Wikipedia:Featured article review/archive/December 2007
Kept status
edit- 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 12:22, 15 December 2007.
Review commentary
edit- Notified WT:IND
Fails 1c (ie., not enough refs from reliable sources, major part of the article is unsourced). Another concern is comprehensiveness - not enough detail about the Northeastern states, for example. Issues related to integration of some of the northeastern states still linger and are at the heart of some of its problems and need to be treated in more detail. Sarvagnya 08:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
- Sarvagnya, please follow the instructions at the top of WP:FAR to notify involved editors and relevant WikiProjects, and follow the samples on other FARs to post the notifications here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:23, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
- The involved editor has left and locked his page. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, and that's a big problem here. Because he had this book from which most citations of the article are given, and the rest of the article is based on that book(s). I don't know if there is anybody else involved in wikiproject India in possession of the book. The book was used as a reference all through-out the article. --Dwaipayan (talk) 19:31, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
- As far as I can see, this is precisely the problem with the article. It relies entirely too much on that one book, and as a result has a number of gaps and inaccuracies. For example, the Standstill Agreements were critical documents in the accession process, but the article makes no mention of them whatsoever, save in reference to Kashmir. The Covenants of Merger used to create big states from small princely statelets should also be at least be mentioned. All this is probably because the principal source used focused on Patel's role, and therefore did not dwell on the elements of the accession process where he did not participate. V.P. Menon's book, which is a far more relevant source, is only used in passing in one reference.
- More fundamentally, the article thoroughly ignores the fact that the integration process did not begin upon independence, but well before that, during British rule itself. Integration was always a big Congress project, and the British Government toyed with it on and off, coming up with the Federal Scheme of 1930, for example, which would have integrated all of India - including British India and the princely states - under one government (it was only the outbreak of the second world war that caused this to be abandoned). Ian Copland's work discusses these project, and their position within the overall process of integration of India, in great detail. Again, because this article relies entirely too much on a description of Patel's role, it misses this altogether.
- Finally, the end peters out altogether. It seems to me that the article isn't quite sure what it's trying to do here. Is the article principally about the integration of princely states into India, or is it about the broader process of forging a national identity? The references to the reorganisation of states and seccessionist movements are really only relevant if it is the latter, but at present the focus of the article seems to be on the former, with these just being tacked on as a footnote, which doesn't really work. If we're going to look at the latter, we'll need to focus on the extent to which regional identities both presented problems to be overcome in acheiving political integration, and tools that were used to further political integration, and focus a little more on regions such as the North-East. We'll also need to broaden the article's treatment of seccessionism - much of the Government's policy on this point, including the 16th Amendment to the Constitution, was shaped by the Tamil secessionist movement led by the DMK, which doesn't even merit a mention at the moment.
- Notwithstanding this list, I think the article's problems can be fixed with relatively little effort and the article kept as an FA. But it will require looking at a whole lot of other sources, and not just the source that was originally used to write the article, and it will need some level of consensus on what exactly the "integration" the article's title focuses on is supposed to be - the one-off integration of princely states, or the wider ongoing project of what we often call "national integration". -- Arvind 11:22, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
- Arvind, what do you exactly mean by the ongoing process of national integration? This article focuses on the political integration that took place around the independence of India. If you mean by "ongoing project" the process of controlling several dis-integrative movements (Khalistan etc), I don't think that comes under the purview of this article. Yes, it does need sources. Are you in possession of the sources you talked about/or any other sources. Those will be extremely helpful to save the FA status of this article.--Dwaipayan (talk) 02:52, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
- This article focuses on the political integration that took place around the independence of India.: No, it doesn't. Read the last three sections of the article. The article covers the reorganisation of states, the Punjab problem, Sikkim, seccessionism in the North-East, the creation of new states in 2000, the Telengana movement - all of which have nothing to do with the political integration that took place around the independence of India. They deal with what you say is "beyond the purview of this article". So, either we decide that the article should focus only on integrating the princely states into India - in which case we take all this out - or we decide that it should have a broader focus, in which case we talk about how successive governments dealt with the problem of creating a national identity and controlling secessionist movements.
- I have access to Ian Copland's work, and I think I have a copy of VP Menon's book lying around somewhere. It is my intention to work on adding info from them, and from other sources, over the coming week. -- Arvind 13:40, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
- Arvind, what do you exactly mean by the ongoing process of national integration? This article focuses on the political integration that took place around the independence of India. If you mean by "ongoing project" the process of controlling several dis-integrative movements (Khalistan etc), I don't think that comes under the purview of this article. Yes, it does need sources. Are you in possession of the sources you talked about/or any other sources. Those will be extremely helpful to save the FA status of this article.--Dwaipayan (talk) 02:52, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, and that's a big problem here. Because he had this book from which most citations of the article are given, and the rest of the article is based on that book(s). I don't know if there is anybody else involved in wikiproject India in possession of the book. The book was used as a reference all through-out the article. --Dwaipayan (talk) 19:31, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
- The involved editor has left and locked his page. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, I was wrong. The article has broader focus. Can you please go ahead, adding references and trying to save the article?--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:58, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
(unindent) I'm working on it - the past week's been a bit busy at work. I'm about half-way through reworking the bit of the article dealing with the integration of the princely states. But I really have no idea what to do with the rest of the article, though. Should the article deal with Goa, Pondicherry, Sikkim, secessionism, regionalism, etc., or should it stick to dealing with the princely states? The status quo - where the article deals haphazardly with a few random aspects of these issues - isn't really something we can stick with, but which way should the article go? -- Arvind (talk) 13:21, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
- imo, the article should deal primarily and largely with the events leading upto the consolidation of princely states into India and then the subsequent reorganization of the states based on linguistic demographics. A section should also deal with the slo-mo restructuring that keeps happening every now and then with states being split to form new states (chattisgarh etc etc..), creation of new UTs etc.,. A section should also be dedicated to discuss the political, sociological and other(if any) impact that the integration (ie., consolidation of princely states under one political entity + reorg of states) had in the decades that followed. Here, the various khalistan, northeast, dmk secessionism etc., issues can be dealt in as WP:SS way as possible. Sarvagnya 23:50, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Just an update, so people don't think this has gone dead - I'm very much working on the article, and I hope to post a revised version which addresses most of these concerns by the end of this week. -- Arvind (talk) 12:40, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
FARC commentary
edit- Suggested FA criteria concerns are comprehensiveness (1b) and referencing (1c). Marskell (talk) 14:39, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I've now made several rather substantial changes to the article. The article now deals only with the process of integration and the issues that arose therefrom - so it deals with the seccessionist movements in Kashmir, Tripura and Manipur, but not Punjab or Tamil Nadu, because the latter had nothing to do with the integration of the princely states or colonial enclaves into India. I've significantly expanded on the article's description of the integration process, because it was brief to the point of being misleading (for example, the privy purses had nothing to do with the initial instrument of accession as the article used to claim - they were provided as compensation for merger and the loss of princely prerogative). This's increased the size considerably, but I think this is necessary to address the issue of comprehensiveness, and at approximately 8500 words, it's still within the guidelines of WP:SS. I've also added a section on modern critical perspectives, which strikes me as being essential for encyclopaedic coverage. I believe this should address all issues raised thus far and should ensure that the article is kept, but I'd like to hear other views. Also, assistance with proofreading and polishing up the language would be welcome. -- Arvind (talk) 23:28, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, my changes have been reverted without any explanation by User:Bharatveer, right back to the version that started this process. I've asked him to explain, but I'm not interested in getting into a revert war so I have not reinstated my changes. The version I'd worked on is here. -- Arvind (talk) 11:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
- Fixes needed.
Almost every section heading starts with "The"; see WP:MSH. Why does Fast-track integration: Merger Agreements have a capital A? Can the section headings be shortened?
I've removed most "the"s (the three that remain are justified, I think) and shortened the headings. -- Arvind (talk) 10:37, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Copyedit needs, sample sentence:
- The termination of paramountcy would have in principle have meant that all rights that flowed from the states' relationship with the British crown would return to them, leaving them free to negotiate relationships with the new states of Indian and Pakistan "on a basis of complete freedom."
- Hm. I suspect I am constitutionally incapable of writing short sentences. I would be quite grateful for help from other editors on copyediting. -- Arvind (talk) 10:37, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- It not only needs to be shorter, it has a grammatical error; can you get someone to run through the text? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:50, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you very much for your help with the overlinking. The copyeditor's league seems to be backlogged, but I'll ask on the India Wikiproject. Sundar has already copyedited two sections. -- Arvind (talk) 09:51, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- It not only needs to be shorter, it has a grammatical error; can you get someone to run through the text? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:50, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- Hm. I suspect I am constitutionally incapable of writing short sentences. I would be quite grateful for help from other editors on copyediting. -- Arvind (talk) 10:37, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- The termination of paramountcy would have in principle have meant that all rights that flowed from the states' relationship with the British crown would return to them, leaving them free to negotiate relationships with the new states of Indian and Pakistan "on a basis of complete freedom."
Lots of WP:OVERLINKing, see WP:MOSLINK and also lots ofWP:MOSDATE linking issues, full dates should be linked,sample edit:[1]- I've fixed the date issues, but I'd like it if someone else could take a look at the overlinking. -- Arvind (talk) 10:37, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Can anyone find a way to work the bolded title into the first line, per WP:LEAD?
- I will ask Brighterorange (talk · contribs) to fix the endashes on the page ranges in refs.
SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:19, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Also, please consider the use of named refs (see WP:FN) to reduce the lengthy citation list and combine like refs into one line.Sample:[2] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:07, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- I've combined all the duplicates I could find. -- Arvind (talk) 10:37, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. 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 19:01, 11 December 2007.
Review commentary
edit- Notified Wikipedia:WikiProject Manitoba, WP:BIO, Wikipedia:WikiProject Canada, Wikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America, Wikipedia:WikiProject Saskatchewan
This article seem to be totally without any sort of referencing - 1(c) Xdamrtalk 22:58, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
- Indeed, the article pretty much lacks inline cites, and some images lack detailed source information and have depreciated tags. As well, what is a list of "Graphic Novel Biographies" doing there? I say take this to FARC. Green451 00:31, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- Began inline citations and referencing, and miscellaneous peer review checks. Will revise section listing of reference books - re-named Further reading. SriMesh | talk 23:00, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- Fixed depreciated tags which were in use on the images. SriMesh | talk 00:31, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- Started to add inline citations and references - as of this date and time about half way through article. Also contacted major contributors who originally brought article to feature article status. SriMesh | talk 02:33, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- Fixed depreciated tags which were in use on the images. SriMesh | talk 00:31, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- Began inline citations and referencing, and miscellaneous peer review checks. Will revise section listing of reference books - re-named Further reading. SriMesh | talk 23:00, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep So far the edits mentioned are very easy to do - have been started already. The biography is of someone very notable in Canada's history and of the west in particular. SriMesh | talk 03:14, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- Added quite a few inline citations throughout article - should there be more? SriMesh | talk 02:20, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. Note that I was one of the editors to help get it to FA status the first time. I believe that the major concerns have been addressed. The tags on the pictures and the "Graphic Novel Biographies" has been addressed by SriMesh. She has also added a number of inline citations. The lack of inline citations was actually discussed in the original FAC discussion. The rationale was given that the bulk of the biography aligns with the consensus in all of the major biographies written about Riel. As such, verification of the vast majority of the facts contained in the article is then quite easy. Given this and the fact that SriMesh has added a fair amount of citations already, I believe all the concerns have been addressed. If there are additional concerns, I'll help address them within a week of being raised. -- JamesTeterenko 18:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
- Conditional Keep. Very impressive work in such a short amount of time! There are still a few things that I can see that I would like addressed. Notably, citations are supposed to come after punctuation (including commas), the image of Riel on trial lacks source info, and the "Montana and family life" and "Riel remembered" sections need more references. After these are addressed, I'll be happy to change my vote to keep. Green451 19:02, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
- I found another copy of that photo that is slightly better quality, so I have uploaded it (with source information) and replaced the existing picture. That should knock off that concern. -- JamesTeterenko 04:38, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
- Conditional Keep Impressive work, getting all that referencing done so quickly. That is certainly my major concern dealt with. I'll take another look at the article as a whole and see if anything else strikes me, but once Green451's concerns are dealt with I see no reason why this should not remain a FA.
- Please read the instructions at WP:FAR; Keep or Remove are not declared during the review phase, which is for discussing deficiencies or improvements. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:21, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
- Pah, bureaucracy - WP:IAR :) --Xdamrtalk 23:53, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment, I started, but too much to do. WP:MSH issues, massive redlinks in dates in refs need to be fixed, inline URLs on refs need to be fixed, WP:DASH problems in refs, mixed citation and cite templates give inconsistent results, WP:MOS#Captions punctuation attention needed, and I stopped there. Unlinked dates everywhere. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:59, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
- I started on the refs, but there's a smorgasborg of MOS fixes needed; maybe someone else has more time to continue. The cite templates and the old (yuk) citation template handle dates differently, which invalidates global replace. Also see MOS:CAPS#All caps, WP:MOS#Images (size). I haven't looked at the prose or citation level yet because I got stuck in basic cleanup. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:19, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
- Good: Sandy is dealing with these minor matters herself, rather than insisting that others do so; this is the right collegial spirit, which not all reviewers have. Please do look at the prose and references first, however; if they need to be rewritten, Sandy's cleanup will be wasted. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:42, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
- I started on the refs, but there's a smorgasborg of MOS fixes needed; maybe someone else has more time to continue. The cite templates and the old (yuk) citation template handle dates differently, which invalidates global replace. Also see MOS:CAPS#All caps, WP:MOS#Images (size). I haven't looked at the prose or citation level yet because I got stuck in basic cleanup. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:19, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
- Second look; still a smorgasborg. I got through about half of the article, but there are still MOS issues, problems in the citations, missing publishers, and I found multiple instances of non-reliable sources or info not verified by sources.[3] Sustained work still needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:32, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
FARC commentary
edit- Suggested FA criteria concerns are references and their formatting (1c, 2c) and MoS issues (2). Marskell 19:25, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
- Stalled? No progress since earlier comments.[4] Uncited sections, for example, Riel reconsidered is uncited, and Arts, literature and popular culture and Commemoration are two sections covering the same territory that could be merged with trivia reduced. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:55, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
- MOS breach: logical punctuation required: "Father of Manitoba." (done punctuation moved outside of parenthesis)
- Hard to believe he's only 14 yo in the pic.
- "Red River Rebellion"—Why the last upper-case R? (done is the title of an event)
- "Fifty", yet "48"—which is it to be, words or numerals? (done words)
- What kind of $? Specify on first occurrence. (done Canadian Currency)
- Do we really need to link "United States"? And "whisky"? Sift through and weed out all trivial links. Tony (talk) 14:41, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- Retain if these are the worst that can be said against it.
- Red River Rebellion is a proper name, like, say, "War of 1812"; both should so capped.
- The rest of this MOScruft should be ignored, like the page itself. I regret that Tony feels the need to ride his hobbyhorses here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:15, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
- I regret the same of you. Marskell 12:31, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
- Replaced and / or added citations for tags covering unverifiable citations, and tags for facts needing citations. SriMesh | talk 04:10, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Comment Citations are required in several places:
- "credited with ending the monopoly," Credited by whom?
- p.13
- "Riel was therefore well known in the Red River."
- pp. 13,16, 17
- "The Riels were noted for their devout Catholicism and strong family ties." Noted by whom?
- pp. 19-20
- "Descriptions of him at this time" Described by whom?
- p.26-8. His contemporaries, but the source does not say which. Stanley has several pages on Riel at Montreal college, and cites descriptions by different classmates, but the moodiness is mentioned without a name.
- "but his fiancée’s family opposed her involvement with a Métis,"
- p.33
- "Compounding this disappointment, Riel found legal work unpleasant,"
- p.33
- "He is believed to have worked odd jobs in Chicago, Illinois" Believed by whom?
- The account of his fellow-student Louis Schmidt, and some other sources which Stanley does not name. p.34
This is just in the first section. The remainder of the article similarly needs extra citations. DrKiernan 11:16, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you for finally raising substantive issues; it's a pity it's so late in the process. Most of these appear to be the consensus story of Riel's early life; they are largely supported by Dict. of Canadian Biography, the first external link, the devoutness of his parents is also mentioned here, under the second. As a curious reader, I would consider the life by George Stanley (which is mentioned as the principal source) to be the obvious place to check; I have not yet done so. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:11, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
- Now that the Teller matter is resolved, I will see if I can lay hands on a copy of Stanley. This reads like it was written out of one principal source, presumably that. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:10, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
- It was. I have rephrased slightly, and noted the page numbers from Stanley above. Since I was doing so, I added a collective note to the end of the section; but I'm not sure this aids the reader more than the general note in the bibliography. We can add additional such notes to the end of each section, I suppose, but why?
- Now that the Teller matter is resolved, I will see if I can lay hands on a copy of Stanley. This reads like it was written out of one principal source, presumably that. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:10, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
- A reader with Stanley's book should be able to find any such reference in less than 5 minutes, note or no note; one without it will not actually be helped by any footnote. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:05, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks, I have struck my objection but need to look over the rest of the article before switching to keep. DrKiernan (talk) 09:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
- Keep The "Riel reconsidered" and "Commemmoration" sections could do with a copy-edit and some of the websites used as footnotes don't qualify, in my opinion, as reliable sources (they're self-published). However, the information in the article seems to correlate well with the one reliable biography that I have looked at. DrKiernan (talk) 15:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks, I have struck my objection but need to look over the rest of the article before switching to keep. DrKiernan (talk) 09:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
- Will someone please deal with the WP:OVERLINKing? Samples. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:05, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
- Note I will be giving this article extra time because I feel that the concerns raised are minor and can be addressed in a short amount of time. Joelito (talk) 02:04, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
- Remove—Awkward prose, such as these, from just one small section:
- "The majority population"
- "a scholar of science"?
- "progressed to the point of Riel having signed a contract of marriage"—ouch.
- Unencyclopedic vagueness (also a MOS no-no): "He remained in Montreal for a period". Insults our readers. Same for "and perhaps as early as 1866 he had resolved to leave Quebec"—Perhaps? Where's the reference, or is it the whim of a WPian editor?
- Stanley, again, p. 33. The "period" could be refined, to "for somewhat over a year", but the vaguemess reflects the vagueness of the source, which itself is plainly dealing with inadequate evidence. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:05, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
PS Sandy, like you, is under no obligation to perform any work at all on nominations, PMA. Tony (talk) 13:53, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
- ??? I praised her for acting to improve the encyclopedia. I stand by that praise. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:15, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Remove; although Joelito allowed extra time,these are the only changes since my last comment several weeks ago, before Tony's comments. There are still prose issues, large amounts of uncited text, and MOS breaches as mentioned (for example, WP:MOSDATE links needed, and WP:OVERLINKing not addressed). Nothing happening here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)- Always ignore MOScruft. This case is aggravated by the irrelevance of the complaints here made to the quality of the article; also by the lack of actually relevant examples. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
This can still be saved. I've added three refs (two per above) and also three fact requests. The over-linking is quite bad and I've trimmed some. If there specific prose examples, I'll edit myself. Marskell (talk) 10:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- ah, ha, in addition to your work, the good Doc Kiernan has also been in there,[5] so I can now strike my Oppose. Nice work! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:57, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- Closing: I'm going to go ahead and keep this; I know Joel was leaning that way. Stray sentences can still be found but this is within criteria in general, especially after the work today. The one thing that stands out is the first paragraph of "Reconsidered". It does, in-phrase, cite historians, and the content isn't particularly drastic or challengeable (to a Canadian). So good. Marskell (talk) 19:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. 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 11:42, 6 December 2007.
Review commentary
editNB:No Wikiprojects appear to have been informed of this nomination.- Notifications left at WP Chicago, WP Physics, WP Eastern Europe and WP BIO. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:11, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
- Notifications left at Fastfission SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:14, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
I found this article to lack sources on big pieces of text. Since this person is a controversial figure, I consider sources in this article paramount. Daimanta 18:54, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Example:
From: "He spent two years at the University of Göttingen[...]" to "[...]valuable to scientists who were studying missile re-entry."
18 lines of text and no source. I consider this unacceptable. Daimanta 18:57, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- That covers Teller's CV; (aside from the assertion that the Jahn-Teller effect was his most significant research, which would need to be toned down even if there were a note - as I have done) please specify what assertions in the section are challenged or likely to be challenged.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:36, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Ok, something controversial:
"During the Manhattan Project, Teller also advocated the development of a bomb using uranium hydride, which many of his fellow theorists said would be unlikely to work. At Livermore, Teller continued work on the hydride bomb, and the result was a dud. Ulam once wrote to a colleague about an idea he had shared with Teller: "Edward is full of enthusiasm about these possibilities; this is perhaps an indication they will not work." Fermi once said that Teller was the only monomaniac he knew who had several manias." (No sources)
The part about the working on the hydride is not the most important but the mania part can be damaging to the persona of Mr. Teller. I consider that part very controversial without the proper sources. Regards, Daimanta 20:16, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
- Both quotes, I find, are from Herken; Fermi on p. 25, Ulam on 137. In fact, this entire article is probably largely drawn from Herken, the only biography in the sources; there's a searchable copy on Google Books. Enjoy. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Another pita I have with this article is the diversity of the citation forms. Sometimes there are mixed with the text, sometimes they point to a footnote. This article looks chaotic in that aspect. Regards, Daimanta 23:38, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
- Then do amend and improve the article; it's not mine, I just found a couple of easy sources. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:00, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
- Why should I fix something that is not mine and broken? It pains me that good articles get rejected for FA-status because of small imperfections, while this article is pretty much given an easy treatment. If WP wants to keep the standards high, it should keep it high. This policy is simply unfair and confusing for people who want to know what a proper article is. Regards, Daimanta 00:08, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
- Because it's a service to the encyclopedia. At least put {{cn}} tags. Campaigning to deprive an article of its little gold star, when no one is defending it, is a waste of typing.
- The other problem with FA is that it accepts many articles worse than this one; so far, even with flaws, this is better than many we now promote. Certainly, the FA list is not, and is never likely to be, the model of a perfect article.
- I agree that FA is a broken and irresponsible system; its standards vary randomly, and it is failing. What article was wrongly rejected? Perhaps I can help. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:23, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
- Why should I fix something that is not mine and broken? It pains me that good articles get rejected for FA-status because of small imperfections, while this article is pretty much given an easy treatment. If WP wants to keep the standards high, it should keep it high. This policy is simply unfair and confusing for people who want to know what a proper article is. Regards, Daimanta 00:08, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
- Daimanta, will you please follow the instructions at the top of WP:FAR and notify involved editors and relevant WikiProjects? Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:17, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
- I notified the people in the Talk Page of the article. I don't think it's possible to notify the people in the relevant wikiprojects. Regards, Daimanta 14:46, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
- Why? Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics is quite active, and has a talk page; I suspect Eastern Europe is in the same condition. (WP Chicago places its tag by bot, and may have limited real interest in this article.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:22, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
- Ok, it's done. I didn't quite know where to put the notification of the FAR. Regards, Daimanta 20:30, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
- I re-did them using the correct message per the instructions, and notified the main editor. You can click on the links above to see. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:15, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
- Ok, it's done. I didn't quite know where to put the notification of the FAR. Regards, Daimanta 20:30, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
- Why? Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics is quite active, and has a talk page; I suspect Eastern Europe is in the same condition. (WP Chicago places its tag by bot, and may have limited real interest in this article.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:22, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment What does the phrase In 1946, Teller left Los Alamos to return to the University of Chicago. mean since Chicago and the University of Chicago had not been previously mentioned in the article?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 14:11, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- Bad faith nomination. The nominator has explicitly said that they only picked this article out of spite because of another article not getting FA. Articles need to be judged on their own terms, not whether or not you think they are better or worse than a different article. In any case, if there is anything that needs being cited in here, let me know and I'll add citations. Everything that looked reasonably contentious was cited when it was originally written. Much of the citations do come from Herken though there are other books as well (Teller's Memoirs, Goodchild's The Real Dr. Strangelove, etc.). Everything in here is pretty uncontroversial if you have read those biographies and the article as a whole is, in my of course biased opinion, very well balanced in comparison to the way Teller is usually portrayed in popular media. --Fastfission 15:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- Not true, I stumbled on this article and I simply could not believe that this was FA-class. This is not maliciously nominated, I simply though that this article should have never become FA in the first place and seeing that the article has not been improved to FA-status after the nomination, I though that the only logical course of action was to do a peer-review. If you measure up the current FA criteria to the standards in this article, it's simply not worthy. I am not here to waste my time on some sort of quest(namely proving a point about FA articles or something), I am simply trying to improve Wikipedia to the best of my knowledge. Regards, Daimanta 16:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- The article as nominated would fail at WP:GAR, IMO. Please WP:AGF.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 20:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- Exactly my point, this article is maybe not even GA worthy and that's pretty sad. Regards, Daimanta 22:07, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- Not actionable. Examples, please. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:45, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
- Exactly my point, this article is maybe not even GA worthy and that's pretty sad. Regards, Daimanta 22:07, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- The article as nominated would fail at WP:GAR, IMO. Please WP:AGF.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 20:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- Not true, I stumbled on this article and I simply could not believe that this was FA-class. This is not maliciously nominated, I simply though that this article should have never become FA in the first place and seeing that the article has not been improved to FA-status after the nomination, I though that the only logical course of action was to do a peer-review. If you measure up the current FA criteria to the standards in this article, it's simply not worthy. I am not here to waste my time on some sort of quest(namely proving a point about FA articles or something), I am simply trying to improve Wikipedia to the best of my knowledge. Regards, Daimanta 16:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Also note: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Edward_Teller_Washington_Post_Ad.jpg has no fair use rationale. This is a serious offence considering that the article has FA-status. Regards, Daimanta 22:47, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Done (by FastFission). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:45, 2 November 2007 (UTC)- Yeah, what are you talking about, a "serious offence"? It has had a paragraph rationale about its copyright status as the description since it was uploaded over two years ago. Are you reading things or just looking for template icons? If you've got a problem with the rationale as given, feel free to challenge it, but I wouldn't be surprised if I knew more about U.S. fair use law than you do. A newspaper ad of that sort, being used in an article about the subject of the ad and in reference to the publication of the ad, is a pretty solid fair use claim. --16:12, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
As a general and actionable guideline, (which is pretty much a standard at WP:FAC), I would like to see at least one citation per paragraph.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 21:18, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
- Paragraphs which have matter which is challenged or likely to be challenged should have references. Paragraphs which do not, need not; and paragraphs which are trivially verifiable in Herken should be cut some slack. (After all, it is, by hypothesis, as easy to verify them as with a page number in Herken.)
- Footnote counters should be ignored, like other efforts to substitute an easy and irrelevant standard for the hard work of actually reviewing an article, which Diamanta has begun, and no-one else has attempted. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:02, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
- Unless someone has anything specific wrong with this, can we close this down already? Either take the time to come up with legitimate gripes, or don't piss on other people's work. The only things which are not cited are purely CV or otherwise things that nobody is going to challenge who knows a thing about the subject matter. Simply saying "this would not pass X or Y" is not an argument, is not in the spirit of these things, and is not respectful at all of the time that other people have put into an article like this. It passed FA once, it should have some benefit of the doubt unless you have a real, actionable problem with it. Mere citation counting is ridiculous and a parody of academic standards. Legitimate issues and questions I can deal with just fine, but this kind of petty nonsense is just devalues everyone's time and is corroding to the entire Wiki system of production (people's time, people's emotions). --Fastfission 16:12, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
- Comment, lots of cleanup needed here. In addition to concerns already expressed, please correct the WP:MOS breaches. Overlinking of solo years (see WP:MOSDATE), WP:OVERLINKing in general of common terms known to English speakers, see WP:MOS#Captions regarding punctuation of sentence fragments, see WP:MSH regarding section headings, correct mixed reference style per WP:WIAFA consistent citation style (some are cite.php some are Harvard type), inconsistent use of WP:DASHes (some are spaced, some not), incorrect use of WP:MOSBOLD in citations, incorrect use of WP:ITALICs (newspaper, not the article), and incorrectly formatted citations including bluelinked URLs (please see WP:CITE/ES). Also, stubby, one-sentence paragraph: "In 1946, Teller left Los Alamos to go to the University of Chicago." I haven't checked in detail yet, but I suspect there may be definitions and technical terms that are underlinked; this should be checked once everything else is complete. Also, please review the external links to make sure that all comply with WP:EL, WP:RS. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:15, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
- Gawd, so the biggest problems now are minor MOS ones (dates, dashes, linking), in an article where much of the editing was done before the MOS had become a rigid system of laws? Fine—I'll convert the dashes! But this is ridiculous, insulting, irritating. Why even bother WRITING a featured article if someday people are going to complain that the dashes are inconsistent! --Fastfission 05:52, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
FARC commentary
edit- Suggested FA criteria concerns are citations (1c), and MoS issues (2). Marskell 07:31, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
- Retain. Meets the criteria to me. In the future, please try to retain the good faith of the original FA contributors by avoiding commentary like "not worthy" and "simply could not believe that this was FA-class". This should be go without saying in the FAR process. –Outriggr § 01:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
- Keep featured: without knowing much about the subject other than having read Richard Rhodes, all the questionable claims seem to be cited satisfactorily. I didn't see any formatting issues that materially affected the quality of the piece. My only qualm was that the sections about Operation Plowshare, 3MI, and SDI are a surprisingly heavy focus of the article. Not having read a biography of Teller it's difficult to know how his life is usually addressed but my sense was that most of what he is really known for occurred before 1955. Christopher Parham (talk) 02:18, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Neutralweak delist: I still think each paragraph should have at least one citation. It is not because I am counting citations. It is also not because I think there are significant questionable claims lacking citations. I just feel that by definition, WP is a tertiary resource, meaning everything we include is something said by a reliable secondary source. It almost impossible for an article to have a feel that everything it claims has been said by a reliable secondary source if at least one citation does not appear in each paragraph.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 23:10, 20 November 2007 (UTC)- In brief, our actual citation policies don't matter; neither do the actual standards of FA; it doesn't have the right feel, according to a standard a hanfful of Wikipedians have made up and none of our readers know about. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 07:06, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
- Comment If you want to push, I could cite WP:ATT, WP:V and WP:RS, but I think the article is pretty good. I would just like to see a few more citations.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 21:02, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Let me just state that I have tremendous respect for the caliber of the research and its level of detail as well as for the general organization and content of the article. I also respect your zeal and concern for the status of the article. However, in cases where I do not believe that every notable fact is cited, I generally draw the line for sufficiency at whether every paragraph has at least one citations. Special consideration may be given for an article that has one or two uncited paragraphs. However, a general pattern of paragraphs will consistently draw a negative review at WP:FAR and WP:GAR. I personally, feel this article should be delisted, but its overall quality makes me hesitate to give stronger opposition.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 13:23, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
- Citations for what in particular? There may well be some point that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and is neither cited nor obvious. If so, it would be a service to point it out. But footnotes are not a matter where ladling more in at random serves any purpose. (Actually, it serves one: many of our worst articles have the most footnotes, because some editor has collected quotations out of context which appear to support his POV. We just delisted one of those.) I could, probably justifiably, add in Herken passim at the end of every paragraph, but why? (This would indeed be sufficient information for a competent reader to find the reference; Herken has a voluminous index. Since the index is online, I could even crib the numbers; but again, would this be a contribution to Wikipedia?) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:38, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
- My zeal and concern is for FA itself; I didn't write this article. It could be a meaningful evaluation; passing through FAC and FAR could be genuine chances to improve the articles that suffer them. But reviews which do not actually involve reading and understanding the article are disruptive to both purposes. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:36, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
- Again I just have to express my opinion that if an article has 4 consecutive paragraphs without a citation the article has a problem. Either it is poorly organized with several choppy paragraphs that should be merged, or it has paragraphs with independent ideas that should express important claims or ideas. On principle without reviewing the consecutive uncited sections again, I will just affirm a weak delist. This is nothing against the article which I have contributed cited claims to. I like the article a lot. It probably the first WP:CHICAGO WP:FAR article that I have gone through the effort to add cited claims to. However, I still think it is below par for FA. That is my opinion. It is a great article, but not WP's best.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 22:57, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
- In brief, our actual citation policies don't matter; neither do the actual standards of FA; it doesn't have the right feel, according to a standard a hanfful of Wikipedians have made up and none of our readers know about. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 07:06, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
- Strong retain. If Sandy wants to add and remove periods in the captions, she should do so; but none of that jargon makes a difference between this article and the current standard of promotion (which should be the test here); it has even less to do with "our best work". (Most of it is not even actionable, with no examples given.) If anything can be found which needs citation, that would be actionable; but numbers of footnotes are not. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:36, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
- Strong remove. Pity—I'd like to see this survive, but there are MOS breaches aplenty, poor writing style, and unencyclopedic tone in places. Here are just a few examples:
- "Avid advocate" our readers will trip over (Fowler called this type of thing a jingle.)
- "Perhaps", in the lead, too, is attitudinal and doesn't belong in an objective article.
- "Theoretical Physics division at the then-secret Los Alamos laboratory"—Capitalisation?
- "Apparently, Teller also managed to irk his neighbors by playing the piano late in the night. However, Teller also made some valuable contributions to bomb research, especially in the elucidation of the implosion mechanism." Both "alsos" and "some" are redundant. "Apparently" makes it a target for a reference citation. "Bomb research" could be improved.
Is anyone working on it? Tony (talk) 14:34, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
- Let's see.
- "Avid advocate" may be too clever for its own good; but it doesn't trip all readers (I hadn't noticed it). It can certainly be replaced, but since both words are right separately, I don't see how to at the moment.
- Done Replaced with "vigorous advocate", which is at least no worse; this still fails to impress me as a sample of bad writing. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:11, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
- "Perhaps" in leads is the sign of ä noteworthy, but disputed, assertion, which this is. This is a summary of a sourced, and accurate, paragraph below.
- "division" and "laboratory" are probably right; they're descriptions, not names. Had these organizations been named in 1943? It would have been a security breach.
- The second also is indeed redundant; there may be a case that the first is misplaced, but Teller managed to irk his neighbors also... is not much of an improvement.
- I suppose splitting the infinitive (managed to also irk) is best here; but really this is not a difference worth demoting either. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:46, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
- One half out of four. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 07:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
- "Avid advocate" may be too clever for its own good; but it doesn't trip all readers (I hadn't noticed it). It can certainly be replaced, but since both words are right separately, I don't see how to at the moment.
- Let's see.
- What's a pity is that none of those things constitute a "strong remove". The edit history, incidentally, is what shows if someone is working on an article. I had been rather noncommittally combining refs, trying to add a few inline citations, changing some style items, and attempting to offset the unfortunate tone of this nom with a few comments addressed toward the main contributor, whatever that was worth. Some rhetoric, sure, but scarcely so in comparison to the accepted Statler & Waldorfian FAR style. ¶ What I can tell you is that I certainly wouldn't continue now. Did you mean to be a de-motivator? It's very easy to read you that way. The difficulty here is the vanishingly small number of editors who are willing to put a significant effort into referencing, copyediting, or in any way improving a FAR nomination just so that maybe "the work" is sufficient to get the self-selecting balcony to change their "strong remove"s—especially when "the work" often has little to do with the article qua article. ¶ It's time to un-watchlist this page, as it is usually a downer. Let's pick one example: Anne Frank has 18 inline citations. That's "not enough", and in FAR-speak, this translates to "not referenced from a fact to fact basis" (whatever that means) and "This reason alone brings the validity of the article into question"—wow! Legitimate arguments or not, it doesn't matter—the train has now left the station: each reviewer who looks for the one thing they don't like will find it, and say "remove". So, relatively accomplished, encyclopedic FAs must perform arbitrary labors determined by a group even thinner in numbers than in FAC review, or have their merit badge removed—with the largely unrecognized consequence that "our best work" continues to skew toward the margin. Agitated but in earnest, –Outriggr § 23:26, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
- First, this doesn't seem to me to be either a strong retain or a strong remove at the moment. A citation should cover everything behind it until the previous citation. Two citations might be a sentence apart or two paragraphs apart. (Certainly any solely numeric rule, such as "one per paragraph," doesn't make sense.) If Outriggr or others can confidently say that's the case here, it's in keep territory.
- The "unfortunate tone" is being repeated across multiple reviews because (at least from where I'm sitting) PMA's desire to put Tony through the Wikipedia equivalent of water torture has become pathological. Apparently, everything that comes to FAC these days is terrible but everthing that comes to FAR should be retained even where the original nominator is gone and even where there isn't a single inline citation. Whatever.
- Outrigger, don't be glum. You're among the best we have and any further work on this one will not be wasted. I don't think Tony meant to offend. Marskell (talk) 15:03, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
- Marskell, hello. Thanks for the note: I will leave a brief reply here as I know we are getting into talk-page stuff, yet I don't want to restart the debates. Two points I want to make in follow-up: a) When it comes to envisioning "wikipedia's best work", philosophies can differ drastically. Editors who don't share the dominant approach to FAR have shown up periodically, make perfectly valid points, but don't stick around. I can't pretend I really understand or like the dominant approach to FA reviews, and if this lumps me in with grumps, trolls, or people who want exceptions made, well, that's beyond my control. The skew here, as I see it, is to pick old articles (and "pick" is really a key word here, I think) based on formalisms, when a close review of more "current" articles might show them lacking as much or more in the same, or other, areas; it might show them lacking in ways that aren't amenable to one-sentence drive-by nominations that are made, I'm not sure why, by users who don't really understand the inherently uncomfortable process they're putting in motion, with sometimes real effects on editors, just because they don't see inline citations. b) Hopefully I don't need to add that I'm not equating any one editor, most especially you, with "what I don't like about FAR". c) Since there is a wiki tendency to imagine off-wiki communications that sway editor groups and such, I should add that I have never shared a word off-wiki (or on-wiki, in most cases) with the writer of the article under review, PMA, or others whose opinions I may appear to be sharing. –Outriggr § 05:35, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
- Belated followup. Reviewing this FAR for the first time in several weeks, perhaps the tone got off to a bad start when the nomination was called a "bad faith nomination". WP:AGF and all that. Whether a "bad" or good faith nomination, the point of a featured article review is to review and restore status, not to "punish" or demote articles. To that aim, it is unfortunate that PMA continues to mislead nominators about the process, the criteria, and the goals. WP:WIAFA includes item 2, compliance with the manual of style, no matter how much PMA objects and disrupts. The only question is will others do this work, or will some of the FAR regulars (like Outriggr) have to do it so that the FAR can close, if all else is attended to. FastFission, regarding your comment, "Gawd, so the biggest problems now are minor MOS ones ...", no, I didn't say that. I listed the MOS issues that needed to be attended to during the review "in addition to the other concerns" already expressed. I list them early on, hoping they may get tended to, because if they don't, I'll end up having to do it myself if the article progresses during FAR to the point of being close to saving. Unfortunately, PMA's hobby horse against WP:WIAFA 1c and 2 is now affecting FARs as well as apparently wearing down Tony1, and it really needs to stop. PMA, if you disagree with WP:WIAFA, you should take it up there. Raul has said several times that anything that can be fixed should be fixed, and MOS fixes are easy albeit time-consuming, and worth doing if the prose and citations concerns have progressed enough that the article is worth saving. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:09, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
- If Sandy believes that the purpose of the process is to fix articles, she should at least list such flaws so they can be fixed. (It would be less total work for everybody if she would simply fix them; but that is not required.) Vague references to whole pages of the MOS are useful only for the glorious purpose of taking the little gold star away. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:46, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
- Belated followup. Reviewing this FAR for the first time in several weeks, perhaps the tone got off to a bad start when the nomination was called a "bad faith nomination". WP:AGF and all that. Whether a "bad" or good faith nomination, the point of a featured article review is to review and restore status, not to "punish" or demote articles. To that aim, it is unfortunate that PMA continues to mislead nominators about the process, the criteria, and the goals. WP:WIAFA includes item 2, compliance with the manual of style, no matter how much PMA objects and disrupts. The only question is will others do this work, or will some of the FAR regulars (like Outriggr) have to do it so that the FAR can close, if all else is attended to. FastFission, regarding your comment, "Gawd, so the biggest problems now are minor MOS ones ...", no, I didn't say that. I listed the MOS issues that needed to be attended to during the review "in addition to the other concerns" already expressed. I list them early on, hoping they may get tended to, because if they don't, I'll end up having to do it myself if the article progresses during FAR to the point of being close to saving. Unfortunately, PMA's hobby horse against WP:WIAFA 1c and 2 is now affecting FARs as well as apparently wearing down Tony1, and it really needs to stop. PMA, if you disagree with WP:WIAFA, you should take it up there. Raul has said several times that anything that can be fixed should be fixed, and MOS fixes are easy albeit time-consuming, and worth doing if the prose and citations concerns have progressed enough that the article is worth saving. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:09, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
- Can the article consistently use either hydrogen bomb or H-bomb, or stick with H-bomb after defining and linking the acronym on the first occurrence? It uses them interchangeably, and later introduces Teller-Ulam design. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:59, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
- There are a lot of statements similar to:
After the Oppenheimer controversy, Teller became ostracized by much of the scientific community, but for obvious reasons was still quite welcome in the government and military science circles.
- which should be cited. The article frequently discusses issues among the various scientists, and we need to know who is saying what about whom; attribution is needed. Also:
The political climate and revolutions in Hungary during his youth instilled a deep hatred for both Communism and Fascism in Teller.
- Further citation needs (samples only):
- Strategic Defense Initiative section is undercited and underattributed
- Example: Many scientists opposed strategic defense on moral or political rather than purely technical grounds.
He was also rumored to be the inspiration for the character of Dr. Strangelove in Stanley Kubrick's 1964 satirical film of the same name (other inspirations have been speculated to be RAND theorist Herman Kahn, rocket scientist Wernher von Braun, and Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara).The piano playing in the night statement also stands out as strangely unattributed.
Teller died in Stanford; considering his work was associated with Berkeley/Livermore, we are given no idea why he was at Stanford. Did he happen to be hospitalized at Stanford University Hospital, was he living in Palo Alto or Menlo Park, or was he faculty? A jump from the UC system to Stanford stands out and needs explanation.Found, cited[8], resolved. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:36, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
- After minor cleanup, I think the article would benefit from stronger citation (it's not that hard to cite things like Time magazine People of the Year, is it?), but it's not worth shouting over. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:31, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
- Can you add some {{cn}}s? Those would be actionable, and can be either cited or discussed. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:09, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
- Outriggr, I gave examples, not a full review. They alone probably don't constitute a case for removal, but what they represent throughout the text does. Tony (talk) 04:56, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
- Neutral, when I nominated this article for a FAR I had some strong objections against the lack of citations and mixture of ways of signing this article. Since I nominated this article it has improved and I am no longer opposed to it remaining FA. However, Tony1 has pointed out some gaps in the article and untill they are resolved I will remain neutral on the assessment of this article. Regards, Daimanta (talk) 11:26, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
- Conditional retain. I'm a card-carrying member of the pro-inline cites club. But I have to say... the general trend toward bitterness and animosity on this subject is an outlook which I no longer share and instead actively fear. I'm weary of the factions that spring up over issues such as these. I'm soapboxing because I think that FA-related forums are the backbone of Wikipedia, and should be the place where an attempt is made to set a tone of congenial disagreement... having said all that... Wikipedia is not an expert; it's a tertiary source. It is not qualified to look into the hearts and minds of people and explain the contents therein. I put a few {{cn}} tags in spots that seemed to be examples of mind-reading, or where words were being put in peoples' mouths, or where imputations/accusations were being made. I put the tags there...not because I'm a tag-zealot, but because Wikipedia accidentally misrepresents itself as something other than a tertiary source when such statements remain uncited... I didn't see the poor writing that Tony saw, but he is far better at that than I am (or perhaps the text has been improved). I'm reasonably well-educated and an avid reader, and only the one-sentence paragraph ("In 1946, Teller left Los Alamos to go to the University of Chicago") threw me for a loop. So I'd like to humbly ask that the dedicated edtors of this article address the {{cn}} tags, and aside from that, I see no reason not to Retain. Ling.Nut (talk) 15:10, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
- Weary is the word. The persistent attack on and disruption of FAR, and questioning of good faith motives here, needs to be addressed. After I left a list of citation needs and issues I'd like to see addressed (above) and after I went in and did the MOS cleanup, PMA left these remarks to me,[9] and this sarcastic remark to Tony.[10] I chuckle at being continually told by PMA to fix things myself at FAR, when I've deen doing just that for well over a year. But the sarcasm is wearing thin and affecting FAR overall. This article is just about over the hump, but we can get there faster without the sarcasm. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:36, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
- Sandy, disagreement isn't sarcasm. Some of Tony's alleged flaws aren't actually flawed; one is venial; the rest are trivial.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:41, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- By the way, I was able to cite part of the list of accolades and awards to the Stanford obit, but not all. I'll work on it later unless someone else gets to it first. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:42, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
- Struck a few more above, tagged a couple of things that need clarification because the Stanford news obit slightly disagrees, will try to do more later unless someone else gets to them first. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you, Ling.Nut.; these {{cn}}s are reasonable, actionable, and constructive. I will consult Herken tomorrow. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:54, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- Weary is the word. The persistent attack on and disruption of FAR, and questioning of good faith motives here, needs to be addressed. After I left a list of citation needs and issues I'd like to see addressed (above) and after I went in and did the MOS cleanup, PMA left these remarks to me,[9] and this sarcastic remark to Tony.[10] I chuckle at being continually told by PMA to fix things myself at FAR, when I've deen doing just that for well over a year. But the sarcasm is wearing thin and affecting FAR overall. This article is just about over the hump, but we can get there faster without the sarcasm. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:36, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
- Two steps forward, one backward. Citations are being added, but they are to book sources without page numbers. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:41, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
- Sandy appears to be astray in Time. There were book references without page numbers before this article was nominated for review; I believe all the recent notes have included page numbers.
- More importantly, this is a venial matter; like most of this review, it's about appearance, rather than any real question of verifiability, or of reader service. Any reader who finds a footnote saying "Herken 2002", for example, must find a copy and check the index. Of these two, finding the copy is the hard part; Herken has a voluminous index. Citing a page will not help if he has a different edition; and I believe Herken is out in paperback.
- Perhaps we can, and should, resolve this, by renaming this entire process WP:Decorative articles or WP:Pretty articles, and dropping the pretense that it has more than a tangential relation with article quality. I will agree that footnotes to every paragraph, even those dealing with Teller's CV before 1941 (on which all sources agree) would be prettier. They are no service to the encyclopedia, but editors need hobbies, and this is no worse than Esperanza. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- STRONG DELIST It seems you enjoy arguing by convenience. this is inappropriate. I found interesting points in the article that I would like to see sourced in a way that makes them attributable to a reliable source as opposed to a matter of opinion of the author. You can keep propounding your new word of the day as if it makes the interesting point any more verifyable without the citation. There are two or three other points I would like to see sourced. It is not an attempt to make the article pretty. These are interesting facts (I presume) that I would like to learn more about. A well written article would tell me where I can do this with a proper inline cite. From the sounds of things you are espousing support for general references for such claims. On WP I have had to track down facts for several articles. Haystacks (Monet) took four turns at WP:GAC before getting promoted for this very reason. It is no longer proper on WP just to name some books and say "Go FISH". All the requested citations were actionable. Since you removed the three I requested in good faith I am going to request them again and may look more closely and at least one more.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 20:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- Um, TonyTheTiger, try not to take out your frustrations with PMA on the article, particularly when others may be willing to work on the sourcing. I've been able to verify a good deal of the text by reading online sources; you might be able to add some yourself. It's a shame if someone has the book in front of them and is in a position to add a correct citation but doesn't just add the page number while it can be done to save other editors from having to look it up, but I don't see the logic in reacting to PMA's editing by voting against the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- Keep in mind my frustration is not with him as an individual or in any way related to other dealings with him on WP. My frustration is with the idiocy of believing the proper way to clean up {{fact}} tags on WP is to remove them. I have since the beginning said I am in favor of the article for its quality and encyclopedic value, but have problems with its verifyability. I then said I could overlook an occaisional uncited paragraph, but that long sequences of consecutive uncited paragraphs that present distinct facts is objectionable. Then, I mentioned more specifically that four in a row was objectionable. In general, I would say consecutive paragraphs with distinct facts that need to be attributed so that they do not constitute apparent WP:OR is objectionable. Like I said before, I have had to fold up the tent on GACs in the past because I just had books for people to fish in for refs. We don't want fishing book refs at the end of the article and that is why I now object. I had hoped for a good faith effort to eliminate sequences of unsourced paragraphs. Now, I am dealing with flaunting of the fact that there is not going to be removal of such citations. I am not requesting that PMA add them, but that anyone who is willing add them. If you are that is fine. I continue to object to an article with sequences of unsourced paragraphs being described as among WPs best as we enter 2008. I will go back to weak delist with one or two more of the consecutive paragraphs being cited properly.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 16:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
- I really don't care whether this edit is in good faith; I do care that it disrupts Wikipedia by demanding pointless citations for matters which can be found in any of the works cited, which are in full consensus on Teller's career before 1941; I'm looking through them all to answer Lingnut's much better founded requests. (Most of them can be found in Teller's Britannica entry, for Heaven's sake.) For more information on the subject, Tony need only read any one of them; it is evident he has not bothered to look at them. (Goodchild attempts to explain the actual physics Teller was doing, but all of them mention Gamow, for example.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
- Done Added two books (of opposite tendency) which have the same account of Teller between 1926 and 1941, an on-line source, and the relevant section of Teller's memoirs. At this point, it comes down to Fastfission's question: does FA have anything to do with the article as article? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
- Furthermore, it makes little sense to say I know where the citations can be found so I will remove the {{fact}} tags and assume the reader does too. If the reader knew he could find everything he wanted elsewhere he would not be reading WP. I am not registered a Britannica and should not have to be to understand the claims are not WP:OR. Wouldn't it be better for the project to properly cite the article than to for people to say it is cited as can be found in the 42nd paragraph of the FAR discussion.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 21:26, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
- Um, TonyTheTiger, try not to take out your frustrations with PMA on the article, particularly when others may be willing to work on the sourcing. I've been able to verify a good deal of the text by reading online sources; you might be able to add some yourself. It's a shame if someone has the book in front of them and is in a position to add a correct citation but doesn't just add the page number while it can be done to save other editors from having to look it up, but I don't see the logic in reacting to PMA's editing by voting against the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- STRONG DELIST It seems you enjoy arguing by convenience. this is inappropriate. I found interesting points in the article that I would like to see sourced in a way that makes them attributable to a reliable source as opposed to a matter of opinion of the author. You can keep propounding your new word of the day as if it makes the interesting point any more verifyable without the citation. There are two or three other points I would like to see sourced. It is not an attempt to make the article pretty. These are interesting facts (I presume) that I would like to learn more about. A well written article would tell me where I can do this with a proper inline cite. From the sounds of things you are espousing support for general references for such claims. On WP I have had to track down facts for several articles. Haystacks (Monet) took four turns at WP:GAC before getting promoted for this very reason. It is no longer proper on WP just to name some books and say "Go FISH". All the requested citations were actionable. Since you removed the three I requested in good faith I am going to request them again and may look more closely and at least one more.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 20:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- If the reader finds anything on Wikipedia that he cannot find elsewhere, that's Original Research. If FA has nothing to do with our core policies, it should be closed down — or at best left as an irrelevant hobby to keep bad editors out of article space. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:46, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
- You continue to have a fundamental misunderstanding of what WP:OR is. Reread the third and especially the fourth bulletpoint at WP:OR and maybe you will understand why it is no longer appropriate to leave fishing book references.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 14:59, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- This would be the Appeal to Irrelevant Authority. The paragraphs in question are:
- Our verifiability policy (V) demands that information and notable views presented in articles be drawn from appropriate, reliable sources.
- Compliance with our Verifiability Policy and our cite sources guideline is the best way to ensure that you do not violate our NOR policy. In short, the only way to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research is to cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article; the only way to demonstrate that you are not inserting your own POV is to represent these sources and the views they reflect accurately.
- I fully agree with these sentiments. Edward Teller, however, is drawn from reliable authorities, as listed - in fact, most, and of those the most reliable, of the books written on Teller; it does report them accurately; and they are cited. None of this supports the one-footnote-per-paragraph standard, however. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:13, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- You continue to have a fundamental misunderstanding of what WP:OR is. Reread the third and especially the fourth bulletpoint at WP:OR and maybe you will understand why it is no longer appropriate to leave fishing book references.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 14:59, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- If the reader finds anything on Wikipedia that he cannot find elsewhere, that's Original Research. If FA has nothing to do with our core policies, it should be closed down — or at best left as an irrelevant hobby to keep bad editors out of article space. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:46, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
- Perhaps we can, and should, resolve this, by renaming this entire process WP:Decorative articles or WP:Pretty articles, and dropping the pretense that it has more than a tangential relation with article quality. I will agree that footnotes to every paragraph, even those dealing with Teller's CV before 1941 (on which all sources agree) would be prettier. They are no service to the encyclopedia, but editors need hobbies, and this is no worse than Esperanza. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
Removed status
edit- 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 19:43, 29 December 2007.
Review commentary
edit- Original nominator left. Messages left at WP LGBT Studies, WP Bio, WP Austria and WP Philosophy. One Night In Hackney303 16:23, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Article fails 1c. Large numbers of "citation needed" tags and huge swathes of text lacking footnoes. One Night In Hackney303 16:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
- Delist - article's lead is also too short for an article of this length. John Carter 16:42, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
- I did some work on the article -- not sure if it's sufficient to bring it over the threshold yet. I'll probably do some more later. — xDanielx T/C 22:39, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
FARC commentary
edit- Suggested FA criteria concern is referencing (1c) and LEAD (2a). Marskell 07:36, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
- Significant progress has been made. If anyone still feels there is cause for removal they ought to speak up with new concerns, but as it stands I don't think there's any case to remove status. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:09, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- Some fixes needed. The WP:LEAD could be expanded to a compelling, stand-alone summary of the entire article. That infobox is horrid; I'm not sure that's within the control of this article, but is all that needed? The External link farm needs serious pruning, see WP:EL, WP:RS, WP:NOT. Citations need to be completed, for example, author and date (John Ezard, February 19, 2005) is missing from Philosopher's rare 'other book' goes on sale. Guardian; publishers are missing on many sources, and some sources are just blue links, sample: ^ http://fog.ccsf.cc.ca.us/~fgati/chapter17.html See WP:CITE/ES. Section heading "Works online" is actually External links, see WP:EL. Image caption, Hitler (far right) and a boy who may be Wittgenstein in a school photograph taken at the Linz Realschule in 1903, according to whom?? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:09, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- Also, please review dead links. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:39, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
- The assertion about the school photograph is (following the link in the caption) from The Jew of Linz by Kimberley Cornish (that is to say, from the book itself, not our article). Whether this is undue weight for the claim, or an adequate source, is another question; but the sourcing is perfectly clear. A footnote would be harmless clutter. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:39, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- Also, please review dead links. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:39, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
- After the opening there are still insufficient references. Pity, because apart from that, it should be retained, I think. Tony (talk) 10:21, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- As elsewhere, this would be actionable, and far more useful, if accompanied by a list of statements which are both likely to challenged and not trivially findable. (This appears to have, like many biographical articles, a single default source; in this case Ray Monk's biography, which I believe to be the most recent scholarly life.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:19, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Unless there is an indication work will begin, this should go. Lead is clearly inadequate, its poorly organized, the citations are spotty, and the infobox really is horrible. We can wait a couple of more days. Marskell (talk) 02:29, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
- I'll see what I can do. It will be difficult to keep the lead down to three paragraphs.
- All the {{cn}} tags have been dealt with, except for two on Steve Reich at the very end; it will be difficult to do anything about them until the holidays are over. As always, a list of points likely to be challenged and not trivially findable would be very useful. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 06:20, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
- Remove Not FA material at the moment. Here is a sampling of problems:
- As stated above, lead should be expanded.
- References need proper formatting. A stand-alone URL is not enough.
- I got rid of URLs... not sure if the reference formatting can be called complete though. — xDanielx T/C\R 08:48, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
- "was said to be unusually adept at whistling lengthy and detailed musical passages." "...and is said to have remarked that he approved of this instrument because it took a proper role in the orchestra." Surely we can do better than unsourced weasel sentences in an FA?
- "Whilst in Cambridge Wittgenstein often liked to go to the cinema." Unsourced, and don't see how this is particularly relevant or notable. Lots of people like going to the cinema. Did it have a profound impact on him?
- Done, referenced. I'd say it merits a sentence, but probably not more. (After all, lots of people were born in 1889...) — xDanielx T/C\R 08:48, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
- "(to the point that he became known to his fellow soldiers as "the man with the gospels")" Needs citation.
- The anecdote about the difficulties between Wittgenstein and publishers in "Developing the Tractatus" could use a citation.
- pp. 176, 203 Monk. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:53, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- Anecdotes about his giving away his inheritance and his time as an elementary teacher in rural Austria ("general suspicion amongst the villagers that he was somewhat mad") need citations.
- Pp.170-1; pp193-209 Monk. (gives a different emphasis than our article, but clearly the same events. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:53, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- "In one meeting Wittgenstein refused to discuss the Tractatus at all, and sat with his back to his guests while he read aloud from the poetry of Rabindranath Tagore." Citation?
- pp. 243 Monk Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:53, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- "grave mistakes" If it's in quotes, it should be cited.
- "Well, God has arrived. I met him on the 5.15 train." Quotation needs citation.
- "What has become clear, at least,..." Why is it that these things have become "clear"? Especially when the sentence ends with the vague "possibly Ben Richards." Sources for these claims?
- Because correspondence has been found and published. For Skinner, pp.401-2 Monk et passim, for Richards, pp. 503-6, for Keith Kirk, p. 426. The uncertainty is in the sources; largely the question of whether the love and sensuality discussed was Platonic, for which Wittgenstein expressed a preference. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:53, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- "claiming that he was the illegitimate son of an "Aryan"." Source?
- "was 1.7 tonnes of gold". Specific stats should be cited.
- Done, referenced. — xDanielx T/C\R 08:56, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
- "The only known fragment of music..." Paragraph seems quite out of place.
- "The work also contains several innovations in logic, including a version of the truth table." "Innovations" implies that he invented some new things; could use further explanation of what these "several" are and a citation that he was the one who invented them.
- The Philosophical Investigations section states that the work had two parts, but does not describe the two. Also, was the second part written by Wittgenstein or the editors? "Added" makes it unclear.
- When quoting from his works, citations should really be provided, especially since the originals were not written in English. Readers ought to know which translation/edition the article is using.
- Since translations of Wittgenstein's works are cited, this is scrupulousness; a competent reader will check the one in the references. In most cases, this is the standard English translation; in some cases, I believe there is only the one. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:59, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, but I don't see the a specific edition cited in the references. All I see are Philosophical Investigations, §__. An yes, there are multiple editions of the translations. But no matter what, quotations require specific citations (which the article neglects to do in some cases ["when he writes in proposition 6.54: ‘My propositions...", "that is, philosophers must “bring words back..."]). Also, I strongly disagree that this somehow assumes that the reader is an incompetent dolt... BuddingJournalist 03:24, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
- The references say Philosophical Investigations, translated by G.E.M. Anscombe (1953); a competent reader will click on the link and see, of course, that this is the original Blackwell Press edition. If someone wants to add that, fine; books from 1953 have no ISBN.
- "Philosophical Transactions II, §64" is the the standard method of citing the work, because both more precise and more useful to the reader than a page; since the section numbers are identical in all editions, including the German originals, they do not require our readers find a specific printing to inquire further. Changing to page numbers would be unhelpful to the reader and harmful to Wikipedia. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:35, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
- "Philosophical Investigations, translated by G.E.M. Anscombe (1953)"...but that's not in the references section...that's in the Important publications section. Does that mean then that whatever is given in the Important publications are the references used to create the article? Quite misleading. The section is intended to just give a list of his publications. Furthermore, I never said anything about page numbers...please don't resort to straw man arguments. I'm asking that whenever specific quotations in English are given, that they cite whichever translation is used. No need for a specific page number. BuddingJournalist 17:35, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, but I don't see the a specific edition cited in the references. All I see are Philosophical Investigations, §__. An yes, there are multiple editions of the translations. But no matter what, quotations require specific citations (which the article neglects to do in some cases ["when he writes in proposition 6.54: ‘My propositions...", "that is, philosophers must “bring words back..."]). Also, I strongly disagree that this somehow assumes that the reader is an incompetent dolt... BuddingJournalist 03:24, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
- Since translations of Wittgenstein's works are cited, this is scrupulousness; a competent reader will check the one in the references. In most cases, this is the standard English translation; in some cases, I believe there is only the one. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:59, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
- Works online is out of place, and implies that he published works online.
- Here I must disagree. BJ is reaching; the adjective asserts only that the works are now online. We are not required to cater to readers who both fail to understand a figure of speech, and do not realize that the internet did not exist in 1951. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:59, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
- OK, but I'd still suggest that this is out of place and better suited as External links. BuddingJournalist 03:24, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
- Nonsense. To merge with External Links renders the article less informative, by requiring the reader to mentally sort what is now physically sorted. This is a small degradation, but why make any? Don't let our guidelines get in the way of writing the encyclopedia. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:35, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
- Not sure what you mean here; I still maintain this would be better suited (and make the article more organized) to have this under an External links. I don't particularly think this puts any added burden on our readers, nor would it make the article any less informative. But this is a small quibble; if you're insistent that this is the perfect way to structure this, then I guess I can't really make you see otherwise. BuddingJournalist 17:35, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
- Nonsense. To merge with External Links renders the article less informative, by requiring the reader to mentally sort what is now physically sorted. This is a small degradation, but why make any? Don't let our guidelines get in the way of writing the encyclopedia. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:35, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
- OK, but I'd still suggest that this is out of place and better suited as External links. BuddingJournalist 03:24, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
- Here I must disagree. BJ is reaching; the adjective asserts only that the works are now online. We are not required to cater to readers who both fail to understand a figure of speech, and do not realize that the internet did not exist in 1951. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:59, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
- Works about Wittgenstein needs formatting cleanup. BuddingJournalist 15:36, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
- About half of these are quite well known, and are doubtless from Monk, which has a copious index. But the list is useful; I have commented on two which assume that the reader is an incompetent dolt, needing protection from his own cluelessness. The remainder should be checked. This is a vast improvement on the vague assertions made heretofore. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:59, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
- Both BJ's new comments here would inconvenience the reader for the sake of our internal guidelines. It is policy to do the opposite. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:35, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
- I have added pages from Monk for some things. Since those on which I was successful took me about 5 minutes each, a reference to Monk as default source is probably just as useful to the reader. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:53, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- Remove, almost two months in, and the article still doesn't even have an adequate lead, has an external link farm, and unformatted references. Just not there, not enough happening to raise this to standard. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- Strong retain. The lead does need work, and there are some incidental citation problems; but this article does not embarass me as many of the ones we now pass do. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:53, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
