01, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, I have modified it accordingly. X.One ^SOS 17:18, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I still don't understand the education section. The first sentence claims that schools that either government or private, even though the source does not support that. Later on in the same paragraph it talks of "Corporation Schools" that I would assume are schools funded by the Corporation. If so, then schools are either funded by the government or privately or by the local authority. I don't know whether this is the case or not, and the article does not make it clear. The first sentence that the public schools are run by the Tamil Nadu government appears to be contradicted in the very same paragraph when it says the Chennai Corporation maintains the schools. DrKiernan (talk) 11:31, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Regarding 138, let me be clear. Source. " Her care and concern for the school age children is well expressed in the announcements made namely, free laptops for +1 and +2 students, two sets of uniform in the academic year 2011-2012 and four sets from the academic year 2012-2013, additionally providing a pair of footwear to the students of Government and Government Aided schools." The last bit, says that the measure has been taken for government schools and government-aided (which means, private schools with government aid). The source is used just to confirm the existence of government and private-government aided schools. The Chennai article says "Schools in Chennai are either run publicly by the Tamil Nadu government or privately, some with financial aid from the government."X.One ^SOS 16:04, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I was mistaken, the Chennai Corporation is a body independent of the Tamil Nadu government. This makes things more confusing. I'll try solving this issue after consulting a few editors. X.One ^SOS 16:11, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

"Independent of the state government?" They are the wings of the state government. Have you looked at any of the corporation websites for that matter? Even the expansion of the city cannot be done on own by the municipal authorities, but decided only by the respective state governments. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 17:05, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Then why does it say "Thus Corporation of Chennai is maintaining 286 Corporation Schools, 336 Government and Government aided management schools and 10 A.D. Welfare Schools." What exactly is the difference between Corporation schools and government schools? X.One ^SOS 17:46, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Clarified by Vensatry. As per the source, "Further in the year 1990 the Government and Government aided schools and A.D. welfare schools are brought under the control of Corporation." That means that the schools in Chennai were government owned before 1990 but afterwards, they have been controlled by the Chennai corporation. So, the sentence can be modified as "Schools in Chennai are owned by the Chennai corporation or by private parties by receiving financial aid from the government." That seems to settle it. X.One ^SOS 12:24, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

No that was just an opinion. Even I'm not clear with the statement. It will be better, if we consult some editors like Sodabottle and Ravichandar84. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 18:34, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Vensatry is partly correct, I guess. The website of the Department of School Education is equally ambiguous but it explicitly states that a couple of laws enacted in 1981 and 1989 have brought the administration of education in corporation, municipality and panchayat schools under the direct control of the state government and their employees have been taken in as government servants. However, the maintenance of corporation school buildings (not municipal or panchayat schools) alone are undertaken by the municipal corporation.-Ravi_{My Tea Kadai} 05:49, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

So the municipal corporation is something different from the Chennai corporation? Secret of success (talk) 14:37, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I've revisited the Education section (the only section I've looked it) and I'm afraid I still don't really understand what it is trying to tell me. The first source in the section is now a dead link, which makes verification even more difficult, and the weasel words "well known" and "typically" are not sourced. I don't feel that I can alter or strike my delist, although I do appreciate the efforts made to improve this article, and it has improved. Thank you to the editors involved. DrKiernan (talk) 17:10, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Comments I am trying to attract the attention towards sections that really need work, rather than dwelling on semantics in Education. Demographics, Administration, and Economy need updating and improvement of data. The Administration section, for example, mentioned 155 wards of the city, while in reality the number of wards is 200 since late 2011 (I updated that). This section also needs clarification about the assembly and parliamentary constituencies (I was unable to do so being unfamiliar with the local geography). As the expansion of corporation limit is recent, the section needs careful data update. Crime data is from 2005, later data is available. The demographics need "as of" clarifications. Data on poverty, if available, would be welcome. Economy is missing appropriate mention of unorganized sector. Also, inclusion of more recent data, if available, would be great. Overall, the article needs basically data update, and prose improvement here appropriate. Certain sections (such as History) are indeed of superior quality. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 05:05, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with you. The "History" section does not make use an authoritative sources. The district website cannot be a reference in this case.-Ravi_{My Tea Kadai} 15:23, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Concerns

On a quick look at the article, I observed the following concerns:

• "Development of transport and industry led to rapid urbanization in nineteenth and twentieth century."
• "... and a hotbed of regional politics that tended to bank on Dravidian identity of the populace."

While the first sentence in the lead appears to be an WP:OR, the second appears to be an opinion, which is, however, not held by many.

Large chunks of text in the "History" section appear either unsourced or poorly sourced. There are many theories on the origin of the Pallavas and the theory of north-western origin is just one of them. However, the most widely held view is that the Pallavas were either of Telugu or Chola-Tamil ancestry. Mentioning it in the article constituttes a violation of WP:UNDUE.

Description of the Anti-Hindi agitations in the "History" also constitues a violation of WP:UNDUE. True, there were agitations in Chennai but there were agitations all over Tamil Nadu and many violent incidents in Madurai and all. To say that agitations in Chennai led to DMK victory would be too fanciful (nowhere does the article provided as source say that).-Ravi_{My Tea Kadai} 18:17, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I feel that mentioning Potti Sriramulu and the "Madras Manada movement" would be more relevant than the Anti-Hindi agitations.-Ravi_{My Tea Kadai} 18:25, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I disagree on certain points. The article does not say that the Pallavas originated from the north-west. It says that they "migrated" from the north-west to the region around Chennai. The source verifies it. That is certainly relevant and not a sign of over-weightage. The anti-Hindi statement also does not say that Chennai was the sole base for the agitations. The movement did influence Chennai, one cannot deny that. Comparisons with Madurai tend to be quite useless. Secret of success (talk) 13:32, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Look at the Wikipedia article on Pallavas and tell me whether it is mentioned anywhere that Pallavas migrated from the "north-west". Why Pallava article! Make a detailed detailed research on the topic and tell me if there is even shred of evidence that they came from the north-west. Where is the source you are talking of. We cannot have a WP:FA made wholly of fringe theories and opinions. I'd rather suggest that this article be delisted. It is necessary that it fulfills good-article criteria before going for an WP:FAC.-Ravi_{My Tea Kadai} 15:57, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

The stuff on Anti-Hindi agitations are relevant to "Politics of Tamil Nadu" or "History of Tamil Nadu". They don't belong here. How did the movement influence Chennai, in particular, and not the rest of Tamil Nadu. Can you please elaborate. S. Muthiah, in his 400-odd page book "Madras Rediscovered" devotes barely a few paragraphs on the Anti-Hindi agitations.-Ravi_{My Tea Kadai} 16:04, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I too feel that a mention of Potti Sriramulu and the "Madras Manada movement" would be of more relevance than the Anti-Hindi agitations, since the latter is more relevant to History of Tamil Nadu as a whole. Also there is no mention of Panagal Raja. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 21:09, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, references to Panagal Raja might be another deviation from the subject of the article. Why Panagal Raja in the first place? True, he is credited with founding T. Nagar but people might also want to add the founding of Anna Nagar in 1969 and K. K. Nagar during K. Kamaraj's time. However, I think we might mention the 1948 expansion - the biggest ever in the history of Chennai when Saidapet, Adyar and Kodambakkam were included in the city.-Ravi_{My Tea Kadai} 03:11, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Honestly I don't see any deviation from the subject. Panagal Raja was one of the key figures in the "Madras Manade movement" and the city of Madras underwent a lot of geographical changes and developments under his tenure. So I think a slight mention about him would not do any injustice to the article. Also I guess he has a greater significance than people who founded Anna Nagar, K. K. Nagar, Ashok Nagar, etc., —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 06:06, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

A brief history of India (pg 172-173) - The Pallavas' origin is a matter of controversy. Totally ignored by the ancient history of the Tamil country, they suddenly appear on the scene. They were most probably Parthians, driven out of northwestern India. For a long time, their official language was Maharashtri Prakrit. They must have therefore resided in the west of India. Their defeat by Gautamiputra in the second century forced them to take refuge to the south of the Satavahanas' domain. Indian historians have made every effort to provide them with an autochthonous origin, but their efforts lack conviction. The first Pallavas appeared at Kanchi towards the third century. Officials of the Satavahana Empire, they declared their independence when the empire declined. They reigned for two centuries as petty sovereigns, up to the arrival of King Simhavishnu (570-600), with whom Pallava greatness begins. He subdued the traditional southern kingdoms (the Cheras, Cholas and Pandyas), conquered Sri Lanka and vanquished the Kalabhras.

This was my source, and I believe it verifies that. Secret of success (talk) 06:23, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

G. Jouveau-Dubreil, in his "The Pallavas", mentions about the origin of the Pallavas in the second chapter. Nowhere, is the Parthian origin theory alluded to though he does mention that the Pallavas might be of northern origins. P. T. Srinivasa Iyengar, too, does not say anything about the Parthian origin of the Pallavas. Now these people are fairly reliable scholars. The article Origin of Pallava, states three theories of origin for the Pallavas. Samar Abbas postulates that the Pallava-Chalukya enmity is because the Pallavas might have been related to the Parthians and Chalukyas to the Seleucids but himself accepts that such a theory is not widely believed. Danielou says that the origin of the Pallavas is a matter of controversy and only that they were "most probably" Parthians. Also, it is known that the Pallavas had spent over four centuries in the Telugu country before establishing their capital at Kanchipuram. So, mentioning the Parthian-origin might not just be an over-representation of a particular theory it might also be a marked deviation from the subject of the article.-Ravi_{My Tea Kadai} 07:55, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I removed that sentence, but be it as that may, the source does not become unreliable whatsoever. Secret of success (talk) 13:48, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

No, I was never questioning the reliability of the source. Alan Danielou is, indeed, a famous historian; I was only questioning the appropriateness of adding the stuff in this article. It would be a marked deviation from the main topic and would also lead to a tug-o-war with supporters of other theories.-Ravi_{My Tea Kadai} 03:11, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

All right then, what about the Anti-Hindi part? I don't think its a question of comparison with Madurai or the state of Tamil Nadu, but just if it influenced Chennai or not. Did they have a negligible impact on the city for deserving a removal from the article? I certainly think not. Secret of success (talk) 11:44, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, the article you provided as source only speaks of Anti-Hindi agitations in Tamil Nadu and the impact it had on state politics as a whole. From the source,we may never be able to gauge what impact the protests in Chennai had amongst all the protests made in different parts of Tamil Nadu. I feel that it might be a strong argument against the article. This is my opinion, though; however, as I've observed, if you can get some people to support you can circumvent anything in Wikipedia. You might also be the future recipient of a barnstar from User:Sodabottle for contesting my opinions here :-)-Ravi_{My Tea Kadai} 11:12, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

No one's trying to circumvent anything here. This is not the Tamil Nadu government where people have a license to screw things up entirely if they have a wide, though unreasonable support. Preceding to the discussion, this article calls Chennai "a city once bitterly opposed to the northerner’s tongue" and also says that "It has been a full decade since the last anti-Hindi agitation in Chennai." Further, the wiki article of the agitations says that "On 26 January, 50,000 students from Madras city's colleges marched from Napier park to the Government secretariat at Fort St. George and unsuccessfully tried to petition the chief minister." referencing a book titled "Anna: The life and times of C. N. Annadurai." Is a further look-into required for this? Secret of success (talk) 11:44, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

But I see that you hadn't provided the article as a citation did you. The Wiki article also mentions an Anti-Hindi conference in Tiruchi. Besides, one of the most popular agitations took place at Dalmiapuram.-Ravi_{My Tea Kadai} 17:26, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry? This is not a comparison with Trichy or Madurai, like I said. Its just a issue of whether it influenced the city or not. Secret of success (talk) 10:32, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

That's exactly what I'm telling. The Ramachandra Guha article which you had cited on the page only tells us of the agitations in Madras State (not Madras city) and its influence on the politics of Tamil Nadu. If you can find articles or books which explain why Chennai, is especially famous for its anti-Hindi stance and Dravidian politics please add them. If you have the weight of reliable references in your support no one is going to question the veracity of such points.-Ravi_{My Tea Kadai} 17:12, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Right, so your issue was that the sources given here were not placed in the article. It is done. Secret of success (talk) 06:00, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment - Can we get an update from the reviewers/main editors on how work on the article is progressing? Once it is felt that the majority of the work needed has been completed, it would be appreciated if the main editors could ping the reviewers who have made comments (SpacemanSpiff, Dr.Kiernan, etc) and ask them to return and review their comments. Thanks! Dana boomer (talk) 16:48, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

The work seems to be going rather slowly. While the problems with references and prose have undergone a nearly complete patch up, the synthesis issue in the education section, and the verification of text by sources is far from complete and requires lot of work. Secret of success (talk) 11:30, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Given that not much has happened on the article over the past month, do you think the article should continue to remain at FARC until the remaining work has been completed or should it be delisted? Dana boomer (talk) 14:02, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I am unsure of whether my opinion would be valid as I have contributed barely anything after the review. It would be cool if any one else who actually did so, takes it up. I shall provide mine following that. With regards, Secret of success 14:25, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Your opinion is quite valid. I'm going to be pinging everyone else who commented here, but it would be great if you share your opinion on whether or not this should remain featured. Dana boomer (talk) 13:57, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

• Delist It really hurts to say so, but the article is not at the level of FA. It lacks proper coverage—lacks information on poverty, slums, overpopulation. A large metropolis in the subcontinent, these are very pertinent problems. Culture section needs expansion, many cultural aspects (art, architecture, any local customs etc) are missing. MoS issues in references persist. It is unfortunate that we could not get a group of editors really interested to develop the article. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:34, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
• Delist I'm coming back after a two month break, so I haven't kept up with the changes to the article, but I just briefly reviewed the article and there are a lot of problem areas, especially with regard to comprehensiveness and due/undue aspects; there are also some phrasing issues that provide a misleading interpretation. I'll list a few examples here:

  "The Madras High Court, whose jurisdiction extends across Tamil Nadu and Pondicherry, is the highest judicial authority in the state as well as the city." -- The Madras High Court is located in Madras, but the judicial authority is not tied to the city, rather to the territories of TN/Pondicherry. There is also no source for this statement, as [65] which follows the next sentence is unrelated.

  Excessive content is devoted to relatively unimportant topics such as the via points on National Highways etc, while historically important aspects such as the Madras Public Libraries Act which resulted in the first public library system within India don't find mention. Likewise, there's no coverage of architecture (the earlier version of the article had some related images), but we have a laundry list of every newspaper, tv channel that is available in the city. Similarly, we have three images from the transport section, including one of an "air conditioned bus", that account for less than 10% of the city's bus fleet, and much less than the more ubiquitous autorikshaws etc. (These are just random examples, there could be more significant ones if one just spends a little time looking through the article)

  Another major problem is that the article appears to be a collection of snippets from various news sources, thereby suffering from recentism. While the issues highlighted are sourced, the problem here is the due/undue aspect; given that comprehensive sources are not used, this does the article a disservice in terms of the information presented.

• Unfortunately, I haven't had the on-wiki time over the past few months to help address some of the concerns I raised last September (most of which continue to be concerns). However, at this point, it is better to delist the article, and build it up from scratch, take to GA level first (I think it's at a B-class level currently) and then bring to FAC for a fresh review. —SpacemanSpiff 04:12, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.