Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article review/archive/May 2007

< Wikipedia:Featured article review | archive

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 10:24, 28 May 2007.

Oxyrhynchus

edit

Review commentary

edit
Messages left by LuciferMorgan at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ancient Egypt, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Egypt, and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome. Marskell 15:39, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I listed this article for FA review because it appears not to meet the current standards for Featured Articles (it was promoted in December of 2003). I noted the following problems:

  • Lack of cited sources. The article has only 13 references, nearly all of which are concentrated in the last section. Two of the references - link 1 and link 6 - are nonfunctional.
  • Formatting of cited sources is nonstandard; most are links like this [1].
  • Two of the pictures (the photographs of Hunt and Grenfell) have deprecated tags.
  • The lead is short.

Chubbles 09:09, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An immediate issue -- and I'm no expert, but this seems crystal clear -- is that Image:Oxyrhynchus.jpg is derived from Google Maps, but claims to be a public domain image. It is not. It is a derivative work of copyrighted satellite imagery licensed to Google, whose terms of service don't seem to allow such uses: You may not copy, reverse engineer, decompile, disassemble, translate, modify or make derivative works of the imagery, in whole or in part.. This seems to have only been added recently, though. --Dhartung | Talk 23:20, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I replaced that image with the one that was there before it was uploaded; I tagged it as a possible copyvio and notified the creator. Chubbles 23:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The creator has removed the tag and restored the image, and he believes the image is now properly sourced; I am not so sure... I still have it listed at copyvio problems/Apr 26th. Chubbles 23:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have deleted the image in question. --Spike Wilbury 20:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Replaced with image that was there before Google Maps image was added. Chubbles 21:18, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

edit
Suggested FA criteria concerns are sufficiency and formatting of references (1c), images (3), LEAD (2a). Marskell 05:06, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't so much the fact that there was a small number of footnotes that troubled me; rather, it was the fact that so many entire sections of the article were completely unsourced. Chubbles 23:44, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changing to Hold, per Yomangani. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:44, 23 May 2007 (UTC) Remove, inadequate lead, largely uncited, unformatted references. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:02, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove per Sandy's reasoning. LuciferMorgan 13:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove per Sandy. Someone's gotta do some work on it to retain that star .... Tony 01:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm very slowly working on a copy as time permits, but it might take a while to sort out. I don't see how the EB 1911 would cover the uncited material which extends beyond 1911, but I think overall the article is comprehensive and well-written (Tony can no doubt point out a few things, but it is clear and readable). It just needs a bit of referencing adding (which doesn't necessarily mean inlines) and some formatting. I'll bring it back to FAC shortly if it is removed as I don't see any problem getting it through once it is tidied up. Yomanganitalk 17:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 removed 09:32, 25 May 2007.

Parthenon

edit

Review commentary

edit
Emsworth nom. Messages left at Classical Greece and Rome and Architecture. Marskell 15:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC) Additional message at Greece. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relies on 3 sources, and it has stub sections —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahadland1234 (talk • contribs)
  • I couldn't agree more. There is nothing on the archaic proto-Parthenons, Kallikrates and Iktinos aren't referred to, the design irregularities aren't discussed, nor are the construction methods, the section on sculptural decoration needs significant expansion, and there is next to nothing on the archaeology of the site. I hope to add something soon myself, and I've suggested this page for the architecture collabortion of the month. Twospoonfuls 08:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I recognize the article's problems, and I promise to do my best until Friday to improve its status. Unfortunately, then and for 10 days I'll be unable to work in Wikipedia. WP:GREECE has been informed.--Yannismarou 09:03, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also some more detailed history of the accounts and the controversy of the Delian funds should be added, and the bibliography isn't really an adequate survey of the literature on the subject. Twospoonfuls 09:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here's a list of some issues:
    • References (obviously) too few and what's there is not formatted properly.
    • WP:UNITS issues. A lack of non-breaking spaces in measurements, especially in the Design and construction section.
    • There's a gallery.
    • Some of the abbreviations have an s to denote plurality.
    • "The" appears in the section headers (see WP:HEAD).
    • At a quick glance I think there are also some uses of both American and British spelling. Quadzilla99 16:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Topics not adequately discussed in the article include:
    • which elements are Doric and which Ionic,
    • the variation in the metope size and the order of construction that implies,
    • the variation in the intercolumnar spacing,
    • the existence of Dorpfeld’s Parthenon II,
    • the relationship of the substructure to the Kimonian walls,
    • the relationship of the Parthenon to previous Doric temples,
    • the influence of the Parthenon on later architecture in antiquity,
    • the influence of the Parthenon on the Greek Revival movement,
    • the evidence of the Parthenon accounts,
    • the political attacks on Pericles over the Parthenon as recorded in Plutarch,
    • the cost of the Parthenon,
    • the unit of measurement used in the construction of the Parthenon,
    • the surveys of Penrose or Balanos,
    • the archaeological digs of 1835-6, 1845, 1859-60 and 1864,
    • the use of wooden scaffolding in the construction (or lack of it) and the evidence of the Persian fire on the Older Parthenon (or lack of it),
    • its representations in early art, including: Cyriacus of Ancona, Pars, Richard Dalton, Ivanovitsch.
  • Other problems:
    • the use of non-peer reviewd sources, i.e. website of the Greek culture ministry, non-academic web-sites, and a coffee-table book on architecture by Norwich,
    • the tourist guide tenor of the introduction,
    • the weasel wording of the introduction (“is regarded”, “generally considered”),
    • the generic images of the Parthenon (at night, from a distance) have all the merits of excellent holiday snaps but none of the merits of illustrations – namely they are not related to the text,
    • the use of a gallery,
    • the academic literature on the Parthenon is voluminous, there are only 3 monographs on it referred to in the bibliography.

As a source of information I think the article as it stands has to be judged a failure. Twospoonfuls 10:28, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article may be a "failure" as it stands now (I do not disagree with that), but it is also a failure to say that the use of "non-academic web-sites" is not allowed in the article! Of course, it is allowed if they are to report recent events or statistices, such as the number of visitors during the last years or the recent negotiations between the Greek and British ministries for the Parthenon marbles.--Yannismarou 16:20, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The notes I was referring to were 3, 8 and 9; in these instances authoritative opinion is being invoked and what we are given as support for this is a webpage from the Greek ministry of Culture and the personal webpage of a sculptor (though in the case of 3 it is clear if we are being referred to Hurwit or the government site). The same lack of authority attaches to that piece of hyperbole from John Julius Norwich (note 4).

Speaking of the statistics - these belong in a trivia section. If the Parthenon were a Disneyland ride the number of visitors it attracted would be notable, since it is a historical monument of world significance this fact is a banality and an irrelevance. That it is included is indicative of the trivialisation of the subject the article represents, as does mention without discussion of the Golden Section. Quite apart from not being true (see G Markowsky Misconceptions about the Golden Ratio) there is no serious architectural historian I know of who even discusses the use of phi in the construction of the Parthenon.

Lastly there are no less than 4 campaigning websites (all taking the same line) in the external links section in addition to the subject of repatriation of the Elgin marbles being mentioned twice in the article. Now I wouldn’t suggest that the subject should go unmentioned, but taken together this presents a problem of neutrality. This article badly needs the attention art and architectural historians. The FAR issues include: 1(a) not professional, 1(c) factually inaccurate, and 1(d) neutrality. Twospoonfuls 08:40, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

edit
Suggested FA criteria concerns are citations (1c), comprehensiveness (1b), and stub sections (2). Marskell 08:08, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Questions. Which sections are stubs? What level of comprehensiveness is required? Personally, I think Twospoonfull's list of "topics not adequately addressed" above is overdoing it? --Akhilleus (talk) 17:03, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The 1982 Basel Parthenon Kongreß report was over 500 pages long, if anything my list was rather restrained. What level of comprehensiveness is required? At the very least the article should account for Kipling's six honest serving-men: what, where, when, who, how and why. Plainly it does not. Therefore, I'd suggest, there should be i) an adequate survey of the material evidence of the thing (the visible remains, archaeology, documents, epigraphy, drawings), ii) the principle theories on this evidence and iii) a bibliography of appropriate length. Oh and btw, delist, for all the reasons already given. Twospoonfuls 14:45, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortunalety remove. The article does not deserve to be FA right now per 1c, 1b and 2. I am sorry I do not have time right now to work on the article. I hope somebody else can do it, and then I'll reconsider my vote. What I can promise is that, if it finally lose its star, I will soon work with all my forces on the article, and I'll bring it again to FA status.--Yannismarou 09:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed that the article isn't a proper FA at this point, and I hope to have some time to work on it. In my opinion, though, some of the suggestions for what the article should cover are excessive. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:26, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 removed 07:35, 6 May 2007.

Aquarium

edit

Review commentary

edit
Messages left at User talk:Bantman, Zoo and Fishes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article is well written, however, there is minimal references and no attribution in the text. It's unclear to me which "facts" come from which sources. MidgleyDJ 05:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia: A list would be most helpful. I'm trying to gather support at Aq. Fishes. Other than the lack of citations/references (which is why I originally flagged it) what else is wrong? MidgleyDJ 23:35, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List for MidgleyDJ (in no particular order), in addition to the lack of citations:

  • Because this is the type of article that attracts photo additions, someone should doublecheck FairUse on all images. I don't speak Fair Use.
  • Stubby sections, one-sentence paragraphs, one-sentence sections. Some consolidation of text might also make for a trimmer TOC.
  • I've never seen an article with so many links to WikiCommons; I'm not sure what can be done about that.
  • My browser renders a big chunk of white space at the top of See also, due to the size of the image above it.
  • See also has red links, and should be cleaned up. Per WP:GTL, See also should be minimized, and links should be incorporated into the article text where possible.
  • Another big chunk of white space in references, due to image placement. Why the image in refs?
  • Blue-linked URLs in References that need to be formatted, see WP:CITE/ES or cite templates.
  • Incorrect use of WP:DASH throughout; hyphens, en-dashes and em-dashes need to be sorted out.
  • Non-breaking hard spaces needed between numbers and units of measurement, see WP:MOSNUM
  • Attention to Wikilinking will be needed: for example, horticulturists.
  • Thorough copyedit will be needed. Sample prose:
    • Popularization was also assisted by the availability of air freight, which allowed a much wider variety of fish to be successfully imported from distant regions of origin that consequently attracted new hobbyists.
    • Aquaria can be classified by several variables that determine the type of aquatic life that can be suitably housed.
    • Replace sign: a salt level of < 0.5 PPT
    • Choppy prose: The largest bacterial populations in a tank are found in the filter. Therefore efficient filtration is vital.
  • I can't evaluate for comprehensiveness; hopefully the fishes people will come on board.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:03, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SandyGeorgia, Thanks for the list. User:MiltonT and I are working towards getting this article on track for good article status. It seems unlikely, however, that we can get it to featured article status in the time remaining. MidgleyDJ 22:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If work is ongoing, and you keep us posted, extra time is always granted. Just be sure to let us know, and ask for any additional help or review you need. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just looked. Goodness, what do you mean you won't make it in time? You've already made a lot of progress. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:20, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi SandyGeorgia - The article has been reworked substanially, however, I still think it either needs more time or to go to FARC. Milton probably has thoughts on this matter has he's done more work on the article MidgleyDJ 20:17, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

edit
Suggested FA criteria concern is referencing (1c). Marskell 12:34, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Lot's of work done. No reason this can't be a keep if the latter half is cited and the lead fills out. Has this actually dropped in size? Marskell 12:34, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Yes, it has dropped in size. A reasonable amount of material was merged into Fishkeeping. Cheers, David. MidgleyDJ 10:44, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: A few citations have been thrown in and the lead added to a bit. MiltonT 19:39, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, it doesn't go to GA review. Of course, you can send it there if you want to, but GA and FA are not related. I notice Milton did some more work today. Let's leave this on hold. Marskell 19:34, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Midgley, you could submit it to WP:GAC, but they aren't likely to pass if it's not cited. Better would be to finish the citing and keep the featured status :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:22, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove—subprofessional formatting: spattered with blue dictionary words. Why are "water", "plants" and "animals" linked in the first sentence. Then "bowl" ... Why not turn every single word blue? Tony 10:50, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have been working on this article some, and will continue to do so, but I am not sure of any substantial improvements I can make in the short term. MiltonT 16:32, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note. Removing because work has stalled. Milton and Midgley, you can always take it back to FAC when you have a chance to finish polishing it. Marskell 07:33, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 removed 07:54, 10 May 2007.

GNU/Linux naming controversy

edit

Review commentary

edit
Messages left at Linux and David Gerard. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:59, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Violates 1a for being too complicated, 1d for putting gnu/linux first, 1e because it is a long time since 2004 and the article has changed greatly, and all of 2 (2a,2b,2c). Qwertydvorak 03:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Comments—from the lead and first para:
    • In general, the lead is too short; it should be doubled in size.
    • "GNU/Linux is the term promoted by the Free Software Foundation (FSF), its founder Richard Stallman, and its supporters, for operating systems that include the FSF's GNU utilities and the Linux kernel." Split into two sentences, or integrate the promotion of the term into another sentence. It's not a huge issue, but it'll help create a straightforward lead.
    • "Proponents of the Linux term dispute this term for a number of reasons." Simplify this to "several reasons" instead of "a number of" reasons.
    • "Plans for the GNU operating system were made in 1983 and in September of that year they were announced publicly." missing punctuation, and could probably stand for some slight reconstruction.
    • It's an article about a debate, so it's understandable that one needs quotes to demonstrate the controversy. I don't really have a problem with those quotes, but that's just me. Tony is infinitely better with this sort of article, so I'll stop. — Deckiller 15:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The block quotation style might work if there weren't atrocious boxes around them breaking the flow. Punctured Bicycle 04:01, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would say this article lacks a cohesive direction and has serveral point of view issues, but neither are excessive. It's biggest problem is the uncited information. If the pro Linux and pro GNU/Linux points could be collected better, it would help with the article. Janizary 06:34, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

edit
Suggested FA criteria concerns are language (1a), POV (1d), stability (1e), and structural issues (2). Marskell 11:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What is the purpose of this "FARC commentary" section? Your comment looks like a normal comment, and so should be presented like everyone elses' comments. As it is, it is confusing because I am wondering if "FARC commentary" is a part of the FARC process that I haven't read about. Gronky 13:53, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FAR is the first part of the process, while FARC commentary is the second. There are instructions above explaining more adequately than I can which explain the FAR/FARC process. LuciferMorgan 13:00, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 removed 08:25, 13 May 2007.

Quantum computer

edit

Review commentary

edit
Messages left at Physics, Computing, Computer science and Technology. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:22, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quantum computer is a "brilliant prose" promotion (no original author) that had a scanty review in May 2006.

  • There is a massive link farm labeled (incorrectly—WP:GTL) as "Further reading".
  • Citations are not formatted and the article needs a review for citations.
  • There are red links in See also; also, See also should be minimized per WP:GTL, incorporating articles into the text and deleting from See also those that are already included in the text.
  • Strange bolding throughout and incorrect use of dashes, indicating the need for a copyedit.
  • External jumps (example: D-Wave Systems Inc. (dwavesys.com) ... )
  • Poor prose when incorporating other articles, example: See Bloch sphere.
  • Mathematical formulas wrap off screen.
  • Incorrect italicization and/or use of See also or Seealso template: For discussion of foundational aspects of quantum computing, see the article on quantum circuits.
  • WP:MSH issues; title repeated often in TOC.
  • Weasly, example: It is widely believed that if large-scale quantum computers can be built, ...

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:22, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Factual problems
edit
Complex numbers

Portions of the following are incorrect

In fact, the register is described by a wavefunction:
 

Yes, that's OK.

If a>b>c>d>e>f>g>h, then a+h=b+g=c+f=d+e.

Huh? these are complex numbers, these can't be simply ordered. This is just wrong.

For example:
(2.166/4.4)|000>+(1.966/4.4)|001>+(1.766/4.4)|010>+(1.566/4.4)|011>+(1.434/4.4)|100>+(1.234/4.4)|101>+(1.034/4.4)|110>+(0.834/4.4)|111>
(2.166/4.4)2+(1.966/4.4)2+(1.766/4.4)2+(1.566/4.4)2+(1.434/4.4)2+(1.234/4.4)2+(1.034/4.4)2+(0.834/4.4)2 = 1

WTF. Just delete this.

where the coefficients a, b, c,... are complex numbers...

this is correct. I'll make edits to cut out the questionable stuff shortly. linas 23:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Number of states

I turned the following remark into a footnote, as it is trite and irrelevant:

Note that the coefficients are not all independent, since the probabilities must sum to 1. The representation is also (for most practical cases) non-unique, since there is no way to physically distinguish between a particular quantum register and a similar one where all of the amplitudes have been multiplied by the same phase such as −1, i, or in general any number on the complex unit circle. One can show the dimension of the set of states of an n qubit register is 2n+1 − 2. See Bloch sphere.

linas 23:18, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other than the two problems above, which I've corrected, the article appears to be scientifically correct, from the point of view of quantum mechanics. linas 23:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bits vs. Qubits

This section gives a short description of qubits, but in my view does not sufficiently contrast them to bits, as the section title would indicate. One may note e.g. that 2^n is also the number of bit sequences that n bits can represent. The indicated number of states for qubits should be directrly compared against bits to make this section more clear and true to its purpose. Added by 84.74.194.32 (talk · contribs) 22:47, 16 April 2007

FARC commentary

edit
Suggested FA criteria concerns citation sufficiency and formatting (1c), links, jumps, and other formatting issues (2), and prose (1a). Marskell 10:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've been cutting the link farm down to size and adding appropriate footnotes, but it's probably not satisfactory yet. Anville 15:36, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 removed 10:05, 30 May 2007.

Dayuan

edit

Review commentary

edit
Messages left at User talk:194.73.130.132, China, Ethnic groups and Former countries. LuciferMorgan 14:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is an article about a Greco-Bactrian civilization recorded by Chinese scholars 2000 years ago. It was featured in 2005 but does not meet our current criteria.

  • Most of the references are from the Records of the Grand Historian, an ancient Chinese text, with only a smattering of more recent stuff. Consequently, most of the article is about the Chinese POV.
  • Aside from the map and the Chinese lettering, most of the pictures have been borrowed from elsewhere, and only vaguely relate to the topic.
  • The lack of focus continues into the text, with excessive description of Greco-Bactria and the Silk Road.
  • There are hints at controversy, for example 'The country of Dayuan is generally accepted as relating to the Ferghana Valley.' Does this mean that there are people who think it wasn't? Is there any archaeological evidence?
  • Fundamentally, the article fails to answer the question: Who were the Dayuan people?

--Nydas(Talk) 10:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments
  • The current map needs work. A map such as this is the first thing a read will look at, and at the moment it is hard to follow - my first impression of the map was that Ta-Yuan was simply the name of a city.
  • Not enough other references, and citation not correctly done within the text.
  • Agree with above post - the article does not clearly say what/who the Dayuan are. Appears to half portray the Dayuan as a nation, and half as an ethnic group.
  • What happened after the first century? - 52 Pickup 20:45, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

edit
Suggested FA criteria concerns are comprehensiveness (1b), sufficiency of references (1a), image (3). Marskell 06:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 removed 07:35, 6 May 2007.

Cannabis rescheduling in the United States

edit

Review commentary

edit
Messages left at Rad Racer, Pharmacology, and Politics. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article is POV. It is written from a perspective supporting rescheduling this drug of abuse. It does not contain views of those who support the present regimen. It is not written in an encyclopedic tone and it is incomplete and out-of-date. It has a number of unsourced assertions and inaccuracies. Argos'Dad 03:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article contains a section on Arguments against rescheduling, seems encyclopedic in tone and reasonably well sourced. Some info seems a bit out of date (article was featured over two years ago), but how is this POV? Gimmetrow 21:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments Lead needs attention per WP:LEAD. First section, right out of the gate has an unencyclopedic heading (background), is listy, and relies on a long quote, which is uncited by the way. Section headings need WP:MSH attention. All websources need publisher and last access date. Footnotes are completely unformatted. References are out of control; are they all used as sources, or should some of them be Further reading? Mixed formatting styles; some are imbedded inline, others use cite.php. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:01, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Most citations are inline links, which is not surprising for a 2-year old FA. The citation format and MoS issues can be handled. From a quick sampling, it appears a good number of the inline links correspond to something listed in References, although many of the actual links are now broken (eg, http://www.incb.org/e/conv/1961/ which is the last reference). The cite.php footnotes are mostly in one section expanded some time after FA promotion. Gimmetrow 02:29, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Are you thinking of trying to save this one? If so, and if no one else does it, I can eventually work on ref cleanup, but I wonder who will do the rest (don't like to work on refs if other problems aren't addressed). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:26, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

edit
Suggested FA criteria concerns are POV (1d) and referencing (1c). Marskell 09:32, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove— lead is too short and there appear to be othe minor formatting glitches, the POV tag is still in place, and the footnotes are lacking and not formatted properly. Still needs significant work. — Deckiller 00:27, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove per above reasoning. LuciferMorgan 00:40, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove for reasons cited above. Argos'Dad 03:11, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Lead is expanded. Nominator has not identified any POV issues. The prose is generally good and the article has 50-some citations. Citation format is a minor issue. Gimmetrow 00:33, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Lead has been cleaned up, and there does not appear to be a significant bias (despite claims otherwise) -- keep in mind, this article is about a viewpoint, and will necessarily attract POV-pushing by both sides. Cleaning up the references isn't a big deal, and it could easily be cleaned up without yanking FAC status. /Blaxthos 07:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove for reasons cited above. Elmang
  • Comment tending toward keep. Regarding (1d), this was nominated for alleged POV issues, but the nominator took three weeks to provide any examples, and the examples eventually provided were weak, fairly easy to adjust, and came from paragraphs added after the article was featured. As for (1c), citations could be formatted more in line with contemporary practice, but the article is pretty well-referenced as it stands. The bibliographic information is given in the references section for embedded URLs, as Wikipedia:Embedded citations and WP:CITE requires. Gimmetrow 23:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment still supporting removal--this article is POV (Blaxthos says, because the POV is endemic to the topic), it is unstable and would not pass muster as a FA if it were nominated today; why should it remain an FA when it is not among "the best articles in Wikipedia?" Argos'Dad 23:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - this is one of the most stable articles out there - about 120 edits in two years is extremly low for any article, let alone an allegedly POV article on a controversial topic. I'm not convinced this article couldn't pass a FAC today. Gimmetrow 00:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment—stability is the worst criterion (and rarely implemented unless there is a serous edit war), so I don't think it's necessary to dock an article for that. Otherwise, 95 percent of FARs and FACs would fail (nobody waits 3 weeks to nominate an article). With that said, my remove vote is leaning toward keep; there are still some issues with prose (listing issues and redundancies), and some words that should be avoided ("claim", etc.) should not be in an article that has POV claims. — Deckiller 01:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I still don't see how there is blatant POV beyond what one would expect from an article about a particular POV. I won't go so far as to say the FAR is spurious, but given the massive stability of the article from the bestowment of FA until now, the lack of examples of POV (that weren't there when the original nomination was approved), I really think this is more a case of some editors not agreeing with the position of the content of the article instead of a true situation where a featured article has deteriorated to such a point that it no longer meets FAR. I know I can be charged with not assuming good faith, however I suggest that, given the almost nonexistant changes from FA until now, there is a lack of good faith that the original FA candidacy was decided properly. I'm also confused about this editor's claim of instability, which makes me think there may be some underlying motives regarding the subject matter (instead of the quality of the article. /Blaxthos 01:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • On the contrary; I think "pot" should be legalized. The article still has quite some time before a keep or remove decision is made; we are just providing suggestions to improve the article further before that unspoken deadline. — Deckiller 01:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I was referring to the comments by Argos'Dad. /Blaxthos 01:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          My only concern in seeking this review, Blaxthos, is that the quality of this article is not up to the FA standards. I have, on the talk page, explained my reasoning for saying the article violates WP:NPOV. I find your insinuation of a lack of good faith on my part to be unfair and unsubstantiated and I ask that you to retract it. WP:AGF Especially in light of the fact that you admit that there is POV (but according to you an acceptable amount). I submit that the standards for a WP:FA are higher than that and this article needs to be improved or removed from FA status. Argos'Dad 02:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, but I will not retract said statement. You've made a spurious claim of instability (as noted by other editors), and the article hasn't changed much at all since the original FA was granted. It took three weeks to come up with weak claims of a POV, without recognizing (as others have) that this article is about a point of view. I'm not trying to be rude, but I think your comments regarding your position on the subject matter, your insertion of tags that are questionable (unreferenced tag regarding one entry (as noted by others)), and the relatively little change since original FA candidacy suggest more than just wanting to ensure this is the best wikipedia offers. I am, of course, not insinuating any malice and I certainly don't mean to be offensive. However, this article is about cannabis rescheduling, not the place to try and advocate (or argue against) rescheduling. If anything, there should be a sister article about not rescheduling cannabis in the united states instead of (admittedly) trying to push a POV here. I realize I may take some heat for standing up here, but I hope editors recognize that it's not a malicious charge, personal attack, or in any way defammatory towards the nominator -- I simply think that the evidence shows personal bias towards the subject instead of concern for the quality of the article. Again, no offense intended. /Blaxthos 03:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You know what, after re-reading my comments, I just want to clarify... I don't think that you're intentionally doing anything underhanded or in bad faith, and for that I do retract said claim. However, I do stand by my position that perhaps your personal feelings towards the subject matter has contributed to your claims and actions. I hope this helps clarify what I meant. Sorry for the confusion. /Blaxthos 03:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I accept your retraction in the spirit in which it was offered., /Blaxthos I want to make clear that my opinion on the topic of Rescheduling Cannabis in the United States is not an issue. I have specifically not made edits to the content of the article, because, frankly, I don't care about the subject. I do sincerely believe, having tried to shepherd some articles (that were objectively better written, more complete, less POV-laden) to FA status unsuccessfully that I am concerned that too many articles having achieved FA status are then able to languish (or retrogress). Perhaps that is not the case here, but I sincerely doubt this article would be granted anything about GA status at this point if it were new. That is my POV on this article. If I have been acting inappropriately or have not been cooperative by studying and editing this issue in more depth, I apologize. Argos'Dad 04:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No need for you to apologize -- I, like you, have been careful to avoid editing the content or otherwise commenting on the topic of the article. I think we both agree that such opinions have no place in the discussion. My major concern is that there hasn't been significant change since the original FA status was granted, and that you implied otherwise (big red flag to me). Perhaps I was too quick to assume other motivations were in play, and for that I apologize -- such an article is a target for POV pushers from both sides (just as articles about abortion and other controverisal topics). I'm most inclined to assume good faith regarding the original determination of FA status (given the lack of change in the article in 2 yrs). I just don't see that this article has deteriorated below FA status since it was granted; if your point is that "too many articles have been achieved FA status", I think that nominating controversial articles that haven't changed significantly for FA review isn't the way to solve the problem. Of course, consensus can change and it's your right to request a review of such... I just see FAR as a mechanism to ensure that changed articles still comply with FA criteria, not to try and undo FA status to articles you don't think should have gotten it in the first place, especially considering your admission that, due to articles you tried to "shepherd" to FA and failed, you're now challenging articles that did pass (and an article that hasn't significantly changed since) -- probably not a WP:POINT, but it's certainly prudent to consider that motivation. /Blaxthos 05:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, ok. I can't (and shouldn't) speak for Argos'Dad though. — Deckiller 01:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments. No one else did it, so I attempted to clean up the section headings per WP:MSH; perhaps someone can improve. Is anyone going to cite the long quote in the first section? If everything else can be ironed out, I can spend some time cleaning up references next week, but it's time I don't have to spend unless other things are going to be ironed out. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Status. Last call for work on this one... Marskell 13:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe "minor" in this case meanse easily fixed -- I'll try to look into it within 7 days, if no one else has by then. Definitely should not be the sole basis for removing FA. /Blaxthos
To be clear: completely unformatted references are indeed a removal basis. We don't just throw in weblinks and call it our best work. We did that two and three years ago, and we've come along way since then. Basic formatting tasks have not been performed on this article and it will indeed be time-consuming. We can wait until after the weekend to see if work starts. Marskell 17:24, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear: all statements are attributed, and no references are "completely" unformatted. The full bibliographic information is given in the references section as required by WP:CITE and 1c. 1c does not, at present, *require* more than this, so I'm not sure such a change is strictly needed. Second, this work probably would have been done already, if the alleged POV issues had been stated early on so their merit could be assessed. Instead, it took three weeks to get anything on that front. Although the specific issues were addressed immediately, this effectively lost 75% of the FARC time. The prose here is among the better-written I've seen at FARC, but unlike Emsworth's articles this one already has a citation density on par with 2007 standards. Gimmetrow 17:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Gimme, I'm perplexed. Almost all of the footnotes are indeed completely unformatted URLs. There are a dozen embedded links that have yet to be turned into footnotes. The reference formatting on this is not even close to current FA standards. And there are POV issues; the "Against" section is a large strawman. The article needs significant auditing.
But of course we can leave it open if people are willing to work. Marskell 20:33, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marskell, that's the problem. There is no point working on citation details under a deadline when there are allegedly larger "POV" issues. However, if there were serious POV issues those should have been stated weeks ago when I first asked for them. None were provided until three weeks later. Since the nominator is no longer responding one must assume that the issues are resolved. On the citation issue, you are technically correct. WP:CITE, the guideline referenced by WIAFA 1c, does not discuss urls within ref tags. However, it does discuss urls within brackets. I am quite willing to convert all the refs to embedded urls, if that's what you want, in order to comply with the letter of WP:CITE. Gimmetrow 21:06, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As you know, FAR deadlines are amongst the most flexible deadlines around here. We've pushed three months with reviews that people have been willing to work on. By all means, we can have the three weeks back by leaving this open, if it will improve the article. Fixing formatting etc. and then moving on to POV is probably the best strategy. The prose on this is not among the better-written FARCs, IMO. But let's save that until the basics are done.
CITE "does not discuss urls within ref tags." Well, no it doesn't. But are you seriously suggesting that having a footnote reference that consists solely of a URL link is acceptable on an FA? OK, don't answer that. Let's have somebody format half-a-dozen, and then I'll format half-a-dozen, and then Sandy will, and then you will, and in a few days the notes and references will be presentable. It's not technical correctness. The spirit and letter of professionalism call for consistency in presentation and our FAs are supposed to be professional. Marskell 21:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it would be ideal if the style were consistent within the article. The irony here is that the inconsistency has come about from incomplete attempts to improve the article by coverting things to cite.php. On that point, the article was better off before it arrived at FAR. Sandy has already expressed a dislike to working on refs if other issues aren't addressed. Gimmetrow 22:24, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fvasconcellos may help with the wikilinking. I can format references if someone else will do the PDFs (and identify them); it's baseball season and I like to do that kind of busy work on my old laptop while the Sox are beating the Yankees, and the PDFs bomb out on my laptop. I agree with Gimme that the work wasn't worth doing if there were other issues, but if there are no other issues, I can plug away at fixing the refs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:54, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I may :) I'm working on it now, as well as some minor prose and MoS fixes, and formatting all refs as I go along. Would anyone object to the use of cite templates throughout? Fvasconcellos (t·c) 15:38, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've done my best. I did find a couple of POVish statements, such as
"In 1972, the Commission released a report favoring decriminalization of marijuana. The Richard Nixon administration took no action to implement the recommendation, however."
"In 1994, the D.C. Court of Appeals finally affirmed the DEA Administrator's power to overrule Judge Young's decision (Alliance for Cannabis Therapeutics v. DEA. 15 F.3d 1131). The petition was officially dead."
"The disparate treatment of marijuana and the expensive, patentable Marinol prompted reformers to question the DEA's consistency."
Is there anything else I can do? Fvasconcellos (t·c) 19:13, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. Thanks for doing all the ref conversion. Gimmetrow 23:08, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All hail Fvasconcellos :-) Thanks, Fv ! I went in to wikify some dates so date prefs will work, and found there is some weird (HTML?) error in the article. When you start at the bottom, trying to edit by section, you can't access the sections you need to edit ... maybe you can figure that out, Gimmetrow? If so, I'll continue going through. I found one wikilink missing, so still want to spend more time in there. Looks like another save by those horrid FAR regulars :-) SandyGeorgia 00:53, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome :) I noticed that, and had forgotten by the time I posted here... I can't figure out what it was; I hope it wasn't the whitespace I removed before and after sidebars? It appears Gimmetrow has fixed it. Sorry. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:11, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, wasn't that. It was a problem with section headers inside templates. I've run into this a couple times now. Because of the order in which the mediawiki software processes things, certain items in templates (mainly ref tags and, in some circumstances, headers) do not work correctly. I wonder how long the article has been that way? Gimmetrow 01:20, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to FV, the article looks fine now in terms of MOS, but the POV/cite needed tags identified by Fv need to be addressed. Marskell's good at that sort of thing (did I say, "pass the buck"? :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not fully versed in this topic — only marginally knowledgeable because of adherents in the TS community. I'm not entirely certain this article is up to date or accurate. I'm not saying it's not accurate; just that I can't really tell. Example:

... established that there are no cannabinoid receptors in the dopamine-producing areas of the brain.[25][7] Other studies, summarized in Gettman's 1997 report Dopamine and the Dependence Liability of Marijuana, showed that marijuana has only an indirect effect on dopamine transmission ...

But, PMID 17291487, PMID 17251418, PMID 17250681, PMID 16760924 — that's only searching on the last six months in PubMed for cannabinoid and dopamine. I can't interpret this work, but I can't be certain the article is up to date or accurate — maybe someone else knows. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:29, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The text cited is the Herkenham study, which says "The presence of cannabinoid receptors in the ventromedial striatum suggests an association with dopamine circuits thought to mediate reward", but also says "cannabinoid receptors in the basal ganglia are not localized on dopamine neurons." This word "dopamine" is used only one other place in the article, in a way that seems unlikely to be relevant here. I suspect the appropriate thing to do is say this is Gettman's interpretation of the science. There used to be a statement in the article, also based on interpretations from Gettman's site, stating a "lack of receptors" in some area, with the implication that there were none. The actual study simply said a "paucity" of receptors, as in a small quantity, so there is a history of creative paraphrasing here. Gimmetrow 03:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
*Applause* Thanks for digging in to it Fva. I'll try and pull out some prose structure and POV concerns over the next few days. Marskell 09:34, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Some notes:
  • Having a Background and a History section seems redundant. Also it feels odd to arrive at History at the end of the article.
  • "The Food and Drug Administration elaborates on this, arguing that the widespread use of marijuana, and the existence of some heavy users, is evidence of its "high potential for abuse," despite the drug's lack of physiological addictiveness." Strawman sentence.
  • Too many large quotes in the Against section.
  • Too many sentence initial "However"s. It's a stylistic concern, but it also underscores that a "yes, but" structure is often at work here. It's hard to put my finger on it, but I'm not entirely convinced of neutrality.
  • Maybe too many lists. Marskell 09:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I'm still uneasy as well. I posted to the Medicine Project for an accuracy check, but no one has popped in. My only personal knowledge is with Marinol et al touted by some for use with TS, and I know a lot of what was thought to be true just a few years ago is getting debunkified. I'm not entirely comfortable here; sure wish we had informed medical input. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:20, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd help further, but this is somewhat out of my league, and I'm going to be very busy off-wiki over the next few days. FWIW: I can't make up my mind on the neutrality of this article (or possible lack thereof), and, although I can't put my finger on anything specific (big help, huh?), it just seems somehow subpar when compared to more recent FAs; after reading it, I don't feel as if I gained much from the "experience" (no pun intended). Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove—1d (inadequate lead), 1a (prose). The lead, which doesn't prepare us for the rest of the article and is too short, contains micro-problems too.
    • "The dispute is based on differing views on how the Act should be interpreted and what kinds of scientific evidence are most relevant to the rescheduling decision."—"views OF"; "what scientific evidence WOULD BE most relevant to A ..."
    • Another whacky preposition: "by petition with the Drug Enforcement Administration".
    • "the Controlled Substances Act's strict criteria for placement in Schedule I"—Clumsy possessive apostrophe; "placement" is clumsy, too. "cannabis' widespread use"—ouch.
    • "The Government"—it's Congress, is it? Tony 10:45, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In the time it took to detail all of that here you could have fixed minor grammatical issues. /Blaxthos 12:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tony gives examples of problems throughout; just fixing those won't address the problems. There aren't enough hours in the day for him to correct all the prose problems on all the articles he reviews, which is why he gives samples. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:43, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove. I've finally found time to dig into some of the actual sources used and have found the following:
  • In 1999, the IOM recommended that medical marijuana use be allowed for certain patients in the short term, and that preparations of isolated cannabinoids be developed as a safer alternative to smoked marijuana.[citation needed] The IOM also found that the gateway drug theory was "beyond the issues normally considered for medical uses of drugs and should not be a factor in evaluating the therapeutic potential of marijuana or cannabinoids."[citation needed]
  • Two big uncited statements here. Both can be found in the Executive summary. [2] The first statement simply does not reflect what is found in the report, which clearly makes recommendations for further study and clinical trials, and defines under which terms short-term use should be approved. The second says: Present data on drug use progression neither support nor refute the suggestion that medical availability would increase drug abuse. However, this question is beyond the issues normally considered for medical uses of drugs, and it should not be a factor in the evaluation of the therapeutic potential of marijuana or cannabinoids. The way these two sentences are strung together looks like synthesis, not supported by the report, which is not correctly cited. The IOM recommended, across the board, further study — this section doesn't read that way at all; in fact, it implies the IOM endorses the use of medical marijuana.
  • So, I kept looking. There's an uncited quote in 2002 Coalition for Rescheduling Cannabis petition. This section briefly cites one minor excerpt from a court case, but never discusses California's Compassionate Use Act or the context of the decision. This section basically presents Gettman's POV and none other.
  • There are words to avoid and weasle words in the pro-rescheduling arguments, that aren't found in the anti-arguments:
  • The National Institute on Drug Abuse, however, continued to publish literature contradicting this finding. For instance, NIDA claims the following in its youth publication The Science Behind Drug Abuse:[29] But, the NIDA data is not given or discussed.

Closing note: This has already gone an extra ten days. I am going to remove, as a substantial dig through refs and reorganization of POV appears in order. Marskell 07:31, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 removed 10:05, 30 May 2007.

Dayuan

edit

Review commentary

edit
Messages left at User talk:194.73.130.132, China, Ethnic groups and Former countries. LuciferMorgan 14:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is an article about a Greco-Bactrian civilization recorded by Chinese scholars 2000 years ago. It was featured in 2005 but does not meet our current criteria.

  • Most of the references are from the Records of the Grand Historian, an ancient Chinese text, with only a smattering of more recent stuff. Consequently, most of the article is about the Chinese POV.
  • Aside from the map and the Chinese lettering, most of the pictures have been borrowed from elsewhere, and only vaguely relate to the topic.
  • The lack of focus continues into the text, with excessive description of Greco-Bactria and the Silk Road.
  • There are hints at controversy, for example 'The country of Dayuan is generally accepted as relating to the Ferghana Valley.' Does this mean that there are people who think it wasn't? Is there any archaeological evidence?
  • Fundamentally, the article fails to answer the question: Who were the Dayuan people?

--Nydas(Talk) 10:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments
  • The current map needs work. A map such as this is the first thing a read will look at, and at the moment it is hard to follow - my first impression of the map was that Ta-Yuan was simply the name of a city.
  • Not enough other references, and citation not correctly done within the text.
  • Agree with above post - the article does not clearly say what/who the Dayuan are. Appears to half portray the Dayuan as a nation, and half as an ethnic group.
  • What happened after the first century? - 52 Pickup 20:45, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

edit
Suggested FA criteria concerns are comprehensiveness (1b), sufficiency of references (1a), image (3). Marskell 06:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 removed 07:49, 2 May 2007.

Nuclear weapon

edit

Review commentary

edit
"Brilliant prose" promotion; message left at MilHist. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a brilliant prose promotion which could benefit from a review and tuneup. See also and External links need attention/pruning (per WP:EL, WP:NOT, and WP:GTL). Citation needs should be reviewed (one source used — http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/ — doesn't appear to meet WP:RS). The WP:LEAD needs attention. At 17KB of prose, is the article comprehensive? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:41, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • comment 5 sources are in the footnotes. That really isn't enough for a featured article.--Sefringle 20:33, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: provide a short note of the sources at the end of each chapter, for example links to all internet sources. That can be done in half an hour. And wikify the url sources by adding the dates when you retrieved information from them. Wandalstouring 08:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fast track to FARC. The page has not improved much since it promotion three years ago as brilliant prose. Here's an example for comparison from March 1, 2004.[3] Standards have changed enormously since then and this hasn't kept up. It's B-class work. DurovaCharge! 14:37, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: very little information on the cultural impact of nuclear weapons, the protest movement etc. Since nuclear weapons have only been used once, they are probably more important as cultural rather than military objects, so this is a big shortcoming in the article as it now stands.--Jim (Talk) 21:32, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment—is someone familiar with the article willing to take a shot? Otherwise, I agree that we need to keep this entry (and similar ones) moving. — Deckiller 00:24, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Can't blame people for not willing to expand that article -- I would hate to have my hard work interrupted by constant vandalism too. - Emt147 Burninate! 04:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Where did the concept of the possibility of a nuclear weapon originate? 05:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

FARC commentary

edit
Suggested FA criteria concerns are MOS issues (2), referencing (1c), LEAD (2a), and comprehensiveness (1b). Marskell 12:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 removed 03:08, 28 May 2007.

Dogpatch USA

edit

Review commentary

edit
Original nominator aware. Message left at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Arkansas. Marskell 11:00, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article about a now defunct theme park reached FA status in September 2005. I think it is now due a review as much of the criteria has changed.

My main issues are the lack of proper citation formatting (there are only 10 citations) and the inline citation {{fact}} tags. Bobbacon 21:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, images claiming fair use lack rationale, and there are some tone issues (such as "Success is elusive" for a section header). Pagrashtak 14:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The issue of citations with this article is a big problem. Most of the information on Dogpatch USA is very illusive because it is either first hand or gleamed from photos or other atypical sources. The use of the images on the page was throughly debated when the article went FA. The image at the top of the page is from Underground Ozarks[4]. I personally emailed the owner and he agreed to release the image into the public domain. The other picture on the page was taken by me and I also released it into the public domain. The brochures are fair use because they were created by an organization (one that hasn't existed for nearly 20 years) to promote itself. Having them on this article is only using them for what they were intended for, promoting Dogpatch USA. This article could stand for a few more inline citations, and a few copyedits to work out POV tone, but other than that I see no reason to demote this article. --The_stuart 13:52, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments. Lots of basic cleanup and polish is needed. Non-breaking hard spaces between numbers and units of measurement, incorrect use of dashes, external jumps, completely unformatted references and footnotes (see WP:CITE/ES). Completely uncited editorializing; example:
    • Arkansans have always been sensitive about being portrayed as hillbillies, so the concept of a theme park based on such a stereotype was not widely accepted. Lou Oberste of the Publicity and Parks Commission expressed reservations, and Commission Director Bob Evans agreed that Arkansas had difficulty shedding a similar image created by comedic actor Bob Burns and the once-popular radio characters heard on the long-run Lum and Abner series (1932-54), which led to the creation of a Lum and Abner Museum in Pine Ridge, Arkansas.
  • SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

edit
Suggested FA criteria concerns are citations (1c), images (3), formatting issues (2). Marskell 18:04, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 removed 07:42, 19 May 2007.

1993 Russian constitutional crisis

edit

Review commentary

edit
Messages left at User talk:172, Russia and Russian History.LuciferMorgan 20:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very poorly referenced (1c). Pictures do not have fair use rationales (3). Errabee 10:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And the article is kinda small for an FA. KNewman 05:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article is not poorly referenced; the citations are just easy to miss. The references are under the section "notes and references" using an older system of footnotes, as this is an old FA drafted back in 2004. Indeed this was one of the first FAs to feature footnotes, if anyone is interested in how Wikipedia has evolved over time. I will update the references to conform to the current system. More citations regarding individual claims in the article can be added on demand by the author. 172 | Talk 05:37, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Thanks for your willingness to update the referencing scheme, User:172. One statement picked at random, just to illustrate what sort of thing needs citation: "Moscow saw what amounted to a spontaneous mass uprising of anti-Yeltsin demonstrators numbering in the tens of thousands marching in the streets resolutely seeking to aid forces defending the parliament building." -Fsotrain09 17:19, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

edit
Suggested FA criteria concerns are citations (1c), and images (3). Marskell 16:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 removed 15:21, 21 May 2007.

Columbine High School massacre

edit

Review commentary

edit
Messages left at SmthManly, Disaster management, and Criminal Biography. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article was promoted to FA almost 2 years ago and since that time the criteria have improved. This article is quite large, but has many unsourced statements, including allegations that the columbine high school gunmen were influenced by specific people, movies or music. Statements to that extend are potentially libellous and should always be sourced to reliable references. If the referencing is improved, I see no further objections to this being FA, but others are welcome to post their suggestions ofcourse. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 21:06, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, honestly, most of the shooting section is put under just one citation, due to the fact it all came from that one main place (official investigation report), you can't link each portion directly since it's all .pdf files where there are thousands of pages in one link, technically, it could have dozens more links but it's too much work to link each one directly. ---- SmthManly / ManlyTalk / ManlyContribs 21:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate that, but an FA should really use much more in-line references. This article has whole sections without inline referencing, even for "controversial" statements, like I explained above. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 21:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, I agree with you, a lot of these controversial statements were added over the past two years that I never liked to see, and many people have fought tooth and nail to keep them there so they have remained, still, a lot of the statements in this article are grouped together into one reference, the first few references contain a lot of information themselves, if you want, maybe you, or we, can try and get a few people to go in there and decipher the 40 references and break them down, but it's too much of a task for one or two people. -- SmthManly / ManlyTalk / ManlyContribs 22:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have read over teh article many times, and while I do notice that it needs to be a bit better referenced, it is not bad enough to make me want this article delisted. Karrmann 00:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment FAR =/= FARC. Also, FAR =/= GA/R.--Rmky87 03:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All the sources are there, they're just located within each citation, check out each link and compare, you'll see... I say, if you as a user really believe each citation should be broken down into several, then we all band together and get it done, and not just remove the article over something that isn't technically an issue. This wasn't a current events article like red lake or dawson college or virginia tech where hundreds of credible sources came at it, users had to sift through archives and websites to find this information 18 months ago, it's all there, sourced, with perhaps a few unsourced sentences here and there, but it's not to a caliber where delisting is really necessary. -- SmthManly / ManlyTalk / ManlyContribs 03:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment—at this phase, we do not vote "keep" or "delist"; we merely point out problems and attempt to fix them before moving to FARC. Articles are usually at this phase for 2-3 weeks, so hopefully the article can be fixed up before then. — Deckiller 07:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Meeting criterion 1a—examples of potential prose issues from the lead:
    • "It is the third-deadliest school shooting" I'm pretty sure there doesn't have to be a hyphen there, but I could be wrong.
    • "everal of the victims, who were portrayed as having been killed for their religious beliefs, became a source of inspiration to others, and some lamented the decline of religion in public education and society in general, often blaming the tragedy on insufficient government endorsement of religion." This is a snake that should be chopped into two sentences. How about "...to others. Some lamented..." Off hand, that second argument seems pretty radical, like something only two religious nuts would ramble on about (and therefore not important enough for the lad). But I'll probably be proven wrong after reading that section.
    • Please make a check to ensure that references are outside punctuation; the final sentence of the lead needs such a check.
  • The main issue seems to be the excessive length and need for sources—not 1a. But that's based on the lead. — Deckiller 07:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This FA urgently cries for 1c. 1c. 1c. Also, I think it goes into too much detail at some points. As this is just purely opinionated, I cannot offer any deep thoughts on how to improve it. It however is 1AM and i really, really need to get to sleep, so perhaps tomorrow. hbdragon88 08:09, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: People... I've been bold and crossed all the votes. This is FAR, Featured Article Review, not FARC, Featured Article Removal Candidates. We are not discussing delisting the article, but discussing what should be improved to maintain the FA status. It is NOT a vote. Please read my opening statement with regard to sourcing so see the reason for listing the article here. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 09:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment.. I thought it was a FAR at first, then everyone started voting. Again, sources are all there, we should just band together and decipher them as needed. -- SmthManly / ManlyTalk / ManlyContribs 21:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In rationale, undue weight is given to violent media (section appears to be not-fully cited also). Christopher Connor 15:35, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist I'm not one who likes to delist articles, but this one is not up to the featured article standards. I quickly counted over 10 "citation needed" markers and many other questionable content. It is not what the ideal article is supposed to be so i say, delist. YaanchSpeak! 01:09, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- This is not a FARC, you're supposed to comment on what you think should be done to improve the article, not just criticize it. Also, the citation needed tags have been added AS A RESULT of this FAR, to which I've already THREE TIMES stated on what to do about the citations, yet no one even bothers reading the here comments anyway before commenting. -- SmthManly / ManlyTalk / ManlyContribs 01:28, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the page could stand a whole lot more sourcing, though it's reasonable to take the the timeline of the killings directly from the sheriff's report.

I think that someone has correctly identified the two most problematic sections of the page, "Warning Signs" and especially "Third shooter theory." "Warning Signs" is on the right track, but it gets several details wrong.

Here is a breakdown on several key dates/events for the Warning Signs section. Most of the text came from this website: http://www.columbine-angels.com/History.htm -- but I have checked each one of these references while researching my book, and they're all correct. (I added a few sources where I verified them, but my primary timeline spreadsheet is separate, so what I only typed the verification info into this document in a few places):

August 7, 1997 - An unidentified citizen called the Jefferson County Sheriff's Office to complain about Eric Harris's violent laced web site. The tip was investigated by Deputy Michael Burgess who forwarded the report and print outs of the web site to the investigator in charge of computer-related crime, John Hicks. This was the end of the investigation

January 30, 1998 - Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold are arrested by Jefferson County Deputy Tim Walsh for breaking and entering an electrician's van and stealing equipment from it

February 15, 1998 - Using a search warrant, Jefferson County sheriff's deputies found and defused a pipe bomb in a field at Garrison and Field Streets (verified: Source: grand jury report, draft affidavit to search Eric’s house, from GJ report, aug 19, 2004.)

March 1998 - Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold are placed in Jefferson County's Juvenile Diversion Program and given anger management classes

March 18, 1998 - Randy and Judy Brown meet with investigators to discuss the violent writings and threats against their son, Brooks, posted on Eric Harris's website

From dave: Mar 31, 98: Mike Guerra met with Investigators Hicks and Grove. They discussed the Browns’ complaint, and Eric’s bomb descriptions on his website. Source: grand jury report, draft affidavit to search Eric’s house, from GJ report, aug 19, 2004.

The "Third shooter theory" section is complete nonsense, in my opinion. I think it's reasonable to include a brief sentence or two on the idea--since rumors about it abound--with the main emphasis on how little evidence there is to back it up. Both killers left huge stacks of writings about the killings and created videos together, all of which make it abundantly clear that it's a two-man plan. They cite each other regularly (and did the videos together), and also explicitly state that no one else was involved. Is the theory that it was a three-man plan, with two of them proud about it and the third insistent on anonymity--to which the other two agreed to play along and never slipped up? OK. Then we have the hard evidence: the video cameras in the cafeteria and a Patti Nielson's extensive 911 tape in the library captured the two killers on video and audio tape and no third gunman appears either place. Also, the vast majority of witness testimony made it clear that there were two. It is not surprising that some witness think they saw someone else: witness testimony in general is extremely unreliable, and you always have conflicting testimony. Finally, the cops were initially assuming there was a conspiracy, and investigated all Harris and Klebold's friends intensely, confiscated emails and writings etc., and could find nothing on anyone. (Harris and Klebold would have had to be extremely careful to avoid ever referencing the third person in anything they said.)

This theory is about as credible as the idea that the Appolo moon walk was faked at that men have never set foot on the moon.

I can't tell you how many emails I have received (and comments on my website) advancing the third-shooter theory, and I have yet to see one remotely convincing argument, or anything supported by substantial evidence. Some of the other sections lack citations, but the bulk of the info elsewhere is correct (and has been documented elsewhere, even if not here. I'll cite a few exceptions below.) But this third-shooter section lacks any citations and is almost universally accepted as complete myth. Therefore, I strongly urge deleting it unless/until someone can support it with any citations.

Overall, I think the Columbine Massacre entry gets most of the information right, and it is dramatically better than the last time I reviewed it a few years ago. I think the jocks thing is still played up too much, though, and should be balanced by the opposing facts: especially that Columbine was planned primarily as a bombing, and the cafeteria bombs would have been about as indiscriminate as you can get. (Also, many of the most prominent jocks had lunch that hour, but almost always went out for lunch, which was widely known. A great number of them were not even in the building.)

The fact that the massacre was intended primarily as a bombing seems to be very underplayed overall in the article. It's in there, but it's kind of buried. I think the fact that what happened is vastly different from what the killers' planned should be in the lede.

Also, the section on the killers' choice of date for their attack could use work. There is contradictory evidence on whether they were planning to do it on the 19th or 20th. The best evidence that they were actually planning on the 19 comes from the sheriff's report and is not cited here. Quoting from the report:

"There were also indications that Harris and Klebold initially planned the shootings to occur on April 19. They specifically mentioned Monday and another time said, 'Today is the 11th, eight more days.' They never articulated why they chose the day they did and never mentioned that April 19 was the anniversary of Waco, Texas or the Oklahoma City bombing. They never verbalized that they even knew April 20 is Adolph Hitler's birthday."

I suggest citing and quoting that. You can find the quote here, almost at the bottom: http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2000/columbine.cd/Pages/SUSPECTS_TEXT.htm

I'll have to check, but I think this sentence is citing a discredited theory: "One theory states that the original date chosen was April 19 because it was a date on which Robyn Anderson, one of the people who purchased the guns and a close friend of Klebold, would not be present." I'm pretty sure that Robyn told the cops she was in school on the 19th.

Davecullen 05:45, 24 April 2007 (UTC) Dave Cullen 23 April 2007[reply]

I just read through a few sections more closely, and the section on journals and videotapes badly needs work. This sentence, is particularly problematic: "The entries contained blurbs about ways to escape to Mexico, hijacking an aircraft at Denver International Airport and crashing into a building in New York City, as well as details about the attacks. The pair hoped that after setting off bombs in the cafeteria, they would rampage through the school and shoot any survivors, then continue their attack on surrounding houses as neighbors came out to see the commotion . . ." Those things are all mentioned, briefly, but they are grossly unrepresentative of Eric's journal. (I assume they came from an early account when Sheriff Stone had only quoted a few passages, and that moron--who eventualy lost credibility with everyone--chose ridiculous passages to share with the media.) That passage does not give the flavor of what Eric's journal was like at all (and no mention is made of Dylan's), and it gives the reader the impression that they were planning something different from Columbine. Eric dreamed big and wanted to do something far bigger than blowing up his school. But once he was actually making the bombs, he complained about how much work it was even to make enough explosives to destroy a string of buildings, much less a city. He realized that he had to be practical and scale back his dreams, and long before April 20, he/they were set on just the attack on the school, though it was primarily going to be a series of bombings, without a shootout in the middle. This passage gives a very different impression.

This statement is also way off: "The pair also kept videos that were used mainly as documentation of explosives, ammunition, and weapons they had acquired illegally." The Basement Tapes did do that, but they were mainly about bragging about what they were going to do, and about explaining themselves. This sentence takes a relatively minor aspect of the tapes and describes it as the main focus.

(Also, the section does not distinguish between The Basement Tapes--as they're widely known--and other videos now on the web, such as the one where Eric and Dylan are praticing firing their weapons at Rampart Range. This distinction has caused a lot of confusion, especially among people who want to see the tapes. They have heard that the videos are online, and want to see the Basement Tapes, but don't know that there were different kinds of videos.)

Davecullen 06:35, 24 April 2007 (UTC) 24 April 2007[reply]

  • Comment There are definitely serious ref issues, not enough and what's there is not formatted properly. Quadzilla99 00:01, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In my opinion the structure of the article is inappropriate, with the large "Warning signs" section incompletely introduced and the meat of the article, the shot-by-shot of the massacre itself, buried halfway down the page. I would put this whole section as a subsection under the "Search for rationale" (or a more general name like "Investigation"). The article also repeats itself due to its chronological structure, discussing the confusion between Cassie Bernall and Rachel Scott at least three separate times. This may not be a real FAR issue, though. What seems more FAR pertinent are the elements of synthesis -- not fatal, just troubling -- in trying to divine the "why" of the massacre. So they got in trouble a lot and carried grudges, but how do we get from that to the next step that 99% of people who fit that description never do, which is go around killing? That needs to either go back into the individuals' articles, if not explicitly connected, or it needs to be part of a connection made by an attributable source. --Dhartung | Talk 05:49, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • In addition to the redundant and excessive attention shown to that minor controversy (covered in sufficient detail in Cassie Bernall and Rachel Scott), there's almost nothing about the extended criticism of the Sheriff's Office for delays in its self-investigation and for poor decisions made during the assault, and how this led to the active shooter strategy. There is even this month a judicial decision made to suppress information on the shooters, and that update is needed and would dovetail with the near-last section about the academic viewpoint. There is insufficient discussion of the controversy caused by suggestions to profile students following the massacre, and maybe too much discussion of the criticism of videogame and music influences (again, falling into dodgy WP:SYN areas). These are areas in which the article seems to fail balance and comprehensiveness. --Dhartung | Talk 06:03, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I agree with everything in Dhartung's last post.

Davecullen 00:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC)Dave Cullen[reply]

  • Comment—it appears that most of the {{citation needed}} tags are in the section "Aftermath and the search for rationale", so a copy-edit of that section would be especially beneficial, and to see if any of its contents fall under WP:NOT. The song lyrics seem like a little too much. Cliff smith 01:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

edit
Suggested FA criteria concern is referencing (1c). Marskell 16:50, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist. Multiple people have analyzed the article above and all came to the conclusion that it had serious problems with sourcing (lack of sources for quite some statements), in-line referencing (whole sections supposedly are be reffed from a single source, but this is difficult to assess) and some orginal research. As these issues were not addressed or resolved during the review, it is time to delist and wait with renomination for FA until the issues have been resolved. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 10:50, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove—still some lingering 1a and 1c issues as per above. — Deckiller 21:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove this is kind of ridiculous considering this article could probably be sourced in 4-5 hours just by scouring the interent. The prose would take longer but this article could easily be saved if anyone was trying. Quadzilla99 00:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove per 1c and 1a. Also, I echo what Quadzilla's saying. LuciferMorgan 12:52, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 removed 10:05, 30 May 2007.

Tiananmen Square protests of 1989

edit

Review commentary

edit
Messages left at User talk:Rebecca, China, Chinese history and Chinese politics. LuciferMorgan 14:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article was promoted to FA-class three years ago and has not been reviewed yet in all three years. It looks very under-referenced, and because of the controversial nature of the topic, article is possibly POV. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 04:43, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hong, you shouldn't say things like "is probably POV". You should say why you believe it is POV - otherwise you should request a POV check. However the lack of citations has to be resolved. John Smith's 09:33, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A quick glance shows serious 1c issues. Quadzilla99 04:55, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Other issues at a quick glance, dates displayed as May 19th 1989, May 27th of 1989, full dates not linked. One or two section headers start with "The". Quadzilla99 05:10, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The section headers are fixed, the dates still need fixing some of the ones in the pic captions even say "on May 5th, 1989" and all full dates should be linked. Quadzilla99 01:24, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

edit
Suggested FA criteria concerns are references (1c), links and sectioning (2), POV (1d). Marskell 06:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 removed 07:49, 2 May 2007.

Dred Scott v. Sandford

edit

Review commentary

edit
Messages left at TUF-KAT, Law, and U.S. Supreme Court cases. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article was a featured in November 2004, but currently seems to be in a state of stagnation.

  • Certain sections of the article is almost void of citations
  • The lead section is not organized
  • There has been recent vandalism to the page
  • The Historical impact assessment section is lacking

Ustimika 13:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Lack of vandalism is not part of the criteria for featured article status. However, the article has very few citations; even direct quotes aren't cited. Also, as the nominator said, the "Historical impact" section needs a lot of work. Perhaps this was featured quality back in 2004, but that is certainly not the case in 2007. -- tariqabjotu 19:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

edit
Suggested FA criteria concerns are citations (1c), stability (1e), and comprehensiveness (1b). Marskell 12:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 removed 07:42, 19 May 2007.

The Brothers Karamazov

edit

Review commentary

edit
Message left at User talk:Jonesboy1983 Awadewit 17:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC) Additional messages left at Books and Novels. LuciferMorgan 19:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article lacks sources and resembles sparknotes more than an encyclopedia entry, with its long plot summary and character descriptions. The "themes" section is pitifully short and is not backed up with reliable, scholarly sources, nor is the bulk of the article. Awadewit 04:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

edit
Suggested FA criteria concerns are sources (1c), structure (2), and coverage/focus (4). Marskell 07:59, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Remove 1c issues mostly, also I'm not normally bothered by an overly long TOC but this one is excessive it seems to arise from giving each character his or her own short one paragraph section. Incidentally, the appeal to authority in the lead has two of the supposedly renowned thinkers redlinked; I'd do away with the whole sentence anyway for some other method of establishing how the novel is regarded. Quadzilla99 09:42, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Remove for the following reasons.

  • 1b - There is very little here on the themes of the novel or the style of the writing, two key components of any novel. Also, the "Influence" section does not include a reception history; it details only the reception amongst famous thinkers.
  • 1c - This article does not rely on scholarly sources, of which there are plenty available on the Brothers Karamazov.
  • 2a - The lead is a poor introduction to the article because it does not summarize the article.
  • 3 - Not all images have a fair use rationale.
  • 4 - The plot summary and character descriptions are too long - they are not summaries. Awadewit Talk 19:41, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove per 1c and 1a. Also the article fails to discuss the receoption to the novel. LuciferMorgan 13:06, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove per the above. Trebor 14:49, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 removed 06:28, 17 May 2007.

Lindsay Lohan

edit

Review commentary

edit
Messages left at User talk:RadioKirk, Bio, Arts and entertainment, Films, Entertainment and Actors and Filmmakers. LuciferMorgan 19:49, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am requesting this review at the urging of 67.174.226.172 (talk · contribs) and because I agree with the points that that user brings up. 67.174.226.172 states, "Lindsay Lohan is not FA-quality because it fails Wikipedia:Why stable versions, WP:BLP, WP:V and WP:NPOV at the very least, and requires de-listing." I believe this is absolutely true. If one or two people spent some time to seriously review the article, we could perhaps get it back to featured-article status but this would require an ongoing effort as well because it is a frequent target of vandalism. It is on my watchlist but so are so many other articles that I often do not catch edits that reduce its quality. This request for a review is no reflection on the people who initially brought the article to featured article status. --Yamla 01:18, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My response to Ollie: How about the repeated addition of anything resembling the drunken "firecrotch" spew? Step for Cep again? Stuart for Mitchell again? (Both cited, once...) How can Lohan and Duff have "reconciled" when both claimed there was no feud to begin with (source fails WP:RS anyway)? "Lindsay" for "Lohan" (we're on a first-name basis now?)? Dating a female DJ (WP:RS)? Film listings with no sources? A MySpace fan page? Crap like this gets in over and over and over and over again, so Wikipedia:Why stable versions goes out the window. Not an FA.
I've only really been involved with this article to revert vandalism and I'm not a Lohan fan, so I've probably missed most of the non-obvious stuff. What's the "Step for Cep again? Stuart for Mitchell again?" thing? I'll keep an eye out for it in future. --Kurt Shaped Box 08:13, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's Lola Cep (cited, once...) and Casey Mitchell (cited, once...).
I've fixed the 'Cep'. As for the 'Mitchell' thing - there seems to be conflicting online references (some references to the character use one name, some the other). What's the deal here? A screencap of the credits screen would be great... ;) --Kurt Shaped Box 16:47, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Used to be a Disney link, but it's gone. This one is the most reliable I've found, and I'm pretty sure one was added to the article once. I believe Stuart was announced and it was changed to Mitchell before filming or release, or something like that. But the big picture is getting lost in the more minor WP:V violations, and that is the WP:BLP/Wikipedia:Why stable versions problem, because every time some tabloid scum writes her name or some drunken no-name wannabe scum speaks her name, some "editor" scum makes damned sure it gets in with the most salacious wording possible.
I assume that you're referring to the 'firecrotch' thing? I've been looking at that myself for a while and TBH, I'm not really sure what to do with it (it *is* cited but I'm unsure as to whether the sources referenced are what WP would consider 'reliable'). I've raised the issue at WP:BLPN. Hopefully someone with more experience can take a look at it... --Kurt Shaped Box 21:28, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's the biggest one now, but it's hardly an orphan. The question with this one is not reliability (we know he said it, I think there were cameras there) but its inclusion weighed against WP:BLP. It allows the article to demean its subject by validating the drunken spew of an industry wannabe who doesn't merit his own article (because his most famous moment is that spew).
You may have a point. I'm not particularly experienced in dealing with BLP issues... --Kurt Shaped Box 21:47, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"In March, she told OK! magazine that she was writing lyrics for her third album, which she called "different [from] the first two"." Click on citation 44, and you'll find that this quote appears nowhere in the original article, which in fact is citing something she said while working on her second album. Neither Lohan, her management, or Motown records have ever stated that she's creating a third album. It's a myth that her fans have concocted from a few press slip-ups and disseminated by means of Wikipedia. 75.49.224.232 15:29, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

edit
Suggested FA criteria concerns are stability (1e), POV (1d), and verifiability (1c). Marskell 21:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Does no one care about Miss Lohan? What will she think of us? Marskell 08:48, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 removed 08:25, 13 May 2007.

The Simpsons

edit

Review commentary

edit

All but one of the images (the picture of the writing staff) are missing source information (one screenshot has the source as "The Simpsons", which is insufficient). Until source information is given on all the images in the article, it is not of featured article quality.

EDIT: Though I (Helltopay27) no longer have any qualms with the article, Zagalejo has expressed concern over prose quality and lack of sources as other issues that may keep this article from being up to FA standards.

This article has been nominated for the main page on April 19, and this process should go quickly for it to meet its deadline. If it is not, then it should be removed from as a Featured Article of the Day candidate. Helltopay27 20:08, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, why don't you post this complaint at the talk page before nominating it for FAR. The people here has too much to do already. Anyway, I will try and fix your objection within a few days. --Maitch 20:19, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
...Because it's a featured article when it clearly violates the featured article criteria, and therefore, never should've been listed as a featured article to begin with. I think that would, you know, be a priority. Simply posting it on the talk page doesn't acknowledge the fact that it shouldn't be a featured article. Helltopay27 20:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you post your complaint first at the talk page, you can get it fixed without bothering everybody else. --Maitch 20:35, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, I am bothering everyone? I'm sorry that I'm forcing everyone that I'm bothering into performing a standard function of this website. Helltopay27 20:42, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I noticed your complaint on the FP request page and we were already trying to get image sources before you even did this. -- Scorpion 22:14, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I saw that, thanks. The only thing that doesn't have source information is the cast photo. I've removed my objection to its main page appearance; however, it seems that some others here have issues with the article's featured status other than images. Helltopay27 22:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Helltopay27, per WP:FAR instructions, would you mind notifying WikiProjects listed on the talk page with {{subst:FARMessage|The Simpsons}} ? The original author is aware. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:21, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have done so. Thanks for pointing that out; I didn't notice it on the FAR instructions. Helltopay27 23:00, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There are other problems besides the images. Lots of things lack adequate sources, and the quality of prose is inconsistent. The plot section, in particular, needs a major overhaul. Also, the article should say something about Education in The Simpsons, which is a major theme (at least it was during the golden years). I have a few other comments that have been sitting in the talk page; some have been addressed, but some haven't. (If my comments aren't clear, please say so!) Zagalejo 02:47, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You can't mention every theme, but, in order for the article to be reasonably comprehensive, we should say something about Springfield Elementary and the all jokes about the American education system. In the golden years, at least, that was a huge component of the show. If you went through every episode, you'd probably find more school-related jokes than political jokes. (Indeed, I think the article exagerrates the importance of the show's political commentary. Until recently, the show almost never addressed topical political issues. Most of its political jokes were general comments about corruption and incompetence.)
There are several problems with the plot section.
  • This is a poorly-constructed sentence: "Some examples include: Richard Nixon shown as a friend of the devil in "Treehouse of Horror IV", George H. W. Bush was portrayed as a cantankerous nemesis to Homer in "Two Bad Neighbors", Al Gore's seemingly banal personality being ridiculed, Jimmy Carter as a breakdancing hick, Bill Clinton claiming to have engaged in bestiality in Homer to the Max (Clinton also called himself "...a pretty lousy President." in another episode), and the United Nations is frequently shown to be an incompetent and bickering organization." Review the article on parallelism.
  • I also contest the claim that "the United Nations is frequently shown to be incompetent." Off the top of my head, I can only think of one episode that joked about the UN (You Only Move Twice). There may have been a few more, but the article suggests that UN-bashing is a common theme of the Simpsons, which isn't true.
  • Claims like "There are many episodes of The Simpsons which are less pleasing to social conservatives" need to be sourced. Find some newspaper or magazine articles to support this statemtn. Though it's probably true, I don't actually recall any public outcry about Homer's Phobia, which is one example used in the article.
  • Does the paragraph abot social conservatives really belong in "Plots," anyway? The reactions section might be more appropriate.
  • This doesn't concern the plot section, but what the heck is a "quaternary character"? Someone like Nana Van Houten? Zagalejo 05:16, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does the fact that the article is under review mean that it won't be able to make the main page on April 19, because that is the day we really want for it. -- Scorpion 02:57, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It should still be on the main page. I think it's somewhat unfair that an image problem is going to turn into a fiasco, so I don't think the editors should be penalized. But it will be a good idea to make the most of these next 19 days. — Deckiller 03:00, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Zagalejo, having brought its page up to FA staus I'm entirely sure that there was no public outcry towards Homer's Phobia. The only thing I found against it was the fact that a Russian used to try and get The Simpsons from Russian television, and that the censors were completely against it. So that statement should probably be changed or sourced, the source can then be added to the Homer's Phobia article. Gran2 10:44, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update. All images have sources now. --Maitch 09:54, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC. I don't know where the idea it's going to be on the main page on April 19 is coming from: April 19 isn't chosen. Zagalejo (talk · contribs) has raised concerns about prose and sourcing. The article was promoted over Tony1 (talk · contribs)'s concerns about prose and my concerns about sources, as well as other Objects; further, not all supporters identified themselves as major contributors to the article (something that is in the FAC instructions but rarely upheld). Move to FARC to examine these concerns further. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:19, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

edit
Suggested FA criteria concerns are images (3), prose (1a), and sourcing (1c). Marskell 12:36, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If anyone can help fix these issues, that would be greatly appreciated. Sjones23 00:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The images are already fixed, and the problems cited by Zagalejo have been fixed to his liking as well. Gran2 05:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, not quite... I still have some concerns, which I've posted on Maitch's talk page. Zagalejo 19:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh sorry, that was just my interpretation of the situation. Gran2 20:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We can help make this FARC unscathed if we can. Deckiller and anyone else, once again, if you can fix up these issues from Maitch's talk page post on Zagalejo's concerns, that would be greatly appreciated and will help greatly on this article. Thanks. Sjones23 23:33, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have done everything Zagalejo has asked me to do, so unless some new concerns comes up, then I think it is time to close this FARC. I will of course still respond to messages on the talk page. --Maitch 17:25, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still not crazy about relying on Turner so much to say what influenced the show and what didn't. Incidentally, I just got a hold of Turner's book, and it seems like a lot of the phrases used in the article are exact quotes of what Turner says, even though they're not presented as such. Phrases like "sitcom as a vehicle for social commentary" and "fat jovial slob as protagonist" are lifted directly out of Turner's diagram on page 44. I we do use these exact quotes in the article, we need to mark them off with quotation marks to make it absolutely clear that they are not our words. Of course, the alternative would be to paraphrase.
However, I'd still like to avoid Turner altogether as far as influences for the show go, and see what the Simpsons creators themselves said. Turner admits that he never actually talked to anyone on the show. That said, Turner is OK for describing common themes and plot devices, since that doesn't require interaction with the show staff.
I'd also like to say that there are still some prose problems in the article, but I don't want to try the tackle those until we've reached consensus on the content.
I don't want to come across as a dick here. I just think an article about The Simpsons should be excellent, and not just good enough. Zagalejo 18:38, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if you got the Turner book, then could you please try and rewrite that paragraph yourself. --Maitch 19:47, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have one more final exam to get through; then I'll turn my attention to that section. Although I think the entire article could always benefit from some copyediting. Does anyone else out there want to comment on the prose? Zagalejo 01:20, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A couple examples of prose concerns so that my comments don't seem unfounded: (These are just samples; the entire prose could benefit from some polishing.)
  • Lisa sometimes plays a different solo on her saxophone and something different happens when the family enters the living room to sit on the couch. This is a run-on sentence, and having "sometimes" and "something" in the same sentence doesn't sound right.
  • The title family and supporting characters appear on everything from action figures (see World of Springfield) to t-shirts to posters. The family appears on action figures? Zagalejo 01:43, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone else have something to say? I can't believe that I'm the only one who thinks this article could be better. Zagalejo 01:43, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Every article could be better. The point of this process is to determine whether it still meets FA criteria. -- Scorpion0422 02:21, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm currently copyediting the article; so far I've done half [5] and will go through the rest tomorrow. Why does so much debate circulate about the bad quality of the prose and no-one attempt to fix it? Personally I believe the first half is now of FA quality prose although I'm fully open to comments. JameiLei 13:04, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because it takes a long time to write FA quality prose - much longer than it takes to register these informal FARC comments. I've spent hours wrestling with single sentences because I wasn't satisfied with the wording. After Monday, I'll have signifiantly more time available for Wikipedia, so I'll try to pitch in then. Zagalejo 16:29, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I registered my strong object on the FAC; the article was promoted on fan and Project support over many significant objects (also, without significant contributors identifying themselves as required by FAC instructions). In addition to my concerns with the sourcing, there were important prose objects on the FAC, including Tony's. It was promoted anyway. Such is the nature of Wiki. It's an embarrassment that some Projects promote their articles regardless of quality. In contrast, note that I've never seen a medical article promoted on "fan support" from WikiProject Medicine participants. Even when a well-respected member puts up an FAC, it doesn't get approved by medical project members unless it is truly excellent. It's too bad other Projects don't demand excellence in their articles, but consensus on Wiki makes it fairly futile to lodge Opposes when articles come from Projects with a large number of members. When an article will inevitably pass on "fan support", I don't expend my energy; I learned that lesson from The Simpsons. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:04, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is ridiculous. I've seen plenty of articles that were failed because of one comment, despite overwhelming project support. Raul must have thought that your comments had no standing if he promoted the article over them. -- Scorpion0422 16:36, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Example, pls, of another article with this level of fan Supports that failed? And he thought the multiple prose arguments had no standing as well? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:23, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The question here: do the deficiencies remain? Marskell 18:15, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How do we seriously review an article that was promoted on fan support, has fan support, and with the list of External links like this one has? As to Tony's concerns about prose, here are some current samples of "compelling" and "brilliant" prose in this article, from the bottom:
  • There has been talk of a possible feature-length Simpsons film ever since the early seasons of the series.
  • For a long time the project was held up.
  • There was trouble finding a story that was right for a film, and the crew did not have time to complete a film, since they already worked full time year-round on the show.
Really compelling. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:44, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have already mentioned once, yes; the quality of prose on the article is dreadful. However, I am ploughing my way through gradually and doing a thorough copyedit. As my exams loom (they start one week in fact) it is becoming harder and harder to find the time to copyedit. If you wish to criticize the prose, by all means criticize anything upto the 'Paragraphs' heading, but please refrain from 'slagging off' that which has not been done. Thank you. JameiLei 22:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment—article is still on the fence. Take your time, Jamei; I'm sure Marskell will leave the FARC up for at least another week or so. Many of us try to avoid coercion as much as possible. — Deckiller 21:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Glancing through it:
  • Although the Treehouse series is meant to be seen on Halloween, in recent years new installments have premiered after Halloween. This is due to Fox's current contract with Major League Baseball's World Series. - needs further explanation. What effect does one have on the other?
  • The show is known for its frequent use of celebrity guest stars, who often play a stylised version of themselves. - cite? Is that really a major reason it is "known"?
  • Alongside the main cast, Pamela Hayden, Tress MacNeille, Marcia Wallace, Maggie Roswell, and Russi Taylor are regular cast members who voice several recurring characters - bit messy. What's the difference between a "main" cast member, and a "regular" one? "Several" is pretty redundant as well.
  • The Simpsons has been animated by many different studios over the past 18 years, both American and international. - as opposed to many of the same studios? Redundant. Using "the past 18 years" also means the sentence will date.
  • Interestingly, Conan O’Brien wrote four scripts before becoming the host of Late Night with Conan O'Brien. - you shouldn't presume you know whether something is interesting.
  • guest written - might need a hyphen, although I'm not sure.
  • For the first three seasons, Klasky Csupo acted as the domestic animation studio although onwards, Gracie Films made the decision to switch the domestic production to Film Roman from season four - I'm not really following the "although onwards". It's not a contradiction, so couldn't it just be "before" (and then no comma)?
  • On 2 May 2004, the actors resolved their dispute with Fox after reaching an agreement. - almost tautological sentence. "Resolving a dispute" and "reaching an agreement" are essentially the same.
This looks like it needs more work. Trebor 21:47, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. All the necessary info is already in the article, but it needs an extensive copy edit and work on improving the sources. The prose issues are typified by the statement(s):"The Simpson family first appeared in animated form as shorts on The Tracey Ullman Show, with the first episode, "Good Night", airing on April 19, [[1987]". The "Good Night" fact is crammed into a sentance which should read as "The Simpson family first appeared as shorts on The Tracey Ullman Show on April 19, 1987". The phrase "substituting Bart for his own name" is used twice in the article, but is unclear. These kind of issue are not fatal, and I would guess that a two or three hour ce would bring it over the line. As regards sources, there is no shortage of reliable sources out there. I would definitely like this article to remain FA, and recommend help from WP:LoCE. Ceoil 22:14, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Why not just delist it? It never should have been an FA in the first place. I mean, if you think this version is bad, then look at what it looked like when it received FA status. No one noticed this stuff? "This team start coming up with episode ideas at the beginning of December." "Several card games such as trump cards and The Simpsons Trading Card Game has also been released." "These pieces usually involve the family in some horror, science fiction, or supernatural setting and often parodies or pays homage to a famous piece of work in those genres; they always take place outside the normal continuity of the show." I appreciate Jamei's efforts to copyedit the article, but I think it's going to take a team of editors a couple of months to make this article FA-worthy. I'm committed to doing what I can to help, but I really think it would be best to take our time and rewrite large chunks of this article from scratch. Zagalejo 22:27, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I noticed it. I would be a strong Remove on this article, but I strongly Opposed its promotion, and it doesn't feel right to oppose on both ends. I already Opposed once. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:28, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm inclined to agree. I reread the article this moring with the intention of a ce, but the work needed is intensive. Some of the statements need deep untangling, many others are too unclear to interprete. Remove. Ceoil 22:42, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 removed 06:28, 17 May 2007.

Uma Thurman

edit

Review commentary

edit
Messages left at User talk:Fallout boy, Bio, Arts and entertainment, Films, Entertainment and Actors and Filmmakers. LuciferMorgan 19:49, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this article does not meet 1(c) and 2(a) featured article criteria. There are many {{fact}} tags, unsourced paragraphs, and the citations are not formatted properly. Several of the citations miss access dates, publisher info, etc. I also noticed a couple of external jumps. The lead section (one paragraph with 4 sentences) does not summarize the article as well as a featured article should. Plus, it contains a trivia section that "should be integrated into other appropriate areas of the article or removed". In the 2003–present section, the last four paragraphs look like a list, not a prose. Anyway, I hope all of my concerns are resolved in 2 weeks, and the article avoids going through FARC. Thanks, Crzycheetah 23:02, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

edit
Suggested FA criteria concerns are reference sufficiency and formatting (1c), and LEAD (2a). Marskell 12:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 removed 06:23, 16 May 2007.

Duran Duran

edit

Review commentary

edit
Messages left at User talk:Johnleemk and Biography. LuciferMorgan 16:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC) Message left at Musicians. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm nominating this for FAR because;

1. It fails criterion 1. c. in its lack of verifiability, and some book sources need specific page numbers.

Which book sources, specifically. -- Rick Block (talk) 03:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Notorious: The Unauthorised Biography". LuciferMorgan 21:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What sort of lack of verifiability do you see? All of those books and magazines are available out there in the real world; links have been provided to those which are online. I'll be happy to improve citations as you suggest, but this article was carefully researched before and during its initial FAC nomination; could you please explain your objection more fully? — Catherine\talk 05:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As concerns "Notorious: The Unauthorised Biography", cited books these days use specific page numbers. Each fact or opinion the book is used to cite should each individually contain the specific page number. This would improve verifiability. So if on page 20 of the book it says "X did this" for example, then instead of naming the book you would also name the specific page that statement is on.
What would also improve verifiability is if statements as concerns musical styles on each album were cited - would you like examples of such instances? LuciferMorgan 16:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2. The article is extremely POV and makes critiques on all aspects of the band's music, attitude and everything. All this opinionated stuff needs citations. LuciferMorgan 16:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Specific examples would help. On a quick read, I don't have any idea what you're talking about. -- Rick Block (talk) 03:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, please, what is "extremely POV" here? — Catherine\talk 05:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please check the bottom of this FAR for examples of POV. LuciferMorgan 19:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments—one of my favorite musical groups. The article's references look ok, but they need to be completed; in particular, references 1 and 15 are just links. Furthermore, the prose needs an extensive audit:
    • "They are still often identified as an "Eighties band" despite continuous recording and chart success over their twenty-eight year history." removing "recording and chart" will help drive this sentence home more succinctly, but that's mostly a personal preference. A source might be helpful here, and you might be better off removing the sentence entirely.
    • "The band has sold well over 75 million records worldwide." perhaps you can simplify to "The band has sold more than 75 million records worldwide", or even omit "worldwide" entirely. You may even be able to integrate it into another sentence. This, like the one above, needs to be more terse; that's where the (sometimes misread) POV issues appear.
    • "Redundant alsos throughout, such as "...was also a member of the band".
    • "Although the group never disbanded, it went through several line-up changes over the years." "Over the years" is redundant. Since the band is still around, it should read ""Although the group has never disbanded, it has gone through several lineup changes."
    • "The reunion of the original five members in the early 2000s created a stir among music media and the band's fans." simplify and integrate into the next sentence to avoid those accusations of POV or requests for a one-timer source in the lead. Sources?
    • "In 2006 Duran Duran finished their new album and it had a great New Wave/Alternative sound and by all accounts the band were thrilled with it." This sentence has POV issues. To begin with, there is a comma missing between "2006" and "Duran Duran", as well as other issues throughout the sentence. Who said it "had a great New Wave/Alternative sound"? "Was thrilled with it" is informal.
    • "Sadly after presenting it to Epic, it was rejected for not being "American enough"." Again, missing a comma after the (very POV) transition, and excessive detail for the lead. Besides, is there a source on the quote? The rest of that paragraph needs serious work; it should be compressed to maybe two sentences and integrated into another paragraph.
    • These issues with the lead should be tackled before the remainder of the article. In short, please simplify, trim, and copy-edit the lead. After this, I recommend enlisting the help of two to three copy-editors to give the entire article a massage; it's been nearly three years since the minimal FA review. — Deckiller 09:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks very much for the specific advice, especially on the lead; I'll try to address this over the next day or so. The painful "2006" paragraph Deckiller discusses was just added in the last day, and has already been removed. External links are a continual problem on a band page; I do try to trim them frequently, but I'll have another go. More specific action points and copyediting help/advice are very welcome. — Catherine\talk 17:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As concerns POV, I mean describing the music etc. You can use the words of critics, but not describe it yourself. Like this one which someone picked up above;
That whole paragraph is already gone. — Catherine\talk 07:22, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The band was relatively unusual in that all five members were pin-up pretty." A cite please? And who has expressed this opinion? A critic, or several? The opinion of fans is considered invalid due to bias, so if this is an opinion which solely the fans have it needs ridding of. LuciferMorgan 21:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "After Live Aid and Arcadia, the ever-shy drummer Roger Taylor, exhausted, retired to the English countryside. His retirement was originally announced as a one year sabbatical, but it soon became clear that he would not be returning to the band. A definitive announcement was made in April 1986 to confirm his departure." Ever shy? According to whom? A "definitive" announcement - according to whom was this "definitive"? These are both POV. LuciferMorgan 21:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Ever-shy" will be easy to find a cite for; he was notorious for avoiding the spotlight. For "definitive", would "official" work better? There was finally a formal press release from the band after months of rumor and speculation. — Catherine\talk 07:22, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Official is fine, as the statement was "official" - nothing POV in that. LuciferMorgan 09:37, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Roger Taylor remarked that, "It wasn't a good atmosphere at all. We had split into the Power Station and Arcadia, and egos were rampant." All quotes need citing. LuciferMorgan 21:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"To satisfy America's newly awakened thirst for all things Duran," This is another POV example. LuciferMorgan 16:07, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; I will find quotes and cites, or take these things out. I am determined to improve this up to current featured quality, however, it looks like I won't really be able to devote time to it until the 15th or later -- I am working extreme hours right now. Please do not move this to the next step of FAR until I or others have had a chance to address the issues you've raised. Thank you! — Catherine\talk 07:22, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have the power to move an article to FARC, so don't worry. However, the ones that do I know for a fact definitely extend time on articles which are being improved - this is a friendly place believe it or not :) LuciferMorgan 09:32, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"An autograph-signing session in Times Square got so far out of control that mounted police had to be called in to control the mob. The hysteria of their teenage fans accompanied them everywhere they went, drawing frequent comparisons to Beatlemania."

The first sentence would benefit with a citation, though the second is definite POV. Any Beatles comparisons need a reliable citation whichever article it is, but especially when comparisons to Beatlemania are made. LuciferMorgan 09:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"With the Bond song holding at Number 1, and the band arguably suffering from overexposure, their Live Aid set became infamous for Le Bon inadvertently hitting a falsetto note in the chorus of "A View To A Kill" – an error gleefully noted in the press as "The Bum Note Heard Round The World", and which the singer himself would later describe as the most humiliating of his career."

Whose opinion is it that the band were suffering from overexposure? Where was the "The Bum Note Heard Round The World" title used exactly? Also, where did he describe as the most humiliating of his career? All these need citations. LuciferMorgan 17:42, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Move to FARC—not all the examples in the lead have been fixed, and there are still citation tags. I have also not been able to point out additional examples outside the lead, and a full copy-edit hasn't been performed yet. There is also the length issue. Clearly, the article needs the extra time available with FARC. — Deckiller 13:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the delay in getting back to this -- I've done a little more work today and will continue to this week. Thanks! — Catherine\talk 22:04, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

edit
Suggested FA criteria concerns are referencing (1c), and POV (1d). Marskell 15:23, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 removed 10:40, 31 May 2007.

Xiangqi

edit

Review commentary

edit
Messages left at User talk:Flcelloguy, China, Strategy games, Board and table games and Chess. LuciferMorgan 15:10, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article is poorly written and poorly organised. It has only 12 references, and some sections are too short to be comprehensive. --Kaypoh 01:58, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I largely disagree with the preceding comment. Some sections need referencing, but most of the content is informative, is well organized, and provides enough information to be comprehensive without getting into "material of interest only to fans of the game" like so many game articles do. The existing references are good sources, not somebody blogging about how much fun he had, or how every game should be played a certain way based on the results of two games he played (see the strategy comments that people keep putting into the Diplomacy (game) article's country descriptions), or inside jokes. Barno 18:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I re-organized the sections a little bit. This article is still a reasonable FA, but as mentioned, needs some more references in couple sections. I disagree with the "poorly written and organized" statement also. (AQu01rius &#149; Talk) 18:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments. No special characters in sections headings, try to eliminate the slashes. Unformatted footnotes (see WP:CITE/ES or use the cite templates). Books section - what is that? Further reading or References? See WP:GTL. Incorrect use of dashes. The article is undercited. These kinds of parentheticals can be improved to brilliant prose or converted to a See also template at the top of the section: (See chess in early literature or timeline of chess.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Here's some more issues:
      • Section headers shouldn't repeat the title of the article,
      • The pics are little jarring, also the placement of left aligned pics might need tweaking according to this section of the MoS. That might make it worse though given the nature of the pics.
      • Article also needs copy-editing, the lead is fairly weak and has little to no flow. There are some short sentences like "Xianggi has a long history" and "Xiangqi is one of the most popular board games in the world" which are written in very simple English and could perhaps be combined with surrounding seentences to improve flow. Quadzilla99 16:53, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have to agree with prior comments, the intro does need to be a bit stronger, and in general, there are some problems with language. For example "This is a very important feature of the Xiangqi game and is often forgotten by new players of the game." is a rather clunky sentence as it references the game twice. Is that even necessary, since it'd be understood that it's about the game anyway? It might be better to say "This important feature is often forgotten by new players" or even merge it back into the preceding sentence. The section on Approximate Relative value also has language problems. I know what it's trying to say, but I don't think it's doing a good job. I'm also bothered by "During the Spring and Autumn Period and the Warring States Period, wars were fought for years running." in the history section. I'd have to think on how best to say it, but I think that needs work. I also think that the order of sections is a bit strange. At the least, I think the history section should be closer to the top. FrozenPurpleCube 02:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've fixed at least one problem that seemed obvious to me, but for the rest, I'm not sure what the best choices might be. I'd be glad to offer further input on any changes, just let me know. FrozenPurpleCube 02:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The comments by Quadzilla99 and FrozenPurpleCube show they agree that the article is poorly written.

12 references is too little for a featured article, where almost all information should be referenced.

I suggest you read Chess, a featured article which I think deserves this status. Compare the "History" sections of the two articles (the "History" section of Xiangqi includes no information on modern history, for starters). Compare the short "Modern play" section of the Xiangqi article with the "Competitive play" section of the Chess article.

--Kaypoh 08:15, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some other clunky sentences are present like "It is possible for one player's horse to attack the opponent's horse while the opponent's horse is blocked from attacking, as seen in the diagram on the right." - triple use of the subject in one sentence, and others like it. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:57, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

edit
Suggested FA criteria concerns are prose (1a), references (1c), formatting issues (2). Marskell 06:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 removed 10:40, 31 May 2007.

Montréal-Mirabel International Airport

edit

Review commentary

edit
Messages left at User talk:AlbertR, Canada, Aviation and Airports. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article has only five inline references and this fails (c) "Factually accurate", as the claims in the article are not verifiable
  • The 'Today' section reads a bit like a list, and should be completely rewritten. Does not qualify under (a) "Well written" means that the prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard.
  • The article does not actually have any images of the airport itself. The three images in the article are maps (with one of them being a satellite image). In addition, the images have no captions. This fails criteria 3. It has images where they are appropriate to the subject, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status.

For these reasons, the Mirabel Airport article should be delisted.Zeus1234 16:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delist per nom, large sections are unreferenced, not compelling. --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 05:24, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please read the FAR instructions; we do not declare Keep or Remove during the review phase. A two-week period is allowed for review and hopefully improvements; if there is not consensus that the article meets criterion at the end of two weeks, it moves to FARC, where you can declare Keep or Remove. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

edit
Suggested FA criteria concerns are factual accuracy (1c), prose (1a), and images (3). Marskell 03:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove unless proper copy-editing is done. Here are examples at random from the lead that show why the whole text needs treatment.
    • Don't even like the opening sentence: "Montréal-Mirabel International Airport, (or Montréal International (Mirabel) Airport) (IATA: YMX, ICAO: CYMX) originally called Montreal International Airport and widely known simply as Mirabel, is a large airport located in Mirabel, Quebec, near Montreal and was opened 4 October 1975.", in which the two "ands" make the structure clumsy. Remove all of the ugly bolding but for the title at the start of the sentence.
    • "It was intended to replace the existing Dorval Airport"—Remove the two redundant words.
    • "Technically speaking, it is still the only airport in Canada with sufficient right-of-way that can be expanded to accommodate 50 million passengers per year, though a lack of traffic meant that Mirabel was never expanded beyond its first phase." Remove "speaking". The right of way can be expanded, or the airport? Has meant. Has never been. What is this first phase that we're hit with now? Better to say "has remained ...". "A year", not "per year" would be nicer and consistent with the subsequent sentence.
    • "less than 200,000 passengers a year"—"Fewer than", please.

Not a good start. Tony 10:53, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 removed 05:11, 9 May 2007.

Attack on Pearl Harbor

edit

Review commentary

edit
Messages left at Shipwrecks, Hawaii, MilHist and United States. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:42, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article was featured in 2004 before the current process was in place and it falls short of the current criteria in a number of significant ways:

  1. Point of view. The article is written from the point-of-view of the USA. The background section is a potted history of Japan, and the USA is scarcely covered at all. The 'strategy', 'plans', 'organization' of the Imperial Japanese navy get sections but only the 'preparedness' of the USA. This contextualises it in US-centric account of Japanese growth and aggression. It's perfectly possible to give a neutral account of Pearl Harbor in its historical context while still making it clear that this particular battle was an unprovoked surprise attack.

The POV continues into the sections on the battle itself, with plenty of detail about the heroics of American servicemen, and even a list of the winners of the Medal of Honor, and little material about heroic behaviour of anyone on the Japanese side or honours granted.

  1. Focus. The article strays too far from its subject. The Meiji Restoration and the 9/11 attacks have little direct relevance to the article. The article could be much shorter and better for it.
  2. Style. The prose often falls far short of brilliance; there are stub-sections and list-sections.
  3. Accuracy and Citation. Many paragraphs of the sections on the impact of the attack strike me as dubious. There are a number of 'citation needed' templates; there is plenty of contestable material which lacks citation.

Regards, The Land 19:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article has gotten some work done on it recently. After a sensible discusion by both sides, some POV comments were removed from the beginning of the article. I disagree with the viewpoint that it lacks in Japanese comments and an explanation of their reasons for the attack. To add more would mean to go off topic completely. The 9/11 and Hiroshima/Nagasaki comments can be removed. However, the idea that it is US centric is tough to dispute, since most of the contributors are going to be US citizens. How many British featured articles don't have a strong British POV, for example? Overall, the article is strong, and should remain a featured article, in my opinion. CodeCarpenter 21:26, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there are plenty of American and British people who, like myself, are students/scholars of Japanese history. Keeping a neutral POV can be very difficult, as most published sources are written from one perspective or the other, but I wouldn't necessarily assume that the article has to have a US tilt simply because most of the editors would be American. In any case, a few points:
  • The opening paragraph could use a sentence or so describing Japan's intentions or goals in the attack. I count four phrases in this section directly referring to the significance of the attack to the US, but none for Japan. Maybe something along the lines of "the attack was intended to eliminate or delay the ability of the US fleet to move against Japan in the Pacific" (I'm no expert on the subject, and if you think something more accurate or more appropriate could be said instead, feel free. it's only an example.)
  • I agree about cutting down on elements about the Meiji Ishin and other such things. (a) This is an article about a single given attack, not about the entire background of Japan's rise to militarism or the causes of WWII. (b) by explaining all of this, and not devoting equivalent background to US events, it implies an assumption that the reader knows US history and that Japanese history is esoteric and not widely known. Therein lies the Americanocentrist bias. One would, of course, have to be really careful in cutting this down in order to not overly simplify the factors leading up to the attack (e.g. making it seem to be entirely about oil), but still I feel that a lot can be taken out.
  • Considering the length and detail of the lead-up (prelude, background, preparations) section, I wonder if perhaps this should be moved to come after the section on the attack itself. I certainly understand the logic behind a more chronological approach (as it stands now, prelude -> event -> aftermath), but as it stands now, a reader has to scroll down several pages (or skim or read through quite a bit of prelude/background material) before coming to the central core topic of the article. Could this work better by presenting the Attack section right after a far briefer causes/background section, following it up with the lengthier discussion of both prelude and aftermath?
  • The inclusion of a section on "Japanese views of the attack" implies that the Japanese view is different from what is presented above as the "standard" version, i.e. that the standard version is the American/Western version. It is all valuable and interesting information, but I wonder if it can't be incorporated elsewhere into the article. The "Monumental Status" and "Cultural Significance" sections are currently written entirely from the American point of view, so perhaps the "Japanese views today" portion can be incorporated there; the rest can probably be fit in nicely somewhere earlier in the "main" section of the article, either in background, the attack, or the aftermath. ... Or the Japanese views section can be left intact, and an American views section can be more explicitly created, incorporating the Monumental Status and Cultural Significance portions. This might even be better, since someone looking specifically for this type of information, related to public opinion, cultural significance, etc, will be able to find it more easily than if it's all dispersed throughout the article.
  • PS I like the omission of any lengthy discussion of the Pearl Harbor advance-knowledge debate.
I apologize for the extent to which my comments focus on a US bias - these are meant to be purely friendly constructive criticism. I have seen articles which are far far worse in POV issues, and this one is certainly not a problem of nationalism, racism, or revisionist history, simply a matter of approach - there are American historians and then there are Japanese historians - we use different sources and come at it from a different set of background knowledge... In any case, all of these are merely suggestions. The article is wonderfully long, detailed, well-written, and interesting, and I think with just a little more tweaking it can be amazing. This certainly deserves to be a Featured Article. Thanks for your hard work, and for considering my thoughts. LordAmeth 17:11, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article's lead misses WP:Lead by a wide mark, straying into analytical detail but failing to answer the most obvious questions an encyclopedia reader would have, "Why did Japan attack?" and "Why did it result in a U.S. declaration of war" JGHowes talk - 23:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


FARC commentary

edit
Suggested FA criteria conerns are POV (1d), focus (4), writing style (1a), factual accuracy (1c). Marskell 03:38, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove - we're getting plenty of constructive comments on how to fix the article's issues, but no attempt to address them as yet. (It's on my to do list, somewhere, but probably a year or more away!) The Land 12:07, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 removed 09:32, 25 May 2007.

Cristero War

edit

Review commentary

edit
Messages left at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history and User talk:Mpolo. Marskell 15:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC) Additional message at Mexico. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:08, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It could be a lot larger, it doesn't present a single historian's view, it's not really NPOV, it's too fragmented and it simply reads bad. It doesn't even remotely meet the featured article standards. Mixcoatl 03:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References and external links are combined in one section, with no inline citations. This article will need quite a bit of work to remain featured, I think. Pagrashtak 14:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
POV and contradictory. It first defines the movement as a conflict between "Church" and the "State" (POV by any matter), but then it jumps back and forth saying the episcopate didn't support the armed conflict but then it did, and then that the Pope explicitly supported the actions, then that he didn't. The phrase "anti-Catholic government of the time" is POV too. After all, it wasn't the government of the time, but the constitution, still in place, that separated Church and State. --the Dúnadan 19:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I generally agree with the comments above, and that this article does not meet NPOV standards. It also seems to confuse anti-clericalism (which was a definitely a feature of the constitution) with anti-catholicism. Finally, it fails to give the important antecedents to the conflict, making it seem like the anti-clerical articles of the 1917 Constitution were created ex-nihilo at the time, ignoring the long history of conflict between Independent Mexico and the organized clergy (and yes, particularly the Catholic Church in Mexico). This article should be labeled as "previously featured", though it probably should not have made it that far in the first place. Magidin 14:08, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How the hell did this article ever achieve FA status without a single reference?? Happy-melon 09:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

edit
Suggested FA criteria concerns are POV (1d), comprehensiveness (1b), organization and sectioning (2). Marskell 18:02, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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.

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 17:53, 31 May 2007.

Buckingham Palace

edit

Review commentary

edit
Messages left at User talk:ALoan, England, Architecture, British Royalty, WikiProject Biography/Royalty, WikiProject London, British Government and UK noticeboard. LuciferMorgan 11:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at this, it is very comprehensive and there is a lot of information. However, i feel it does not cite enough references, it is not clear which information came from which book and the lead is rather long. Therefore is propose looking at 1)c) and 2)a). Simply south 10:29, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. There seem to be quite enough references to me. It is just a matter of not being, as Simply south says, "clear which information came from which book". In other words, the inline citation issue. The lead is marginally long. JPD (talk) 11:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undeniably it is very scarcely referenced; and there are a lot of red links —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.36.182.217 (talk • contribs) 20:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Scarcely" referenced? What, eight apposite paper sources are now no longer enough? And I count a mere nine redlinks. What is the matter with redlinks anyway? They are the way that new content is added. -- ALoan (Talk) 16:43, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No problem with the page at all, nothing contraversial. Giano 16:23, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which parts of the lead you would leave out, if you think it should be shorter? Yes, it has five paragraphs, which is perhaps more than WP:LEAD recommends; on the other hand, it is a long article, and the lead is a good summary of it. I doubt we are going to get anywhere rehashing old arguments about the "density" of inline citations. -- ALoan (Talk) 16:43, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The article is fine. The lead is longer than a paragraph, but this is only if you define "lead" as "bit above the TOC." There is a lead paragraph, but there is an introduction to the subject, and it requires that much space. The references question is not a question at all: the thing is fine. Red links are a sign that you and you and you need to either stop over-linking or need to start writing; they have nothing to do with this article's FA status. Utgard Loki 17:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've attempted to trim down the lead - there were a number of places where it diverted into marginal relevance and the partial explanation of the pre-Palace history did not entirely cohere. The amount of lead I've removed is quite bold, but please do think about whether it needs all that stuff reinserted. Regarding the inline cites: I felt the assertion that Buckingham Palace was deliberately targeted by the Germans in WWII was sufficiently challengable to require an inline cite — and I'm a military history geek, I'm sure an art history geek would find a number of other challengeable assertions (though I obviously can't tell you what they are ;). Regards, The Land 19:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do what you like - I wrote it once and now I'm through with FAs. It has been much edited, and I refuse ever again to have anything to do with a page in which LuciferMorgan is in anyway involved (i.e. here) so its farewell from me on this subject. Giano 20:03, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He has only been involved in notifying people that this page exists... The Land 20:43, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As Mr. ALoan is involved, there's no reason we can't get through this quickly. Some notes:
  • Embedded links are deprecated on FAs; should conform to the footnote style of the rest.
  • I notice one one sentence paragraph. Check for these.
  • The lead was too long and the trim is good. Some could be added back, such as a sentence on the pre-1800s property, but compressed.
  • Check for consistency in spaces and full stop location around ref numbers.
  • No, red links are not a criteria concern.
  • No, density of citations is not a criteria concern. I think we can amicably look through this for any statements "likely to be challenged."
And yes, LM was only notifying people that the review exists. There's no harm in that. Marskell 22:01, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

edit
Suggested FA criteria concerns are citations (1c), and LEAD (2a). Marskell 12:53, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Some of the little stuff has already been taken care of. I flagged one quote and some BLP info (hidden). Marskell 12:53, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And yet another bullshit FARC a la Restoration literature. I even see the same people voting keep, and oddly enough these people are never at FARC.. Go figure. LuciferMorgan 13:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Explain yourself please - in full Giano 13:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Or don't. For God's sake Lucifer, there was no need for a flame post. At this point, the article is not in keep territory. But ALoan knows what he's doing, so we can wait. And shut up. Marskell 14:49, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't you shut up for a change Marskell and do us all a favour? Every FARC once in a while you seem to poke your nose in for no good reason. Just because you're an admin don't think I'll put up with you telling me to shut up - you throw something at me and I'll throw it straight back Marskell. LuciferMorgan 16:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't get too excited and over-tired everybody, because next week I've booked the Battle of Pearl Harbor performed by the Batley Townswomen's Guild in the FARC for Bulbasaur. Yomanganitalk 17:16, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, that's ok then. If you see read Attack on Pearl Harbor you will see that it was a minor incident which caused few casualties and had little strategic consequence, except causing the USA to win World War II. grumble grumble grumble ;) The Land 17:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder why all of this discussion got indented under my Comment, since it's not a response to me, and it's not a conversation involving me? Unindenting ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:42, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • At the moment the page is just about fine. However, I have been saying for the last 18 months that it is too big and high profile a page to be reasonably maintained. Too many want to add their Auntie Mabel's night of passion with a GI in the rose garden on VE night, or one of their terrible holiday photos or some other such nonsense. In short unless it is almost constantly watched it is unstable. When I turned it from a stub into an FA it was a very different page to that today, I no longer have the will or the time to constantly monitor it, so it can only go one way. I think there is a case for these very big high profile pages to be permanently protected or at least only open to selected editors, but that "aint" going to happen. So it may as well be abandoned. I don't see the point of anyone spending huge amounts of time working on it just to satisfy demands here. Giano 13:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relative to many FAs, I wouldn't call this unstable and we certainly shouldn't demote on 1e. It's at 30k readable prose, which is fine, though the lead might be trimmed some more. WRT to work needed, see this edit from DrKiernan. He has rapidly become our top royalty editor and the embedded concerns and fact requests seem knowledgeable and fair. If that is taken care of, along with the redlinked newspaper and any BLP info in "Security" (that section could also be trimmed) I think we'd be very close. Marskell 15:37, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As an expert on Royalty he will doubtless know that many of those facts he has tagged come from the Buckingham Palace Guide book listed in the refs - others have obviously been added by numerous other editors, and as for the sentence reading oddly from the "Sunday Graphic" that will have to be taken up with the editor of that illustrious organ - if he is still alive. In the time it took him to make those edits he could have fixed it up - Oh yes, the Normanby to Normandy is changed regularly - it should be Normanby. I cited all the references I used and the time of the FAC and that is all I am prepared to do. At the moment there is nothing wrong with the page, although a few people have added sections I would prefer to trim, and ending withthis section is very odd [6] but it seems a shame to upset people for such trivial reasons. The page contains all, and often more than, people need or want to know about the palace - and if they want to check a fact the references are there for them to do so. It you choose to demote this page that is entirely up to you, and no problem for me as I won't be the one maintaining it. Giano 16:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 00:57, 31 May 2007.

Big Bang

edit

Review commentary

edit
Messages left at User talk:ScienceApologist, Astronomy, Physics, and Science. LuciferMorgan 14:23, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For a term in common use, this article makes no effort to engage with the layman, with a very technical lead (see WP:LEAD "should be written in a clear and accessible style so that the reader is encouraged to read the rest of the article."), as well as problems with WP:MOSDEF and Wikipedia:Technical terms and definitions. Vanished user talk 14:42, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adam, can you be more specific about which parts of the lead you do not understand ? First sentence -In physical cosmology, the Big Bang is the scientific theory that the universe emerged from a tremendously dense and hot state about 13.7 billion years ag - seems concise and clear to me. I don't think anyone is going to take the time and effort to try to improve the article unless you are more specific in your comments. Gandalf61 15:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"The theory is based on observations which indicate the expansion of space in accord with the Robertson-Walker model of general relativity, such as the the Hubble redshift of distant galaxies taken together with the cosmological principle." - I know what Hubble redshift is. The rest is rather technical physics that I'm not familiar with. And I'm probably the ideal layman in this case, having been reading scientific magazines and books since I was 8. "the prevailing cosmological paradigm explaining the origin and expansion of the universe, as well as the composition of primordial matter through nucleosynthesis as predicted by the Alpher-Bethe-Gamow theory." - This rapidly gets more and more difficult, and I doubt I'd understand anything in it I didn't know already. When we get to "From this model, George Gamow was able to predict in 1948 the existence of cosmic microwave background radiation (CMB). The CMB was discovered in 1964 and corroborated the Big Bang theory, giving it more credence over its chief rival, the steady state theory." I'm lost.
Big Bang is a term in general use and with strong layman interest. Certainly, technical descriptions are appropriate, but without definition of terms and clear explanations, as well as keeping the most difficult, technical parts of the theory for last, this article is only suitable for physicists. The lead is the place to start, but, really, I do think a better job at explaining could be made in the rest of the article too.Vanished user talk 15:11, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think this may be a bit extreme. In your last example, do we really need to explain what the steady state theory is in the lead? It's clear from the sentence that it is a scientific theory and was the main alternative to the Big Bang Theory. That's enough to give the reader the big picture. Those who are curious about exactly what the steady state theory is can read that article. This is similar in my mind to the mention of George Gamow. We don't need to say who exactly who he is in the lead. The sentence tells the reader that Gamow predicted CMB, and those wishing to learn more about the man may read his article. Pagrashtak 16:01, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That sentence isn't that bad out of context, aye, but it's increasing the importance of the previous very difficult to understand sentence by emphasising its importance. Anyway it's not that hard to say something like "the steady-state theory, which proposed the universe had always existed, constantly renewing itself." (which shows how the steady-state theory conflicts with the big bang theory). Of course, that might not be quite accurate, but, well, I'm a biologist. Vanished user talk 17:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have put a proposed re-write of the lead section on Talk:Big Bang and invited comments. Gandalf61 16:04, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is, in my opinion, really excellent work. Deals with most of the lead problems in one go. The rest of the article could probably be explained a bit better as well, but this article does seem to be in good hands. Vanished user talk 17:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Feedback on the proposed re-write at Talk:Big Bang was very positive and constructive, so I have now modified the lead section in the article itself. Gandalf61 13:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The dark matter section seems poorly sourced, just one peer-reviewed article.--BMF81 00:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's very cursory in its overview and it may not lend itself to many articles. For some additional possibilities see Dark_matter#References

Comment I work in observational cosmology, so am a particularly harsh critic here. I have added a long list of (minor) errors and ambiguities to Talk:Big Bang. I'll leave it to other editors to decide how much of these they want to fix; some might require a lot more words in an already-long article. I also wouldn't like to pass judgement on whether these should be considered detrimental to FA status. PaddyLeahy 21:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments.
    • Fails to comply with WP:GTL; either it has a massive link farm, or some of those are actually incorrectly formatted references, or both. Separate References, format them correctly (see WP:CITE/ES), and minimize the Exernal link farm.
    • Footnotes also need to be correctly formatted — see WP:CITE/ES. Sources need publisher, author and date when available, and all websources need last access date. One footnote is just a blue link URL.
    • There is incorrect use of dashes throughout; in fact, there are three different dash styles, and most don't conform to MOS.
    • Numerous sections are unnecessarily listy and could be converted to prose/paragraphs.
      • Two sections now contain lists; the introduction to theoretical underpinnings and the Speculative physics beyond the Big Bang section. The rest of the article should no longer be "listy"; if it is, then please say which sections. Mike Peel 19:16, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article is undercited.
    • WP:MSH problems.
  • Lots of spit and polish needed here before the prose can be tuned up. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:59, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've read through the entire article, and tweaked the prose where I could see it being needed. Are there any points in the article where this is still a big issue? Mike Peel 19:16, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

edit
Suggested FA criteria concerns are LEAD (2a), ref formatting (1c), various MoS issues (2). Marskell 08:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that the lead issues have been resolved above. I plan on fixing the other issues in the next couple of days. Mike Peel 21:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is anyone still working on this? Progress seems to have stopped, and there's much to be done still. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:18, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry; I got distracted by other things. I'll work on sorting out the remaining issues asap. Mike Peel 01:25, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm done for now. The article needs a fair few references adding to it, IMO, which will take me time to add (I'm currently contemplating running through the sub-articles one by one, getting them up to a decent standard including references, before adding the main references to this article - but that's a big job). Apart from that, are there any other issues with the article remaining? Mike Peel 19:16, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are you able do that in reverse order, since this has been up a month, and the article is still uncited? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:41, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've added in references where needed. These may not be the best references that could possibly be used in each case, but they do the job. I'll try to improve them in the future when I have more time.
Is anything else needed to bring this article back up to featured standard? Mike Peel 16:52, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think we're good. Who chooses when to close the review? --ScienceApologist 21:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 09:14, 29 May 2007.

United Kingdom corporation tax

edit

Review commentary

edit
Messages left at User talk:Jguk, UK notice board, and B&E. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:22, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article has no inline references at all. Nssdfdsfds 15:55, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear. This has been on my long list ever since jguk pushed it to FA in early 2005. I will have to see what I can do. -- ALoan (Talk) 18:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This was my comment as well when I reviewed it for WikiProject Taxation. Good article but I'd like to see inline citations. For someone not familiar with UK corporate taxes, it is difficult to verify with just a references section. Morphh (talk) 14:18, 04 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone willing to start on a list of the facts that are the highest priority to be cited directly? Basically those most central to the topic and or most controversial if there are any. Even though I know nothing about the topic, I'll pitch in where I can over the next couple weeks, but I won't be able to get to it right away. - Taxman Talk 02:30, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm willing to help out in a couple of days time. I also know nothing about corporation tax, but given time I can usually translate HMRC speak into English, so I can plough through the manual. Do you mean to {{fact}} the necessary points, or to write up a list on the talk page? Winklethorpe 07:00, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you're asking me I was just referring to writing up a list here or on the talk page. But if you can just plow through it go ahead. I'll pitch in when I can. - Taxman Talk 03:27, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've started a section on the talk page to collate referencing issues. Please contribute as you can. Winklethorpe 20:38, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fast track to FARC? Significantly under-referenced, and the prose will definitely need a spruce-up. It's a complicated topic, so the prose needs to be as simple and crisp as possible.
    • "the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 as amended from time to time." Remove the last four words.
    • "the rules governing corporation tax"—a comma would make sense before "the".
    • "have diverged more and more"—"have increasingly diverged" would be neater and more formal.
    • "The tax borrowed its basic structure and many of its rules from income tax. It is currently governed by"—Referent for "It"?
    • "as of 2005"—update this unstable area?
    • "Neither term is formally defined. However, capital implies something of enduring benefit, revenue implies that it is normally ongoing expenditure." Ideal place for a semicolon after "defined".
    • "For example, expenditure by a company on acquiring a new head office will be capital; expenditure on stationery will be revenue."—Present, not future tense would be more direct. Tony 23:14, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • How would fast tracking to FARC help anything? We've got several people willing to help, we just need more time. If you see prose errors fix what you can. - Taxman Talk 03:27, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • As you get to it, WP:MSH issues to be tended to. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:22, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm sure I've seen that having a heading directly after another heading (e.g. History then introduction in this article) isn't approved of, but I can't find it. Could anyone confirm/deny? On the time element, I intend to make a serious attempt on the references, but have an important RL task to do over the next two days that'll slow me down. Winklethorpe 20:23, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • I've seen the double heading critique in the FAC but I haven't found it in the MOS. Morphh (talk) 3:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
              • Ah yes, it was someone on a FAC saying they didn't like it, rather than that it was in the MOS. To a certain extent I agree. In other news, I'm (hopefully) towards the end of referencing the article now. Winklethorpe (talk) 08:17, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

edit
Suggested FA criteria concerns are citations (1c), prose (1a), MoS issues (2). Marskell 14:22, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why has this been moved to FARC? To quote from above "The nomination should last two weeks, or longer where changes are ongoing and it seems useful to continue the process." A look at the page history will show you that I've just spent the last 11 days moving the page from zero citations to 100, and I'm not quite done yet. To do this I've had to learn the tax from scratch. I've only just (as in yesterday) begun to address the prose issues, by printing the article out to mark up. Quite clearly it would be "useful to continue the process", as the task of referencing was so huge that it's taken up the whole two weeks.
The current premature move to FARC means that people will be commenting on the article before any of the prose concerns have been looked at. Please return it to review for, say, a week. Winklethorpe (talk) 10:05, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it should be moved back to FAR and given another week or so. - I'll work on it when I can. Morphh (talk) 18:08, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The move down here in no way precludes further work on the article. We just try to keep things on pace and I didn't see a close early consensus. Don't worry, it's another two weeks here. Just keep people updated how the work is going. Marskell 10:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree there was no consensus for an early close - the article was clearly in need of significant work. My point was that the move appeared to violate the guideline "The nomination should last two weeks, or longer where changes are ongoing and it seems useful to continue the process." If you considered that guideline and decided that the current case did not fit it, that's fine, just let me know your reasoning and I'll most likely accept it. Winklethorpe (talk) 18:32, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any way you slice it this has been a major improvement. Fantastic work, Winklethorpe. The most serious problem of citations has been remedied, so what's left is to improve the prose. I don't think the article is in removeable territory now anyway, but improvements in flow of the prose would be well appreciated. I'll see what I can add. - Taxman Talk 19:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments.
    • Tax and Corporate tax as See also in an article about tax ?? Can't those be worked into the text?
    • Terms like HMRC and HMSO are used throughout, but never defined or wikilinked (not everyone lives in the UK).
    • A whole lot of inconsistency in the formatting of footnotes. Please identify PDFs. Most of the websources have no last access date, and I'm surprised at how few of these tax documents have publication dates — is that accurate? References need extensive cleanup — they are mostly just blue links, with no publisher, date, author, last access date, etc. (See WP:CITE/ES)
    • Incorrect use of hyphens instead of mdash throughout — please see WP:DASH Also, incorrect use of hyphen in place of ndash on date ranges. Hyphens (-) join words. Ndash joins dates and ranges on numbers (–). Mdash is used as punctuation (—).
    • See also to a red link? If further explanation is needed, it should be provided. Life assurance companies are taxed using the above rate on shareholder profits and 20% on policy holder profits[75] (See also: I minus E basis)
  • SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:58, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You'll have to excuse my inexperience on a lot of these (in the sense of explaining them to me, rather than tolerating them).
  • See also - Tax is already in the article, so I guess I'll take it out. Corporate tax is a rather stubby more general article. I'll see if it'll go in somewhere.
  • part done - tax removed. A bit stuck on where to work the other in.
  • Now fully done
  • In the main article, HMRC is never used without HM Revenue and Customs having been used shortly before it - I made sure of that. Do you feel it would be appropriate to expand the HMRC's, or to do HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) to introduce them? It's just the full title is very tedious to read all the time. HMSO is only used in the refs, so I'll wikilink it, and HMRC, in the refs - expanding it would just unnecessarily pad the refs, I feel.
  • It doesn't need to be on every ref; it just neeeds to be defined on its first occurrence. That is, the first time you use HM Revenue and Customs, follow it with (HMRC). And, what is HM ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:17, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "HM" is Her Majesty. Until she dies. At which point it's His Majesty. Which is why, unless they're being ultra formal, departments use HM. See [HM Revenue and Customs website] for an example. I know you might think it would be good to expand on it in an article, but think: at some point in a decade or so, we'd have to go and change every single Her Majesty. It doesn't bear thinking about. Winklethorpe (talk) 18:03, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • now done
  • Refs: I have a bit of a problem here. The lions share of the refs are to a HMRC manual, which lacks a named author (in fact, it will be multiple people within HMRC), or publication date, as they are "living" documents (as they like to put it), and so under constant revision as legislation, court cases, or policy changes come in. Publisher is HMRC, as cited. I've got "retrieved on" everything that's online and likely to change - is "last access date" the same thing? I modelled the refs on how I'd seen other FAs do them, as no cite template seemed appropriate (and I've used templates where possible; I guess "internal manual" isn't a common source), but I'm happy to change. I'm not sure how you mean about pdfs.
  • If they have no author or date, you need not supply one — I was just checking. For people on old computers, browsers, or Adobe Acrobat versions, it's helpful that you warn them of PDFs by including (PDF) after the article link. That way, dummies like me won't bomb out their computer while watching the ball game :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:17, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • (PDF) done.
  • Dashes - I'll read up on those and fix them (and that one back there is probably wrong, eh?)
  • done (Where done = "I think I've got the hang of them")
  • Missed that "see also" - the original author seemed fond of things like that. I will fix.
  • done
On a very minor note, saying "not everyone lives in the UK" was a little off - unconsciously assuming the reader knows what you know is a mistake we all fall into. Other than that, if you can help me out with getting the references up to spec, then hopefully this will be an article saved. Were you content with the prose, or is that to come? Winklethorpe (talk) 22:37, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I found the prose rough going, but I wasn't focusing. I'll look again; nothing rose to the level of Remove. Well ... actually, what I found rough was that I wasn't sure the TOC reflected good article organization, but I'd need to study it more carefully. On topics like math, physics, and taxes, it helps to make an extra effort at clarity so as not to make the subject matter harder than it is. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:17, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I've tried to trim the prose down where it was too wordy, but I've not done any serious rewriting - we'd need to find someone who really knew the field to rewrite without getting things wrong. I know what you mean about the structure. It does actually make sense as a structure you go through it, but there's probably a perfect way to organise it that I can't think of. Vast majority All of your other points dealt with as above. Winklethorpe (talk) 21:24, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove unless a copy-editor goes through it thoroughly. 1a and 1b at issue. Here are examples:
    • "Prior to it taking effect on"—yuck; exposed right at the top. "Had" in the next clause is redundant.
    • "with a single measure, corporation tax,"—Remove "measure,"; remove "many". Remove "currently". Insert "the' before "modernisation".
  • I felt the "currently" prevented it contradicting that the Finance Act 1965 created, and therefore governed, the tax. "Many" seemed appropriate, as it was many, but not all, rules (the point that it was more than simply a rebranding of income tax for corporations needs to be made, I think).
    • "the first major amendment to corporation tax saw it move to an imputation system from 1973 to 1999"—timeframe unclear.
    • "Problems for the tax"—bit loose; "for" for people. Remove "certain".
    • "wide scale reform"—hyphen required.
    • "tax law rewrite project"—does it have a proper title? Tony 02:04, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It does indeed have a proper title. The Tax Law Rewrite project. Sorry, but the capacity of bureaucracy to give things really boring titles knows no bounds. You can check this by following the ref on the first mention.
I recently rewrote quite a lot of the lead to make it a more balanced summary, so the majority of what you have pointed out is my inexperienced work. It's possible that the rest of the article is better. I've certainly tried to chop out some of the wordiness I found through the article. Would you care to look further down than the lead? Other than that, I've addressed your specific points (except the one you just said "yuck" to), although I've made some comments above. I will try to summon a copyeditor. Winklethorpe (talk) 19:40, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article is still in need of a lot of work. I just spent a lot of time trying to clean up the trainwreck of different formats for footnotes, and found many other things while in there. I may have fixed all the dates, but they were all over the place in terms of formatting and wikilinking. The References section is still a sloppy, mumble-jumble. The Budget is sometimes capped, sometimes not. There is unattributed opinion from a guest columnist here, suggesting that a POV review may be needed by someone familiar with the topic. A new set of eyes is needed to run through the entire article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well Sandy, thank you for your work on improving the article. However, I have to say I took umbrage at you describing the results of my hard work on adding 100 references to the article from scratch as a "trainwreck". Perhaps "inconsistant" or even "incorrect" would have conveyed your meaning whilst providing constructive criticism - I'm happy to fix anything that's pointed out to me. In fact, I said much the same thing in reply to your previous comments on the footnotes on 29th April. I see that, for example, you have changed my cite news of an article that appears in the Sunday Times print edition, which gave the url to the online archive along with the print details, to a cite web. If cite web is correct, then that's fine, but I made an honest judgement at the time about which template to use. In fact, as cite web is "specifically for web sites which are not news sources", I'm going to need cluing in on why cite web is appropriate here.
  • My sincerest apologies, Winklethorpe. I used that description because I had the impression citations had been added piecemeal over time by different editors using different styles, because of the red-linked dates, lack of accessdates, some missing info, etc. I'm really sorry for my rudeness.
  • On the cite web vs. cite news issue, perhaps you can help clear up a long-standing confusion ... another UK editor long ago changed my usage of cite news for bbc.co.uk articles to cite web, saying it was only an online version. If that Sunday Times article in fact does appear in print, then yes, it should be cite news, not cite web. Do you know if this is the situation with bbc.co.uk ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:02, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The BBC site has stories generated from reportage for bbc tv or radio, but the stories never appear in print elsewhere (caveat: the BBC print some monthly magazines, so that might not be quite true.) Timesonline, by contrast, has a combination of reprinted articles and custom content (there's a discreet little "From the Sunday Times" or "From Times Online" at the top of articles). I'd still call a bbc.co.uk article a news source, myself, but I suppose there's going to be a grey area as you move from the major media to minor websites.
  • As the references section has had little done apart from a little updating, I won't worry at you calling it "a sloppy, mumble-jumble". Any pointers?
  • I will have a crack at it
  • now done. The Finance Acts reference is still a bit messy, but as it's better than referencing 50 or so pieces of legislation individually, I've left it. The Legal & General link is broken and I can't get it back - it looks like they've deleted their older press releases from their website.
  • You appear not to like "e.g.". Fair enough, I'll change it. Personally I have no problem with it, and certainly wouldn’t consider it “sloppy”, as you do.
  • On the "unattributed opinion from a guest columnist", I'm not sure in what way it's unattributed? It's by an named member of parliament, writing an opinion piece in an established newspaper - nothing unusual there. It is used to reference a mention of criticism of a decision in the 1999 Budget that has been blamed for harming pension funds. The mention of the criticism was already in the article when I got to it, and so I went looking for an appropriate cite, which that seemed to be. I certainly didn't detect any serious POV in the article when I read it - there are a few mentions of criticisms here and there, but compared to the amount of noise companies make about every Budget, it's a fair reflection of the more notable episodes of controversy for the tax. If you'd like a new set of eyes to run through the article, it seems to me that you've already provided them.
  • The opinion should be attributed to that named member of parliament in the article, with something like "so-and-so said such-and-such" ... Since I'm not familiar with UK taxes, I can't really provide a POV check. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:02, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm, I'll see how I can word it.
  • now done.

I added definitions of and the correct links to HMSO and HMRC to their first occurrence in the article; defining acronyms is good practice, and will help non-UK readers with the abbreviations. Please correct as needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:14, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know red links are not a bad thing, but a red link in the lead is different. If it's important enough to be mentioned in the lead, can't a stub be written for Finance Act 1965 ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:42, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More capitalization confusion:

  • As the UK's Tax Law Rewrite project[3] has proceeded with the modernisation of income tax, ...

It's capitalized in this article, but not capped in its own article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:53, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ah right - the story there is that I capitalised it after a comment by Tony, but haven't reviewed the specific article yet. Tax Law Rewrite is the official title, and it was clear from Tony's comment that leaving it uncapped made it sound like a badly written description of the project (the ability of officialdom to come up with terrible titles is amazing). Winklethorpe (talk) 18:14, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Winklethorpe. I usually don't wade too deep into FARC, but here are some comments.
That's fine, this is my first time at FARC (or FA)!
    • I'm confused by the use of terminology here. "UK tax makes a distinction between revenue and capital. Neither term is formally defined; however, capital implies something of enduring benefit, revenue implies that it is normally ongoing expenditure." First, the introductory sentence of the article body could be more formal than "UK tax". "United Kingdom tax law"? Second, I don't know how you can refer to "revenue" as "expenditure". Whose revenue—the government's? Whose expenditure—a company's?
    • "For example, expenditure by a company on acquiring a new head office is capital". Similarly, how can an expenditure be capital? The asset is capital; the expenditure is a capital expenditure. If this is what you're going for, it seems either too informal or is giving the reader, like me, too much credit. –Outriggr § 23:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is a case that while I understood the paragraph, if others have not, it needs to be changed. It looks like think the original author has done a too-swift switch in what they are talking about. I think they were trying not to use "income" as income is used for too many purposes, and so opted for "revenue", before perpetrating an number of other ambiguities. Anyway, I will ponder on how to rewrite it for that ever-tricky combo of accuracy and understandability. On your first point, it's less usual in the UK to refer to "tax law" than it seems to be in the US, but for clarity your suggestion will be better.
Thanks for taking the time to look, and please flag up anything else you see - my current motto is "will fix anything". Winklethorpe (talk) 19:41, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to add some context to that paragraph. I get the idea because it's similar to the distinction we have in the US between capitalized purchases and expensed ones. Anything with lasting value of a reasonably large size needs to be capitalized. The difficulty in the article is in using the word revenue to describe something that is an expense. Is "revenue" really the word the law and sources use for the concept? If not see what is most commonly used. - Taxman Talk 01:11, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the improvement. Going back to the sources, I find that corporation tax is charged on profits, which are defined as "income and chargeable gains". Chargeable gains are identical to capital gains, just renamed for corporation tax (literally, the legislation just says chargeable gains are anything that would be capital gains for an individual; I think sticking with capital is best here, as it's a more broadly understood term). Income has quite a specific meaning for UK tax (it's from "any trade, profession or vocation", plus various other sources that basicly cover everthing except capital gains), whereas its ordinary use is much broader, which is why I think the original author opted for "revenue". So would saying something like "The tax system in the United Kingdom makes a distinction between income and capital income" and so on, run into the problem that income usually has a broader definition? Winklethorpe (talk) 21:08, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we've got another long review here. Winklethorpe is working so we'll leave it open. But the phraseology here is often tortured, so it may still take a while. "Imputation system" needs defining in the intro. Marskell 05:41, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've now explained impution system as briefly as I could in the intro. If it's not clear, let me know. Winklethorpe (talk) 13:27, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I know this has already been brought up but "while revenue implies that it is normally an ongoing expenditure for something likely to be used for relatively short term consumption" is utterly counter-intuitive. Should it be something like "while revenue implies monies collected [can revenue be anything else?] that it is then allocated to ongoing, short term expenditures, particularly consumables." Or something like that? Marskell 13:36, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have found myself more tied up than expected, but I got perhaps a third of the way through the other day. I will try to finish the rest, but it may be a few more days. And then Buckingham Palace. And then Anne of Denmark. And then... -- ALoan (Talk) 15:20, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marskell has asked me to comment on here as to whether I'm committed to keeping going with this FAR, which of course I am. That said, I've run out of things to act on, I feel. I'm assuming that where I've dealt with comments above, the writers are satisfied with my improvements. If not, please bring them to my attention. It's clear that I personally can't bring the prose up to scratch, although I hope I've managed to cut some of the wordiness out already, so I'm hoping that with the help of other hands (and a big thank you to all those who have contributed), the prose issues will be satisfied.

Just to show my commitment, I'm going to have little-to-no wikipedia access for several days after tomorrow (it's a bank holiday weekend in the UK). Any issues raised will be deal with, however. Thanks, Winklethorpe (talk) 14:03, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note. I'm going to err on the side of keep with this one; these never-ending reviews need to be closed eventually. Winkle has indeed done is best to address everything brought to him, Sandy has OK'ed the refs, and the prose has seen improvement (and will hopefully see more when ALoan and Winkle get back to it). Marskell 09:13, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 06:28, 17 May 2007.

Ian Thorpe

edit

Review commentary

edit
Original nominator aware. Message left at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian sports. Marskell 15:45, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although the FAR page recommends a waiting period of 3 months before putting an FA up for review, I feel this page has two points that need to be addressed:

  1. There are no images of Thorpe's face. This is an article about a highly notable person, yet I have no idea what he looks like. This is acceptable for a subject that cannot possibly be photographed, such as God, but not for a legitimate biography. The only picture is one so specific that it cannot be used for any purpose other than to demonstrate Thorpe's overbalancing.
  2. The article is extremely long. The article failed a GA because it was too long, and that issue still hasn't been addressed. The article contains so much extraneous information that no one would ever need, such as Thorpe's mass as a baby.
Well it is sourced, and encyclopedic; but it does make the article too long. I think such facts should be taken out. -- Rmrfstar 01:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other minor issues still exist, such as the lack of explanation regarding overbalancing, and that the lead has far too many citations. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 23:39, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is criterion 3 of WP:FACR, and this is a biographical article. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 00:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It does have a picture, although not of his face? I don't think this matters. We don't have free pics of Julius Caesar. Only drawings. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't like the structure (or lack thereof) and the resulting TOC. I really don't mind the lack of a free picture: he's photographed at at least one website in the "external links". -- Rmrfstar 01:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Did you check the pre MArch 25 structure before it was on the main page. It may be better that way. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just did, and I think it's a bit better because it doesn't impose the redundant category of "biography" over his whole career history. But both versions could use some organization that breaks up the excess material into more managable chunks with nested topics where appropriate... -- Rmrfstar 02:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I still believe that this is featured article quality. However, I do agree that there are some minor structural issues that could be addressed and solved. Does this need a FARC? No, in my opinion. Does this need some tweaking and discussion on the talk page? Yes. Daniel Bryant 03:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Quite frankly, I have never seen a featured article in such awful shape. The lack of photographs only serves to highlight the excessive length. The article is filled with detail that is not only beyond what an encyclopedia entry (as opposed to a biography) should be, it is also so heavily footnoted that I defy any reader to be able to sit down and actually read the entire thing at one sitting. I can't.
This article suffers from "featurism," a term I use to describe the process where writers go overboard to meet every single possible objection from those who comment on FACs. Such excessive sycophancy means qualities such as brevity, conciseness and overall good reading are sacrificed. In an insular process such as FAC, you get the same people making the same demands to the extent that any stylistic conceit is destroyed.
I'm appalled by the kitchen-sink nature of the footnotes (172! for a guy who hasn't hit 25 yet!). Where is the editorial discretion and parsimony if you have to footnote every web article you can find and add this to the article? This looks like an organized Google search with prose.
As to the lack of photos, with the high visibility Ian Thorpe has, wasn't there some way the authors could have requested donations from the multitude of fans out there who might have been at an event and taken a photo or two? Trust me, I have done this with a some of featured articles I authored and most folks you ask are delighted that you can use their photos to enhance the article. Alas, the insular nature of FAC and its demand for "no original research" wrongly militates against such requests even being considered. What a horrible, myopic view!
I want to be extremely clear about one thing: I do not fault the authors for these failings. They are writing the way they are being told to in order to get the Star. This is entirely a problem of process.
Due to these quality problems, this entry should certainly not be labeled "Featured Article." By the same token, the article should become the poster child for everything wrong with the Featured Article process. 67.149.103.119 14:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The entire article is the biography, and yet it's featured. This, in a biographical article, would be the same as a featured book article consisting only of a detailed synopsis of the book. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 17:58, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the massive blob of prose is not particularly well written. Take this sentence as an example: Thorpe promptly donated his A$25,000 bonus for being the first person to break a world record in the pool to charity. I had to read that three times to understand what it meant, and it doesn't even specify to which charity the donation was made. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 18:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am a newcomer to WP:FAR. I have just started weighing in at WP:FAC recently. Mostly, I contest citations on sports articles. I think in general we could do better in this area for sports claims, especially over the last 10 or 15 years where things are easily found on the internet. WRT Thorpe, I have several unsourced claims that I would contest. These are for claims up to 1998 in the article:
    "the youngest ever Pan Pacific medalist"
    "Thorpe went into the 400 m final ranked fourth in the world,"
    "Thorpe's improvement continued when he defeated world champion Klim in the 200 m freestyle in 1 min 47.24 s,"
    "He then claimed the 400 m freestyle title from Hackett and clocked 50.36 s in the 100 m freestyle."
    "Thorpe's first event was the 200 m freestyle, where he led throughout to record a time of 1 min 46.70 s, just one hundredth outside Giorgio Lamberti's world record."
    "Thorpe's run ended when a personal best of 50.21 s in the 100 m freestyle was only sufficient for fourth place, but he returned to victory with the 4 × 100 m freestyle relay team."
    "Thorpe left school at the end of year after completing Year 10."
    "His decision caused consternation amongst those who believed that concentrating on swimming alone would be detrimental, with Stephen Holland stating "If this kid just does swimming and nothing else, he won't last beyond the Sydney Olympics"."
    "Holland himself had broken world records since the age of 15 and was expected to win the 1500 m freestyle at the 1976 Montreal Olympics, but retired from the sport in despair after concentrating only on swimming and failing to win."
    "Thorpe disagreed, pointing to his informal search for knowledge using books and the internet, stating that "Swimming is a small part of my life"."
    "He eventually sat for his School Certificate on a flight to a FINA World Cup meet in 1999, meticulously supervised by former school teacher and Australian head coach Don Talbot." TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 19:24, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Read the book. It's all in the same chapter. I do not need to cite the same thing 100 times. It is all covered by the book ref noted at the end of the paragraph. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to note the contrasting views above. One person says the article is footnoted to death; another has listed ten statements that he would like to see cited. This, in an article containing an astounding 200 inline citations. This is a fine example of "inline citations don't solve all our problems". So, either we begin to cite every sentence, or we reconstrue the problem. –Outriggr § 23:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I personally believe that internet era biographies should be quite heavily cited. It sounds astoundingly ridiculous, but articles like Thorpe could approach 1000 citation before citing all easily verified claims. The point is not whether the editor included a lot of citations, made a lot of edits, or worked hard. None of those points is contested. The point here is the 2nd and 3rd sentences at WP:V, which read
TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 23:58, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to note the contrasting views above. One person says the article is footnoted to death; another has listed ten statements that he would like to see cited. This, in an article containing an astounding 200 inline citations. This is a fine example of "inline citations don't solve all our problems". So, either we begin to cite every sentence, or we reconstrue the problem. –Outriggr § 23:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If I may interject, a well-written encyclopedia entry should provide links to only the most relevant of information, including - but especially - quotations. The minutae people can take at face value and, if the article is seen as put together well, they will. Please don't forget as well that the article contains links to other articles within Wikipedia. People wanting more information about Olympic rules can look at the number of these other articles and find additional authority there. Or Google it. Also, there are often multiple footnotes(up to four) on who won what race. Who needs more than one, especially since they all say the same thing? One thing you always want to remember is this: the people on FAC who you are trying to go through the article to identify where more and more links should be placed are not the people you are trying to attract (and recall that most of those that vote support or oppose have, bizarrely, never even written a Featured Article). Your audience is the people who do go through to learn a little more about the athlete, check to see if their recollection about a particular outcome is correct, or in general find out what the athlete has been doing lately. 67.149.103.119 00:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One thing I'd add after looking at the above request for ten more citations. IMHO, the person making this request for ten more citations wouldn't know what to do with them if he had them. As far as I can tell, he's simply trying to show his value to the discussion by picking out stuff 1) he found and we didn't and 2) the readers won't care about. (If they did care, why didn't anyone insert a cite when it was on the main page for 24 hours and hundreds of thousands were digging through it?) We're writing articles here. A good article where the author took the time to write well will be researched well and relied upon by others. You don't have to link to a weather report because your article says it was sunny. 67.149.103.119 00:35, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Everything is reffed. I have seen things pas FAC recently where some things are not baked up by the refs in the same paragraph. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I should add 2 things. I am not asking for 10 new citations. It is likely that many sentences are all backed up by a single reference later in a paragraph. It is not cited clearly however. Dearest 67.149.103.119, I am not showing off or something. I know what to do with citations. Look at my user page and you will see a lot of good well cited work. My main point with the citations is seen by my edits to Barry Bonds. I have been citing his 2007 season the way an internet generation accomplishment should be cited. I just feel that athletic accomplishment that are easily referenced over the internet should be cited like I am doing with Bond's 2007 season. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 04:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(undent) Comment Well Tony's citation requirements have been disputed in many FAC's and elsewhere recently. Work is going nicely, it still needs to be cut a little further I would cut some of the descriptions of the events in between the Olympics. On a different topic what's with all the sections in this FAR? It's getting a little confusing. I was almost ready to start a new section just to post a comment. Quadzilla99 14:20, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment I have been convinced that I should tone down my request for expanded citation by Blnguyen. I am doing so for several reason:
  1. I am not an expert on swimming and thus can not compare the ease of citing it with the ease of citing the major sports with internet resources for accomplishments over the last ten years.
  2. Thorpe is an Australian athlete and again I am not familiar with the ease of citing such athletes via the web.
  3. This is my first FAR participation, and I am aware I might be better using different standards at FAR than I use at FAC although theoretically WP:WIAFA should apply to both.
  4. The article seems to be highly print sourced. In particular the sequences of sentences that I note above seem to be commonly sourced.
  5. This FAR seems to have more important concerns.
  6. Its be nice to Quadzilla99 day. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 00:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: The dread print sources here are Hunter, Greg (2004). Ian Thorpe: The Biography. Sydney: MacMillan, 404. ISBN 1-4050-3632-X. Andrews, Malcolm (June 2000). Australia at the Olympics. ABC Books. ISBN 0-7333-0884-8. Talbot, Don; Ian Heads, Kevin Berry (2003). Talbot: Nothing But the Best. Lothian. ISBN 0-7344-0512-X.
  • Two biographies, and a history of the 2000 Olympics, all by respectable commercial publishers. This is, in general, better sourcing than the web, even the Sydney Morning Herald, can be expected to provide. Inter-Library Loan is recommended. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I reserve the right to make more specific citation requests later or at FARC. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 00:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So apparently Ian Thorpe started a charity called Foundation for Youth. Even a thorough reader probably would not learn this from the article. It is mentioned only twice: Once in Personal life, in which the name of the charity is misspelled, and once in the external links. Shouldn't this have a good chunk of prose devoted to it? Shouldn't this have its own section? This is a perfect example of how the article is just a disorganized play-by-play recap of his career without any pertinent information. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 12:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Because if we described the charity in minute detail, it could be construed as fancruft. Although the thing bears his name, he doesn't run it on a day to day basis, so it is mostly patron work and naming rights. It certainly is less prominent than the number of times he has criticised WADA officials. So I don't think we should add more PR type fluffery about the statistics etc of this thing in great detail. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:17, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I seriously doubt people will think a charity section is fancruft. I learned more about the charity from the above paragraph than I did from the article. The article tends to flow like this: Major swim meet! Thorpe breaks records! Thorpe swims great, but doesn't break a record! Sneak in little factoids about his life outside of swimming. And then on to the next paragraph for the same thing. I find it repetitive and poorly structured. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 10:31, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I feel that we must adhere to the undue weight clause in NPOV. If you do a google search for the Fountain for Yourh, almost all the hits are to his own website and that of associated charity alliances, so in the eyes of independent third parties, the other stuff like his business interests are more notable among independent observers. As I pointed out before, he is mostly a figurehead, unlike the other stuff, where he is treated as a pop-star and mobbed. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fact checking
edit
  • From Retirement: He was known for his trademark six-beat kick to power away to victory in the closing stages of races, attributed to his unusually large size 17 feet.[22] Source 22 does not mention his six-beat kick, nor does it attribute his endgame power to his size 17 feet.
    • Comment interfere Fixed this as well. The new article mentions the six beat kick, and says that the finishing burst is due to a six beat kick, which it attributes to his physical gifts - earlier it refers to his "flippers", so there is no doubt that the writer means his large feet. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:57, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • From 2004 Summer Olympics: An attempted appeal, asserting that a noise had caused him to make his mistake, was dismissed, ending his chance to defend the 400 m Olympic title. This prompted widespread debate, with former swimmer Shane Gould asserting that the selection policy should be relaxed to maximise Australia's chances by selecting Thorpe, whilst Talbot, head coach Leigh Nugent and Kieren Perkins defended the selection policy. Public debate was also widespread, with Prime Minister of Australia John Howard describing the situation as a "tragedy".[114][115] Source 114 is an article from 2002 dicussing Thorpe's sexuality. Source 115 is relevant. Neither source mentions Prime Minister Howard or coach Leigh Nugent.
    • Comment interfere The book reference covers things in more detail than the webrefs. As below, the book ref at the end of para explains things. Do you want me to put it multiple times throughout the paragraph? Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • From Personal life: Known for his long-standing interest in fashion, he serves as an ambassador for Armani,[12] Source 12 is a summary of his career, with no mention of fashion or of Armani.
  • From '2002 Commonwealth...: Australia subsequently won the relay, with Thorpe overtaking Jason Lezak in the last 50 m as he had done at the previous Pan Pacific Championships in 1999.[94] Source 94 is about that event, but does not mention Lezak, the last 50 meters, or the 1999 event.
    • Comment interfere The book reference covers things in more detail than the webrefs. The section in the book which I only mentioned at the end of the paragraph covers everything more thoroughly than the Swiminfo. User:Taxman raised some concerns about relying on one ref, so I added webrefs for the individual reports. The chunk from Hunter at the end of the para mops up what is not covered by the rest of the webrefs. Do you want me to to add accompanying Hunter refs multiple times to accompany all the swiminfo refs so that it is replicated 5/6 times per paragraph to fully verify each sentence? Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • From 2004 Summer Olympics: Having achieved what had eluded him four years earlier, Thorpe showed more emotion, immediately tearing off his cap, punching the air and screaming.[127] Source 127 does not mention Thorpe's emotional state after the event, though it does have a picture of him with his arm extended.
  • Reference 52 is broken.
  • Reference 6 is incomplete.
  • First paragraph of National Debut is not referenced.
  • First paragraph of 2001 World Aquatics... is referenced only with reference 79, which simply does not adequately cover the entire paragraph.
        • Comment interfere I don't believe there is a paragraph with only one refrence. If you mean the bit about adding the 800m to his repertoire, it's not in the webref, but if people want, I can repaste the Hunter chapter five times within the paragraph instead of leaving it to the end. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • First 10 sentences of 2003 World Aquatics... contains only one citation, reference 100, which does not even mention Thorpe. --Cryptic C62 · Talk
The "2004 Summer Olympics" cite has the right title, and presumably publication info, but the link is wrong. This link confirms the article, although published elsewhere. [8] Source 115 appears to be supporting the idea that public debate was widespread.
The "Personal life" cite is titled "Did you know", and sure enough, there's a little sidebar called "Did you know" containing the referenced fact. [9]
I'm not defending the article—Just Sayin'. –Outriggr § 23:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then the sources should be cited properly. --Cryptic C62 · Talk
WP:CITE#When_to_cite_sources says "All material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a source" and talks about people's opinions etc. I have done this. WP:CITE does not say that I have to put in the same source multiple times in the same paragraph, but I can do so if you really need this. I don't read anything there to mandate anything about how many times I have to place the source in each time. Everything is sourced. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:04, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
From User_talk:Blnguyen
I tend to agree, that WP:CITE does allow for one citation at the final sentence to cover an entire paragraph and the reader who wants to challenge such a citation really needs to read the reference provided before they can argue the toss.Garrie 06:43, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Prose issues
edit
  • From Early Life: he once topped the season's batting averages in the latter stages of his career ahead of former Australian captain. does not make sense.
  • From National Debut: Thorpe continued his good form at the National Age Championships a fortnight later fortnight is not a standard unit.
  • From 1998 World Aquatics...: after his sister Christina's brother-in-law to be became gravely ill with the disease. does this person not have a name?
  • From 1998 Commonwealth Games: Thorpe accelerated past Klim in the last 50 m to post a time that was more than a second faster than his effort in Perth. was Thorpe actually accelerating, or was he just going faster than Klim?
  • From 1998 Commonwealth Games: just 0.55 s slower than Kieren Perkins' 1994 mark (regarded by some as the greatest swim in history). blatant weaselry. who thinks Perkins' swim was the greatest ever?
  • From 1999 Pan Pacific...: where Thorpe broke Lamberti's nine-year-old world record in the 200 m freestyle, the oldest world record. was it the oldest (unbroken) world record, or the oldest (unbroken) swimming world record?
  • From 2000 Olympic Buildup: Although a test for EPO was developed in time for the games, no successful test for hGh was found. Clarify the meaning: (A)Although a test for EPO was developed in time for the games, there was no reliable test for hGh. (B)Although a test for EPO was developed in time for the games, Thorpe did not test positive for hGh.
  • From 2001 World Aquatics...: Thorpe arrived in Fukuoka under immense pressure, having been chosen by broadcaster TV Asahi as the marketing drawcard of the event with his face visible throughout the country. What?
  • From 2004 Summer Olympics...: In late March 2004 at the Australian Championships in Sydney, Thorpe lined up in the heats of the 400 m freestyle, but overbalanced whilst on the blocks and fell into the water, resulting in his disqualification. What is overbalancing? Is it rare, or fairly common? Is it an amateur mistake, or do professionals do it too? There is no article about it, and the source - reference 8 - does not elaborate on it, either.--Cryptic C62 · Talk
Pictures
edit

I believe that the article is valid as far as picture goes, because as the FA criteria asks, it has a picture relevant to the subject. Wikipedia is first and foremost an encyclopedia, hence the information is the most important thing. If you really want a picture, there is a link to some popups here, with pictures of him launching his fashion label and drink label, in case that can be passed off as a "historical event". Of course someone could say, well, that's what he would look like when he is wearing his underwear, but I personally came here to get info, not pictures. WP isn't a picture book. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I would agree. The major concern I saw was the size and the work that has been done to address that thus far has been commendable. This should even be able to avoid FARC. Quadzilla99 04:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"but I personally came here to get info, not pictures". Well, if we're going to make this about what people want, here's a list of people who want more pictures:

  • Parthi commented "It needs more pictures to break up the monotony" in the FAC.
  • Mercenary2k commented "Need a better picture of Ian Thorpe as his face is covered with water" on the FAC. The image was replaced, and that image has since been removed.
  • Chickenfeed9 commented that the article "looks very bland without (images)" on the talk page.
  • Modest Genius sardonically commented "the only picture left in the article itself is of him falling over" on the talk page.
  • Cryptic C62 repeatedly commented that the article "is extremely long and boring without pictures" on the FAR.

Let's be honest. You (blnguyen) are attempting to defend the article's lack of pictures because you can't find a way to slip copyrighted images past the Free Use police. You wish the article had more pictures. Also, if you came here to "get info, not pictures" then why does Wikipedia have Featured Images? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 21:55, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Update I managed to convince a flickr user to share a pic it could be cropped and used in the infobox. It's already been approved over at Commons, I just have to crop it and install it. Here's the pic, not great but will have to do. Quadzilla99 22:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Update
edit
  • Length - Is now 88k (was 105k), about a 17% pruning
  • Sectioning - I have cut the chronology into three main phases, teh early international career, the peak phase, and the not so good phase after he changed coaches and put a small overview of the phases at the start.
  • Citations - I believe it was fine as beforehand, and the few broken links have been fixed. Everything in a given paragragh is cited, if not full in the web-refs, then in the more detailed book ref at the bottom of each paragraph
  • Image - Noted above. If anybody is desperate, then try passing off the fashion launh as a "historical event" Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prose - Errors fixed accordingly. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For clarity's sake, prose has been cut from 55 kb to 43 kb. Although it's 86kb total only 43 kb is prose. I'd think a little more could still be cut though personally. Quadzilla99 05:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I think it's safely in the prose limit now. :) Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I guess we'll have to see what others say, I'd be neutral if FARC were now (which I know it's not), but I'd be leaning toward keeping. If we could cut a little more and get a pic we could avoid FARC altogether. Of course let's see what others say. Quadzilla99 15:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Did this article *really* come to FAR because of 55KB prose and one image, or were there other issues? (B movie had 86KB prose.) There's a lot of confusion, arm waving and teen gnashing going on above (can any of us read without font changes, check marks, and sections which are taking over FAC and FAR these days?); Quadz, can you summarize the perceived issues ? I just checked the prose size, and it's fine. Don't know why there's no image. References are fine. Someone should resolve the image situation, and then tell us (without creating ten more sections) why this is at FAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll tell you why. The article is on FAR because it's extremely long, estremely boring, not particularly well-written, and provides nothing more than a moment-by-moment replay of Thorpe's career with just occasional snippets into other aspects of his life. Just about the entire article could be schlorbed into a table of events and times, as that's just about all the article provides. I ask you if you have ever seen a featured article with the following structure:
    • Major Swim Meet #1: Provide stale explanation of every minute of the meet. One or two sentences about Ian Thorpe (person).
    • Major Swim Meet #2: Provide stale explanation of every minute of the meet. One or two sentences about Ian Thorpe (person).
    • Major Swim Meet #n: Provide stale explanation of every minute of the meet. One or two sentences about Ian Thorpe (person).
    • Foundation for Youth: Oh wait, this section doesn't exist. In fact, searching for 'foundation' with Ctrl+F yields two hits for Fred Hollows Foundation and one for Wikimedia Foundation.

Obviously, the answer is no. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 01:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the review reads to me as if you're bugged because there's few Fair Use pictures. If there are none, there are none; we don't judge articles based only on whether there are entertaining pictures (that would be a children's book). The last time I came across you and Rmrfstar working together, it was to upload *seriously* copyrighted pictures with incorrect Fair Use tags, so I'm wondering if you're not overly steamed about the images issue. I'm interested in hearing from seasoned reviewers (like Tony1 (talk · contribs) and Quadz) about the article issues, so I don't have to read through all that arm waving above. Tony1 had objections when the article passed FAC; he should look in here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I left Tony a note; he's on light duty til May 4. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:59, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep bringing up legitimate prose issues as it seems they are being fixed rather well, but most of the rest of this reads like griping, and not usefully. I mean come on, no picture of his face? If there's no quality free image, there's not free image, so what. That's just not a legitimate reason to bring a FAR and certainly not a reason to rush one. Generally the article is in decent shape. - Taxman Talk 02:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I worked with a flickr user and got him to share a passable pic, it's in there. It's not great but it should be acceptable, so that's no longer an issue. Except for maybe some prose issues I don't see much left personally. Quadzilla99 03:14, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

edit
Suggested FA criteria concerns are images (3), length (4), citations (1c), and prose (1a). Marskell 08:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep My only remaining concern is slight length issues but these aren't enough for removal to me. Quadzilla99 09:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist per:
    • Unencyclopedic tone, such as "ball skills" and "topsy-turvy"
    • Awkward prose, such as "He was again named as Australian Swimmer of the Year, jointly with Hackett."
    • No mention of Foundation for Youth --Cryptic C62 · Talk 19:42, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Foundation for Youth doesn't exist. Skjdf304 03:21, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Whoops. I guess it's called Fountain for Youth. It is mentioned once in the prose and in the external links, which I feel is insufficient for a charity named after the man.
  • Keep Length issues can sometimes be problematic, but I don't think they're too much of a problem here. Cryptic C62's concerns are acknowledged, but aside from some minor tone and prose issues (which can be quickly fixed), I don't think it is necessary to delist this article. Nishkid64 (talk) 01:10, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I've been watching this review for a few weeks now but not had anything much to say that wasn't already being said. I just re-read the article from top to bottom after having also done so when it went to the main-page a few months back. I feel that the concerns have now been adequately dealt with and whatever is left is trivial and overstated. This article should not be delisted. —Moondyne 02:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per Nishkid - there's scope for improvement(as with any article) but this is easily FA material. Sarvagnya 03:19, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - this is major surgery where an aspirin would have sufficed. -- Y not? 03:56, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep, it's FA standard now that there has been a lot of work done to it. Cryptic had a point to start with that this needed work, but it no longer requires anything to maintain FA anymore, and he should stop with the constant griping and acknowledge it as such. Per Taxman on May 4, as well. Daniel Bryant 05:04, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per Nishkid. This is good FA material.Dineshkannambadi 11:21, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Nishkid and Moondyne summarised it perfectly. GizzaChat © 05:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 06:28, 17 May 2007.

Great Lakes Storm of 1913

edit

Review commentary

edit
Messages left at User talk:Brian0918, Lakes, and Meteorology. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Suggested improvements listed at Talk:Great Lakes Storm of 1913/to do.

I didn't get the chance to review the article's content but noticed a major problem in the article. The article has basically no inline citations (violating 1c). —Anas talk? 15:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • First, the article does have inline citations where necessary. Second, 1c says inline citations are only necessary for quotations or controversial content (this article has stirred no controversy, AFAIK). I created this article from scratch and have watched every edit to it since. No vandalism or other degradation has occurred to the article; indeed, only about 80 edits have been made since it was featured on the main page over 2 years ago. David Brown, who wrote the book on this storm, personally reviewed the article and confirmed its factuality and comprehensiveness. I wrote this article basically by reading all of the sources and coming up with the most accurate and complete version of the events. As a result, inline citations are not always possible, but can be added easily enough where necessary. At best, this is a problem for the article's talk page. The important part is that the article does cite ALL of its sources. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-10 15:47Z
  • Comment: Brian, you need to relax. Remember that we're trying to review, improve and keep the article featured. I'm not trying to rid the article of its status. I see a lot of numbers and quotations that have no inline citations; that is my main concern. The article also has many one-line paragraphs, not something I'd like to see in a featured article. Let's try to keep this an FA. I'll offer my help if you are going to need it. —Anas talk? 16:16, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am relaxed. I simply like to add emphasis to the important points in my comments. Emphasis != shouting/rage/nonrelaxation. (Please AAGF) I see no one-line paragraphs. Which are you referring to, and how do you suggest they be changed? I prefer conciseness over length, but am willing to expand any deficits in coverage. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-10 16:21Z
      • There are a few out there which I think can be merged with other paragraphs. For example: "At 10:00 AM, Coast Guard stations and United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Weather Bureau offices at Lake Superior ports raised white pennants above square red flags with black centers, indicating a storm warning with northwesterly winds."; "The greatest damage was done on the lakes. Major shipwrecks occurred on all but Lake Ontario, with most happening throughout southern and western Lake Huron." But again, this is not my biggest concern, I still recommend that inline citations (following "footnote fashion") are used, at least in places where numbers are mentioned and after quotations. —Anas talk? 16:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks for the suggestions. Are there any quotations lacking inline citations? — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-10 16:56Z
        • Done: Merged together the suggested paragraphs. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-10 17:54Z
        • Done: Added ref for financial costs (as you requested on the todo page). — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-10 18:49Z
  • Comment: There are several inline citations in the article, e.g. "The weather forecast in The Detroit News called for "moderate to brisk" winds ..." (with the date being mentioned in the previous sentence). They might not follow the current footnote fashion, but they're there. And as Brian said, there has not been any evident controversy over any statements in the article (just look at the talk page), so criterion 1c is met by default. Having said that, there are a few minor points that might be worth tidying up. For instance, some of the wikilinking could be improved (I've made a start); there's an obsolete tag on Image:Storm-Warning-NW-Winds-Flags.png; and the prose could be tightened in places (e.g. "Personal accounts of lake masters were that ..." seems a bit indirect to me). -- Avenue 16:33, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • This sentence in the lead section is not covered in the rest of the article: "The large loss of cargo, including coal, iron ore, and grain, meant short-term rising prices for consumer products throughout North America." Add to Aftermath section. It seems surprising that prices in Mexico would be affected, so this could do with a source. I'll add this to the To Do list. -- Avenue 00:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I can't find that source anymore. Most likely it's Brown's book, but I don't have it, and can only search through it on Amazon. I've reworded the statement to give specifics about the amount of lost cargo. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-11 14:02Z
  • Comments There's a problem with over-Wikilinking. See WP:CONTEXT. Example—The large loss of cargo, including coal, iron ore, and grain, meant short-term rising prices for consumer products throughout North America. Also, non-breaking hard spaces are needed between numbers and units of measurement; I did some as an example. Also, please see WP:GTL regarding the use of Seealso templates at the beginning of sections; See alsos are incorrectly listed at the bottom of sections. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:43, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • News sources need article titles, dates, authors if available:
      • The Port Huron Times-Herald (Nov. 1913). various dates and pages.
    • See WP:QUOTE, and all direct quotes should be cited (e.g.; Keller and the next one.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for the suggestions. The wikilinking is easy enough to reduce, as is the Seealsoing and the quote citing. As for the Port Huron Times-Herald sources, those will take more time. Several of the newspaper's issues from that month are online. And anyone wanting all the issues from that month can submit an ILL request at their library for the microfilm reel for Nov. 1913. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-10 16:56Z
      • Done: Added citations to the uncited quotes you mentioned. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-10 17:08Z
      • Done: Moved all the See alsos to the top of their sections, as you requested. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-10 17:12Z
        • Thanks! What is the Lake Carriers' Association report, 1913 and how/where does one find it? Also, don't forget the nbsp needed throughout. The MilHist group frequently mentions the problems inherent in casualty counts (which are often controversial or disputed in natural diseasters as well); those numbers should be cited to a source. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:24, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Done: Added source for LCA report. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-10 17:26Z
          • Done: It looks like all of the nbsp's have been added where necessary. Thanks for your help! — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-10 17:59Z
          • Done: Reduce wikilinking; I think it's been reduced enough. Let me know of any other delinking that should be done. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-10 18:16Z
          • Done: Added source for casualty counts. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-10 18:42Z
          • Done: I clarified the reference for the newspaper, and added a link to a site with transcripts of the relevant articles. There are too many articles/authors to list in our article, though, so I think we'll have to stick with this general citation. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-10 19:57Z
  • Please add suggested improvements to Talk:Great Lakes Storm of 1913/to do. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-10 17:30Z
  • Comment Thumbnail images are not supposed to have pixel widths, it conflicts with user preferences. Jay32183 22:34, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Um, where does it say that? Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 08:32, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • WP:MOS#Images "* Specifying the size of a thumb image is not recommended: without specifying a size the width will be what the reader has specified in their user preferences, with a default of 180px (which applies for most readers). However, the image subject or image properties may call for a specific image width in order to enhance the readability and/or layout of an article. Cases where specific image width are considered appropriate include:
  • On images with extreme aspect ratios
  • When using detailed maps, diagrams or charts
  • When a small region of an image is considered relevant, but the image would lose its coherence when cropped to that region

Bear in mind that some users need to configure their systems to display large text. Forced large thumbnails can leave little width for text, making reading difficult." The text is being squashed by the images in the aftermath section by forcing 350px and 250px respectively. Jay32183 18:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Done I've removed the thumbnail resizings as requested. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-29 15:46Z

FARC commentary

edit
Suggested FA criteria concern is lack of citations (1c). Marskell 15:21, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: A lot of work was done by Brian on this. I'm moving it down because it's been up a while and more work remains. A few notes:

  • Lengthy quotations sections are increasingly frowned upon as trivia. Incorporate the best into the text.
  • The lead is somewhat over-cited, while the body has very few. This inverts the usual structure.
  • The victims list definitely requires citations. Marskell 15:21, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • This absurd! The article for no reason should be moved from FAR to FARC. All the requests here have been rapidly resolved, even the ones that do not cite FA criteria problems. As for your notes:
      1. The victims list already has the necessary inline citation.
      2. The lead's citations were added as requested; more people read the lead, so more citations are requested for the lead. Most of the citations in the full text are inline citations; and as 1c states: inline citations are only necessary for "quotations and for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged"; as all requests for citations have been resolved, there's no further need for inline citations - if you want to request another citation, feel free. The article does list all of its sources in the References section as required by 1c.
      3. The quotations are only a small segment of the article, and are not against any FA criteria, right? They do however help to illustrate the article better than any chronological account or diagram, so I think they're quite important to the article, and of interest to readers. If you think they should be trimmed down, that's fine, but they shouldn't cause a FA to be de-featured. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-26 16:00Z
    • Are you considering my edits to be vandalism now, since you've used the rollback button to undo my contesting of your move to FARC; why haven't you at least replied first? — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-26 16:50Z
Brian, I'm about to but just lost my response in an edit conflict. Wait for it. Marskell 16:57, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First, moving to FARC is a "no harm" process. It's two more weeks. Plenty of time for talking, and given that FAR is watched by a small group nothing will get accidentally defeatured. The FARC sections allows people to express keep or remove. We do it for every article unless there's a definite keep consensus early, and we ought to do it for this one. In fact, I'm thinking of posting at the top don't worry if it moves, as this has come up a few times. I'm going to move this again. I apologise for the rollback; I was going to comment immediately.
On the specifics:
  1. Noted. Sorry.
  2. This inverts the usual thinking on LEADs. Because the info is usually more general, it's less likely to need citing.
  3. No, the criteria do not specifically disallow quotations sections, but I'd suggest they're deprecated as they're rapidly disappearing. Like trivia sections they often violate 4. I'd by interested in third opinions on this score. Marskell 17:05, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Moving from Featured Article Review to Featured Article Removal Candidates gives someone who has worked hard on an article the impression that you are saying "We should now try to de-feature this article"; whether that was your intention, I don't know, but I don't see the reason to move it to FARC when all the mentioned problems have been resolved. My impression from the lead section of WP:FAR is that you only moved to FARC those articles that have unresolved problems: "The ideal outcome of the review period is to have concerns addressed and the review closed without progressing to the FARC list." As for your points: I only provided citations where people requested; whether it looks weird or not, I don't know. It doesn't go against FA criteria (which is the point of FAR/FARC, right?). I don't see any reason for removing those citations. As for quotes, I've already stated why I think they should stay, but I'm fine with moving them to wikiquote, for example. Is this article going against any FA criteria? If not, why is it being advanced from FAR to FARC??? — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-26 17:25Z
One other note on the body. In practice, citations are usually demanded for statistics. There's a whole lot of ## mph stats here, so it would mean citing every other sentence, which we don't want. A couple of notes like "See Brown ## - ## for wind speeds on X day" would do. Marskell 17:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand the change you're suggesting. Is someone contesting the numbers? Are you saying the numbers should be removed? — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-26 17:26Z
OK, I understand that it can give the wrong impression, and I didn't mean to. Note the FARC period itself is never cut short if there's someone willing to work on it. Thus, the FAR to FARC move is basically procedural because the FAR page needs to keep moving (we've got thirty-six up, which is a lot), while the clincher is the final close. So it's basically no big deal; it just allows more time for people to come and comment. I've moved two hundred of these and we do need to be consistent about it. If all of the people who were active in the review period have clearly said "this can close," then it's closed without FARC. That hadn't happened here, it has been up for sixteen days, and there'd been no activity for nine.
On the numbers: by their nature statistics are challengeable and ought to be cited. I'm not suggesting removing them at all. As I say, one or two notes can easily handle it.
I'm also not suggesting removing cites from the lead. I'm wondering if the lead might be over-specific relative to the body and whether things might not move rather than be removed. Marskell 17:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just didn't understand what you wanted to cite. I guess you meant to place footnotes at the end of the paragraphs/sections for more information? As for the lead section citations, they are all for contested statements or numbers. It's not overly specific, since it's just summarizing the damages. I've merged some refs together so it's not as cluttered. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-26 17:43Z
Yes, at the end of paragraphs/sections. For November 9, for instance, you could have two summative notes pointing to page numbers for the path of the storm and the wind speeds/nature of the storm. As for the lead, I was thinking of filling it out myself, as it doesn't describe enough of what the body covers. But I'm checking out for now. Marskell 17:53, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done I've expanded the lead to list the aftermath/results of the human response to the storm. If you have any other requests, let me know. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-26 18:05Z
Done I've added the requested citations for the wind speeds and other figures for those dates. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-26 18:46Z
To be honest Marskell I'm not sure I understand how moving this from one place to another on the same page keeps things moving. And your argument, which basically amounts to saying that the shift from FAR to FARC is irrelevant, doesn't hold a lot of water. The major problem with this move is that by putting it here you are saying it is ready for final evaluation. And since someone is still working on it, it is likely that any evaluations made here will shortly become invalid -- anyone who does take the time to comment is quite possibly wasting their time. The point is, there is very little point moving an article to FARC if you expect any significant amount of further work to be done on it. Why ask people to make a keep/remove decision on a version of the article that will shortly be overwritten? Clarification -- this doesn't necessarily apply in this case although it might be helpful to ask Brian how it is coming before advancing the article. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:18, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it would be helpful. If you'd like to contact all the original nominators before things get moved to FARC, let me know. Day 13 would be the right time to do it.
On the specifics here: well done, Brian. I've argued (often with limited success) that summative footnotes, rather than a footnote every two lines, is the way to approach these 1c debates. I think this article is now a good example of doing this right. On the lead, I just added two sentences, mentioning Huron and Nov 9. Hope that's the right amount of ummph.
That leaves the quotations section. I'm still very iffy and hope for more feedback. Marskell 22:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not so much contacting the original nominator as contacting people who are working on the article to see how it is progressing. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:20, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yes. As I say, if you're volunteering, give me a ding-a-ling. Marskell 22:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove per 1a and 1c. Article has lack of citations and also the "Quotations" section is nothing but a trumped up "Trivia" section. LuciferMorgan 11:27, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Don't be absurd. 1c says inline citations are only necessary for quotations, contested content, or likely-contested content. Are you contesting any of the content? If so, let me know which sentences you contest, and I'll stick a normally-unnecessary inline citation next to it. I can say with certainty that the References section has every citation for every single word in the article. So, for you to immediately go straight to "Remove!" without any previous discussion shows a lack of interest on your part to improve the quality of the article, which is the entire point of Wikipedia. As for the quotations, I'll move them to wikiquote, but I don't see how 1a covers quotations in the way you claim. The article prose is excellent, and I was surprised by the number of positive comments I got regarding the quality and engagement of the article, which is exactly what 1a says is necessary. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-29 15:15Z
      • Done Quotations moved to Wikiquote. As for the citations, the article cites all of its sources under References, and as is required by 1c, all quotations, contested and likely-contested content have inline citations, so 1c is satisfied. If you believe otherwise, let me know which contested/likely-contested content you believe needs inline citations, and I'll get right on it. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-29 15:27Z
  • Comments There are still month-day dates that aren't wikilinked. Where did the mph–kph conversions come from —they suffer from a lot of rounding error. There is a template somewhere on Wiki that does the conversion. The exact data cited in the sources should be used, and converted accurately. There is still an awful lot of uncited hard data. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:22, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The months/dates were delinked as requested in the original FAC. They can be relinked easily enough, but what does this have to do with Featured Article Criteria? All of the hard data is cited under References, or inline citations at the end of each paragraph. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-30 00:50Z
  • Given that there so many ## mph stats and only one book, line-by-line citing seemed silly; I asked Brian for summative notes, and these have been provided. Looking more closely, a few more suggestions:
    • Quotes from the newspapers ought to take specific cites.
    • The Cause section needs a cite. It's a neat little geography lesson; point us to some pages.
    • The paragraph beginning "In retrospect..." could be read as OR without a cite.
    • There are a half dozen refs but only Brown in the notes. Are there any large bits taken from elsewhere? Marskell 20:23, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The rest of the references are used to back up/verify claims made in Brown. As I've said, I wrote the article by reading all of the sources, and coming to a general conclusion about what happened (although the most weight was given to Brown); this is the way articles should be written, but too often people just google for random factoids and build an article from that... in the end they end up with one huge piece of OR. I think I've satisfied your concerns. Let me know if you have any more. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-30 14:31Z
Anyhow, we're in good shape here. Marskell 20:23, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I concur with Sandy here, and think this article isn't in good shape, but I welcome comments from others who have yet to comment. LuciferMorgan 21:36, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Where did she say that? We shouldn't speak in generalities anyhow. This is broadly a single book FA. We've seen these before (eg. Moe Berg recently). I don't have reason to mistrust these if we can trust the primary editor, and Brian is working quickly to address things. LEAD is good (The odd "In its legacy..." just caught me though); nice pace; good but not excessive specifics. If there are structural problems that you think make it not in good shape, explain them. Marskell 22:17, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • What's not in good shape? What parts? If you can't provide any useful commentary, it just looks like you're out to delist FA's. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-30 00:50Z
Can we please stick to the article? Plainly criticising me personally with comments like "Don't be absurd", "looks like you're out to delist FA's" and "shows a lack of interest on your part to improve the quality of the article" isn't a means of achieving co-operation on saving this FARC. Working in a healthier environment is though. LuciferMorgan 10:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Let's stick to the article. You can start by telling me what's not in good shape? — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-30 12:11Z
  • Brian, you've worked hard on this article, and it's admirable. So it's natural that you're a little defensive when faced with criticism. But please cool it; nothing is served by heated emotion in this room. WRT 1a, I find that much of the prose reads very well, but there are glitches. Why not get someone else who's good at copy-editing and likes the topic to give it a thorough run-through? At the tope, we shouldn't be finding things like "over-turning" (no hyphen). More subtle improvements can be made, too: "to ever hit the lakes" better as "ever to hit the lakes" (and I'm not an anti-split-infinitive person). "The era's weather reports"—sounds like paleohistory. Remove "In its legacy". Pluralise "response". "This added heat postpones the Arctic outbreak in the region"—"outbreak" is normally dramatic; here, a gradual process is at issue, isn't it? These are just a few examples of why the whole text needs treatment. Worth it, because it's a good article overall. Tony 13:17, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • First, I'm not in "heated emotion"; I've simply placed emphasis around unanswered questions. Second, I'm fine with criticism. I'm not find with drive-by-voting. Criticism that is unactionable is not criticism. As I said already, I was surprised by the number of compliments I got regarding the prose. I'll fix any suggestions you have, but I'm confident that overall, the article text is well-written. The suggestions you've made thus far do not constitute a need to delist the article - do you agree? — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-30 13:25Z
    • Done I've made your requested changes. For future reference, these changes were minor enough that you could've made them yourself without dispute. Your generalization of a few minor quibbles in the lead section to "the whole article needs treatment" is obviously not correct. I'll be happy to make any changes you request, but when the article has gotten multiple compliments specifically about the prose, a claim that the article is poorly written will need to be specific. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-30 13:34Z
    • I've gone through the article and made a few tweaks. I didn't see any obvious problems. Let me know if you find any. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-30 15:23Z
You've missed the point: those were examples of issues that occur throughout the text, and not intended to be fixed as an end in themselves. That is why I didn't fix them myself, as you suggested I might have done. They're not trivial. I'd appreciate it if your response hadn't been defensive and confrontational ("First, I'm not ...") You use the word "dispute"—Did I dispute something? My suggestion stands: another editor should be brought in to collaborate on polishing the prose. My comments are the basis of an issue that could be made actionable; I didn't feel that it was necessary, but if you're in a confrontational mood, we can change that. And making personal criticisms (drive-by voting, etc) is unpleasant, unwelcome, and inappropriate here. Tony 03:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • For the record, the drive by voting was solely due to your attitude of criticising people who criticise the article. If you hadn't gone out of your way to criticise others I would've gotten involved earlier. You said you aren't fine with drive by voting - well I'd like you to know I am 110% not fine with being criticised for no apparent reason either. LuciferMorgan 15:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks for clearing that up. So, we can disregard your "drive by vote"? — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-30 16:01Z
          • Yeah that's fine. I will fully explain my vote shortly (ie. give examples etc.), which'll be tonight. Of course, you're free to decide whether you feel my reasons are adequate or inadequate - if you disagree with them, then we can agree to disagree. LuciferMorgan 16:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • If they are simple changes, I would suggest just making them yourself, which will save us both a lot of time. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-30 16:47Z
  • Comment I've been watching this FAR for a few weeks now, and it seems that the only thing being done here is quabbling about references and problems with the prose. I must repeat Brian's sentiments that references should only be cited inline if there is controversial content, and only a few references per section should be fine.
    That said, I do believe the prose could use a once-over and a copyedit. I will do this in a few days when I have time, unless someone else would like to take care of it in the mean time. -RunningOnBrains 18:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • This article was given several once-overs and thorough copyedits when it first went through FAC, and the content hasn't really changed since then (I've watched every edit to the page, and it's not a very popular topic, so it doesn't attract editors or controversy). If you have any immediate suggestions, let me know. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-30 18:30Z
LuciferMorgan's concerns
edit

From the November 11 Cleveland Plain Dealer:

"Cleveland lay in white and mighty solitude, mute and deaf to the outside world, a city of lonesome snowiness, storm-swept from end to end, when the violence of the two-day blizzard lessened late yesterday afternoon." "Take it all in all — the depth of the snowfall, the tremendous wind, the amount of damage done and the total unpreparedness of the people—I think it is safe to say that the present storm is the worst experienced in Cleveland during the whole forty-three years the Weather Bureau has been established in the city." — William H. Alexander, Cleveland's official observer

This is a direct quotation, and WP:CITE says "You should always add a citation when quoting published material." I don't have access to published material on the topic, so I cannot add a citation to this myself. LuciferMorgan 20:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done Woops, I missed that one. Added a source. Thanks! — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-30 20:32Z

The weather forecast in The Detroit News called for "moderate to brisk" winds for the Great Lakes, with occasional rains Thursday night or Friday for the upper lakes (except on southern Lake Huron), and fair to unsettled conditions for the lower lakes.

Since this is a quotation, this should also be cited. LuciferMorgan 20:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done I missed that one too. Thanks! — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-30 20:59Z

This proved to be gravely unfortunate for the Great Lakes region, as the storm would have the better part of a day to build up hurricane forces before the Bureau headquarters in Washington, D.C., would have detailed information.

I agree with the above definitely, but it is an observation. An observation has to come from a reliable source. WP:CITE says "make your writing verifiable: find a specific person or group who holds that opinion and give a citation to a reputable publication in which they express that opinion." LuciferMorgan 22:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are observations, and there are obvious statements. Every article doesn't have to prove that 1+1=2 whenever writing a mathematical equation. Such statements are a given. The same is the case here. It is obvious that the storm had a better part of a day to build up before the Bureau HQ would have information, and it is also obvious that this would be unfortunate for the people in the region. Example statements such as the one you quote are a necessity for writing an engaging article, rather than a series of lifeless, boring factoids. However, I believe those words can be sourced, so I'll see if I can add a proper citation. I don't think that this alone should be enough grounds for delisting an FA. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-30 23:16Z
I've just picked out ones where WP:CITE is not actually vague iin the matter. There are other statements I could ask for citation for, but this would be me and my interpration of WP:CITE (which is rather vague in explaining itself in my opinion). LuciferMorgan 00:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You can't use the word "unfortunate" without a citation. It's a judgement. All judgements need citations to show that they are not original research. Jay32183 02:13, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's called writing prose. If we are out to deliver engaging and interesting content, we have to do more than just regurgitate factoids. All well-written articles have a certain amount of judgments like this. I'll find the proper source and rewording tomorrow. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-05-01 02:53Z
Yes, you can use the word "unfortunate" without a citation if it's unlikely to be challenged—we're supposed to use original prose. Marskell 11:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's just been challenged twice Marskell, by me and Jay, so "unlikely" isn't the case here is it? LuciferMorgan 11:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The validity of that statement hasn't been challenged; it's only been suggested that we're not allowed to say such things, which isn't true. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-05-01 12:48Z
The statement hasn't been challenged because no credible reason why it might be wrong or misleading has been provided. And I doubt one will be, unless you want to suggest that the gap was "fortunate." Marskell 12:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's been challenged twice and with credible reason Marskell. Also you can doubt whatever you wish - after all, we all know what you intend to do given your comments on this FARC don't we? You've made it explicitly clear you intend keeping this no matter how many credible reasons are given, and "credible / not" is according to your own interpretation. I don't want any further involvement in this biased FARC, especially when me, Jay and Sandy (who said "There is still an awful lot of uncited hard data") have expressed 1. c. problems while Tony has expressed 1. a. problems. But when the person who closes FARC dismisses everyone's issue with the article, what can us humble non admins do? Nothing. A sad state of affairs indeed. LuciferMorgan 16:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, thank you very much Lucifer. See you around. Marskell 19:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
LM, if Marskell has made errors on closings (and I don't think he has, although I did get after him about Microsoft :-), I'd much rather see someone who errs on the side of keeping an article than delisting it. Removing someone's hard-earned star shouldn't be done easily; if there's doubt or controversy, I'd say it's almost always best to err in favor of the article, and leave it for another day. If an article truly has issues, it will surely be back. I record my concerns on FARs to leave a record for future editors who might want to improve certain aspects. I think FAR could quickly get into deep trouble if our closing admins were perceived as being too trigger happy. It's only an article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not closing articles I was concerned about, but rather everyone's concerns getting brushed aside by the person who closes FAR articles in this specific FARC - I prefer it when Marskell doesn't comment and remains independent until it's keep / save time, and not feeling as though consensus is irrelevant. LuciferMorgan 02:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, you've got me. I've always believed consensus is irrelevant. Why do I contact Tony on his talk? Simply for appearances' sake—I think his comments are rubbish and I ignore them. Similarly, I only collaborate with Sandy to make it look like I care. I don't actually think she knows what she's talking about, and given that I've already decided how I'm going to close I ignore her as well. The same logic applies to contacting editors on their talk, segmenting FAR and FARC, and my various status comments. It's all a ruse to make it seem like consensus matters to me, when in truth I'm drunk with power and get a secret thrill from brushing aside comments. Marskell 07:34, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What credible reasons have not been adequately addressed? You have to be more specific; what is not being cited, what problems are there with the prose? Just saying "1c and 1a are not satisfied" is useless and counterproductive. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-05-01 16:28Z
Lucifer, so far as I know you are free to close FARs (preferably those in which you have not participated). Historically anyone has been able to close these discussions, regardless of whether they are an admin. Christopher Parham (talk) 15:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Historically, only three people have regularly done it--Jeffrey G. for a year, and Joel and I for a year. I think it would be a very bad idea to throw it open, as has been detailed on FAR talk. But then I would say that; you can always raise another thread there. Marskell 18:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've certainly done it within the past two years, so that's simply not true. Christopher Parham (talk) 18:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I said "regularly." I don't believe there has been single close by anyone but Joel or I for ten months; I can't really speak for '05, though. Anyhow, this is getting side-tracked. We can talk about it on WT:FAR, if you like. Marskell 18:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd welcome a discussion on the talk page. If "anyone" can start closing FARs, then anyone can close FACs, and then we've got a mess on our hands. Every time this comes up on talk, the consensus is the same. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Raul closes FACs because it was agreed that he would be the sole closer; there has been no such agreement for this process. If you feel that such an agreement would be productive you are welcome to suggest it; all in all I agree that it would probably be better discussed on talk. Christopher Parham (talk) 00:04, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes there has; we could certainly discuss further on talk, but the outcome would likely be the same. Marskell and Joelr31 close FARs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While me and Marskell disagree sometimes, I'm of the opinion he and Joel should remain the FAR closers. I have nothing against anyone here or anything, but I'm not going to contribute to this specific FARC as I've already had one block notice - I don't wish for the trouble. Thanks for your time. LuciferMorgan 21:11, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done I've reworded the contested bit to more closely match the reference, and added a proper inline citation, although entirely unnecessary in my opinion. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-05-01 16:44Z
  • Very happy for Tim and Joel to remain the predominant closers within an open system. If someone else closes in a way that appears problematic, the argument is that we have experts here, so why didn't you consult/warn/leave it to them? Tony 00:21, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've had a go at that ugly opening (in terms of formatting). The date-range gobledygook is another reason for ignoring WP's broken down, outmoded system of autoformatting, which is still conflated with the linking system and won't allow date ranges. I now advise people not to date-link. I don't care what the MoS gasses on about. My rebuttal would be: fix it!

Which would you prefer:

November 7–10, 1913

or

November 7, 1913, to November 10, 1913

I'll put up with US date formatting to avoid the clutter and blue spattering; it's easier for all readers.

In the opening para, I've removed a few links and the ugly bolding, and what a difference it makes:

ORIGINAL

The Great Lakes Storm of 1913, historically referred to as the "Big Blow," the "Freshwater Fury," or the "White Hurricane," was a blizzard with hurricane-force winds that devastated the Great Lakes basin in the United States Midwest and the Canadian province of Ontario from November 7, 1913, to November 10, 1913. The storm was most powerful on November 9, battering and overturning ships on four of the five Great Lakes, particularly Lake Huron. Deceptive lulls in the storm and the slow pace of weather reports contributed to the storm's destructiveness.

NEW

The Great Lakes Storm of 1913, historically referred to as the "Big Blow", the "Freshwater Fury" or the "White Hurricane", was a blizzard with hurricane-force winds that devastated the Great Lakes basin in the United States Midwest and the Canadian province of Ontario from November 7–10, 1913. The storm was most powerful on November 9, battering and overturning ships on four of the five Great Lakes, particularly Lake Huron. Deceptive lulls in the storm and the slow pace of weather reports contributed to the storm's destructiveness.

I suppose I'll support the retention of this FA, after the excessive linking throughout the article is removed. Why "streetcar", "power" (piped to "electric power"—gee, I didn't know what that was) and "autumn"? There are lots, and they dilute the valuable links. Tony

  • Even though wikilinking is not against any featured article criteria, I've unlinked the words you've requested. If you find any more, please make a request here, or be bold and make the change yourself. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-05-17 01:20Z
reprise
edit
  • Retain. The citations are sufficient, and the article has been refreshed to meet all other criteria by a number of us ("us" means "Wikipedia editors", not "people with an attachment to the article"). –Outriggr § 05:06, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also was able to verify a few Brown citations using "Amazon online reader". –Outriggr § 06:11, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's how I've been verifying everything from Brown. I had the book out through the library before, when I actually wrote the article. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-05-17 13:02Z
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 06:28, 17 May 2007.

Jim Thorpe

edit

Review commentary

edit
Messages left on User_talk:Jeronimo, Olympics, and Baseball --Miskwito 04:10, 7 April 2007 (UTC) Messages left at Pennsylvania, Oklahoma, Indigenous peoples of NA, and NFL. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:52, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fails 1(c), and probably 1(a), 1(d) and 2.

I don't think the prose is necessarily 'brilliant' or even compelling in some places:

  • "As a result, Thorpe did not handle his brother's death very well, and ran away from school on several occasions. Hiram Thorpe then sent Jim to what is now known as Haskell Indian Nations University in Lawrence, Kansas, so that his son would not run away again."

In others, it reads too much like a sympathetic book written on Thorpe, rather than an encylcopedia article:

  • "Unfortunately every square inch of the film has been lost to time. One of the ironies of Thorpe's life is that no footage exists of him in his athletic prime."
  • "It was not Thorpe's first try at baseball, as would soon become known to the rest of the world."

Which brings us to 1d, neutrality. Section titles such as "A rising star", "An Olympic hero", and "Declared a professional" are not NPOV, nor, I think, is writing like "In October 1982, the IOC Executive Committee approved Thorpe's reinstatement. In an unusual ruling, however, they declared that Thorpe was now co-champion with Bie and Wieslander, even though both athletes had always said they considered Thorpe to be the only champion. In a ceremony on January 18, 1983, two of Thorpe's children, Gale and Bill, were presented with commemorative medals. (The original medals had both ended up in museums, but were stolen and are still missing.)"

With regards to criterion 2, the "Legacy" section in particular is poorly-formatted, and basically proseline. The most serious problem with the article, though, is that it's barely referenced at all. "Legends" and quotes aren't cited (e.g., "Legend has it that, when awarding Thorpe his prize, King Gustav said, "You, sir, are the greatest athlete in the world," to which Thorpe replied, "Thanks, King.""), but neither are almost all other claims, including his claimed Meskwaki name, or very specific data (e.g., "In his lackluster career, he amassed 91 runs scored, 82 runs batted in and a .252 batting average over 289 games."). By current standards, this wouldn't even be close to a GA, let alone a featured article. --Miskwito 03:51, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment—"compelling, even brilliant" is a subjective term that we should throw out the door in favor of "professional writing", which is less subjective. With that said, I agree that the prose needs work. The article has a case of the yo-yo effect; some areas are too formal, and others areas are excessively informal. If anyone is interested in working on this article, I recommend taking a look at User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a. — Deckiller 00:22, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

edit
Suggested FA criteria concerns are citations (1c), prose (1a), neutrality (1d), and formatting (2). Marskell 11:40, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am not familiar with the FARC process yet, so I will just add these comments rather than oppose or support (I am not sure whether I can really add new objections or not at this stage).
  • I think that the article fails 1(c) because the major Thorpe biographies listed in the "Further reading" are not used as sources for the article. This makes me question the article's comprehensiveness (1b) and accuracy. It is odd to me that those biographies and others published about Thorpe would not be the basis of the article.
  • One significant omission from the article seems to be a discussion of race. It is hard to believe that race was never an issue in Thorpe's life.
  • I agree that the prose (1a) needs improvement. Quadzilla99 asked me to copyedit this article (which is how I discovered it), but I am not prepared to invest time copyediting an article that may need to be radically revised. (Sorry!)
  • 2(a) The lead is not a summary of the article.

Again, I would say that my most serious concern is that the sources used here are perhaps not the best choices. While in and of themselves not necessarily questionable, a patchwork of websites and reference entries is not going to give the kind of detail that a biography will. I think that the editors should use the biographies since they are available (unless for some reason, they feel these biographies are unreliable). Awadewit 21:42, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well I wouldn't say it's automatically lacking in certain areas because the bios weren't used, I used the best sources I could come up with on the notice I had. I'm fairly sure the original editors used the biographies to write the article (they're no longer around). It probably should deal with race relations more, also it needs copy-editing so I'm remove as of now. I tried my best to help out but I've exhausted my energy reserves. It's a shame though considering the importance of the figure. Quadzilla99 21:52, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Prose still needs some work, but I think that can be addressed by keeping it on the LOCE list and moving it from the FAR/FARC section to the proofreading section. Every other concern is addressed. Quadzilla99 09:58, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 08:02, 14 May 2007.

Boston, Massachusetts

edit
Original nominator aware. Messages left at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Boston and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Massachusetts. Marskell 12:16, 29 April 2007 (UTC) Additional message at Cities. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A huge portion of this article lacks sources and is not verifiable, so I don't think it meets the featured article requirements.--Sefringle 05:02, 26 April 2007 (UTC) Problem solved--Sefringle 07:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Also has minor issues with WP:LEAD (too short), and there are no dashes in the measurements at a quick glance. Quadzilla99 04:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I meant non-breaking spaces, there weren't as many as I thought. I fixed the ones I saw. Quadzilla99 01:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Lead was expanded also. Quadzilla99 01:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I went through the article and added citations to several passages (my rule of thumb is to cite anything that could be seen as controversial or anything that mentions rankings. One cannot end up citing every sentence in the article). If you think citations are still needed, can you add such notations in the article? As for the introduction, I will address it as soon as possible. I am not sure what is meant by the "dashes in the measurements." Can someone clarify this? PentawingTalk 23:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments. It's so frustrating to see References where half are first name last name and half are last name, first name. Consistency? Polish it - it's an FA ! Found similar with date formatting; if you wikilink the date parameter in the cite template, dates will show in a consistent format rather than the varying formats used by different editors. On the other hand, it's a pleasure to see a city article that doesn't have the typical External link farm. Why is 1700s wikilinked? See WP:MOSNUM and WP:CONTEXT. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article is better than it was when it first passed FA. Well sourced, organized, and (IMO) minimally boostering. Keep.--Loodog 02:15, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The demographics section still lacks sources, except for the first paragraph.--Sefringle 02:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that still needs attention. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I found and inserted the citations for the demographics section (which all came from the US Census Bureau). PentawingTalk 23:06, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just corrected some WP:LAYOUT problems, but there is still a navigational template in the middle of the article. Has anyone asked Sefringle if s/he is now happy with the level of citations? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:55, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I made some other minor corrections to the layout. As for the navigational template, did you meant the government infobox (it seems to be a product of the WikiProject Massachusetts)? Should that be removed? Also, I left a message with Sefringle about the citations on May 4. He should be responding soon... PentawingTalk 14:57, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The very last paragraph of the article still needs a citation, but that is about it.--Sefringle 05:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm satisified now. I withdraw my nomination; unless someone else has some other problems with the article.--Sefringle 02:37, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 07:49, 2 May 2007.

Yellowstone National Park

edit

Review commentary

edit
Talk messages left at Protected areas, Maveric149, Volcanoes, & Montana. Ceoil 10:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have spent the over a month updating this current featured article. I have added a lot of information, clarifying misrepresentations and making sure all the references are accurate and as up to date as possible. This is the amount of change that has been incorporated. As this article was last reviewed as a featured article in 2004, I wanted to make sure it continues to meet the standards. Since this is an article about the worlds first National Park, I am determined to ensure it stays listed as a featured article, so any advice would be helpful. My biggest concern is that the article may not be "brilliantly written" as I know I have a tendency to be good at gathering evidence, but not so good at creating great prose. I definitely don't want to remove anything referenced from the article, even though it exceeds the recommended length...there is a lot to talk about, and a lot of the information is already expanded in subarticles that are linked.--MONGO 21:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mongo, can you please notify any WikiProjects mentioned on the talk page and involved editors/original author (probably Mav) with {{subst:FARMessage|Yellowstone National Park}} ? Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:46, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely, thanks.--MONGO 04:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've been monitoring Mongo's progress on the article for over a month. Everything I've seen him do so far was an improvement and was similar to what I had long planned to do with this article (my second ever FA). That said, I will take a closer look in a day or two to make sure everything works together. --mav 03:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Looks like a potential keep without FARC; I will print and read entire article in the next few days. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:26, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did some minor copyediting, added a very few cite tags, and found some issues that should be addressed. I think the article will definitely retain its star, but there's some work to be done still.

  • I saw copyediting needs, fixed some myself, but perhaps you can ask Deckiller (talk · contribs) to run through the article before we close the review. In particular, there was a strange usage of semi-colons; I caught some of them, but I doubt I got them all. I'm also not sure on the capitalization of the seasons in Forest fires and Climate sections. I also added hyphens to mid-date occurrences. There were several sentences that started with numbers, and I also found several occurrences of hyphens rather than ndashes separating date ranges (seee WP:DASH). I did some redundancy reducing, but I suspect there's more. I also removed some instances of "currently" and made them more durable. There is some inconsistent capitalization of animals that should be checked, like lynx and Lynx. Generally, it would be helpful if an experienced copyeditor ran through the entire text again. I'm not sure if "first national park ranger" in the Park creation section should be capitalized. I saw some awkward text, but didn't feel up to the task of repairing it.
  • Many of the Government websources are dated; I added some of those dates to the references, but they should all be checked.
  • Reference number 11 is messed up; it actually includes several pages, so that text isn't verified to the page listed. They need to be split out.
  • There seems to be a problem with the park visitation numbers (5,000 by 1883). First, it should say "annual" or "yearly". Second, the Annual Park Statistics number says something different than the sentence cited to ref 11 (which I couldn't verify on ref 11). Also, if 5,000 were coming in by 1883, but 1,000 automobiles entered the park in 1915, the numbers don't seem to jive—1,000 automobiles doesn't translate to a lot of visitors, 30 years later? Can this be resolved?
  • There are at least two pieces of text which don't seem to remain tightly focused on the subject; I suggest they should be removed, and there may be others.
    • (This doesn't relate to Yellowstone, rather areas to the north, not sure it's needed.) It is believed that the moister conditions found north and west of Yellowstone and the lack of historical levels of wildfire due to increased suppression, are the primary reasons for the decimation of the whitebark pine communities in those areas.
    • and was classified as an F4 tornado by Ted Fujita— who developed the fujita scale for classifying tornado intensity. (The info about who he is should be contained in his Wiki article and isn't needed here; I suggest ending the sentence after F4 tornado.)
  • I added cite tags on the entire paragraph about how the park got it's name (couldn't find that anywhere in the text) and the bison estimates (they just don't resonate with what I read/saw when I visited Yellowstone, Montana and Glacier), and the comment about learning from the army (acccording to whom?).
  • I'm not sure what this sentence is saying, it seems redundant, and the punctuation is off:
    • Other rare mammals such as the mountain lion have been reported to have a population estimated at 25, while the wolverine is known to live in the park, actual population figures are unknown.
  • Now, to the biggest problem; the lead should be rewritten. The WP:LEAD is supposed to be a stand-alone summary of the article; it's not. Not only does it not summarize the article, but it has two entire paragraphs which are too much detail for the lead and contain text which isn't mentioned anywhere else in the article. The last two paragraphs of the lead should be moved into the body of the article, and a summarizing lead should be written. This should probably be done last, after a copyedit. Also, both of those paragraphs should be cited.

I think all of this work is very doable during FAR, but don't be alarmed if Marskell moves the article to FARC just to keep it on track timewise—that doesn't mean the article will be delisted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:12, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Thank you for the time you have spent looking things over and making some adjustments as well. I have added numerous new refs in the history section, breaking up the same link for #11 into direct webpage links. I made amendments to the 1883 visitation issue and tried to address the 1,000 cars thing...I imagine, but can't find out exactly when they banned horses on the roads due to increased vehicle traffic...but the ref says it happened later than 1915 by the way it is worded. I removed the whitebark pine expansion and the part with too much detail about Fujita. I found a ref for where the name for the park came from, and moved that paragraph to the history section. I cited the management policies that were adopted by the NPS from the army. I'll work on fixing the mountain lion sentence and developing a better intro in the next day or two.--MONGO 13:39, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment — I agree with Sandy's pointers. As for the prose, I'll try to make some time tomorrow afternoon. Tony's back, so he might be able to help as well. — Deckiller 03:12, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe I have made most of the adjustments mentioned by Sandy...I just added a summary intro which I think is a big improvement. I don't tend to ref the intros too much since they are usually better detailed and refed in the article body. A good copyedit would be helpful and let me know if there is anything else that needs to be referenced, adjusted or expanded. I appreciate the help with this effort.--MONGO 06:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Once the prose experts are satisfied, I'm good with a keep without moving to FARC, but does anyone think the lead is too long now? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:47, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • It is longish. I admit to be an average writer overall, much better at finding references than creating brilliant prose, so what the article needs more than anything at this point is a good copyedit.--MONGO 20:00, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Status: are we done here or are there concerns left? Marskell 08:45, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy, but I'm not the prose person :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:08, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've just had a pass at the lead.
    • "Virtually all the original wildlife species that are native to the park can still be found in Yellowstone." As you've already introduced Native Americans and 11,000 years of history, this can be misinterpreted. Native to the park at the time of European contact?
    • Not that I'm perfect on this subject, but watch which/that use. "Visitors access the park by way of guided tours which use tracked vehicles known as snow coaches." "Which" implies that, generically, "guided tours" always use tracked vehicles. When you do use "which," follow it with a comma. Marskell 08:17, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just went and made a couple edits to the lead, then saw you had already made some adjustments. I tried to reword the issue about U.S. Army invlovement, more in keeping with the facts and changed the sentence about winter access by snowcoaches and snowmobiles.--MONGO 08:39, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article seems within criteria and I don't see a need to move it to FARC; we can leave it up until the prose has been gone through completely. I think the prose is fine in general. My main comment is re over-loading sentences: I don't like three "and"s in a sentence where each is followed by a long clause. Brackets, semi-colons, or simply making one sentence two is often good for the reader... IMO, anyhow :). Marskell 18:56, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll go through the article and see what else I can tweak to make it read better. I really appreciate all the helpful edits the article has gotten recently. It definitely has better prose now than a few weeks ago, and the streamlining makes it much more readable as well.--MONGO 21:31, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I want to raise 1a as an issue, and for this reason, I think it should move to FARC to allow the contributors to collaborate with others to fix it. When I read this at the top, I worry:
    • "the largest intact ecosystem in the northern temperate zone on Earth.[3] It became the world's first national park on 1 March 1872.[1] Located mostly in the U.S. state of Wyoming, parts of the park also extend into Montana and Idaho."
    • "on earth" is odd as worded, especially followed almost immediately by "the world's". Remove the old "located", I keep saying everywhere. "Parts" of the "park" is a jangle. "also extend"—one word is redundant. Heck, what a bombsite. Remove "to date". Comma after "fantasy)" to complete the nested phrase. "Commence" sounds like ballet school—go plain, with "start". And there's more, everywhere:
    • "a lack of funding and limited manpower to protect the park wildlife and resources became serious"—as opposed to "jocular"? Needs to be explicit. So we're to gather that the army's take-over solved that funding problem? Readers have to make leaps of imagination where it should be on a platter for them, nice and clear and crisp. The protection and maintenance of structures—this is tacked onto the end of the paragraph without a logical entree.
    • "Numerous", like "some" and "various", is usually better removed. Does it add anything here?
    • "the largest high altitude lake in North America"—guess where the hyphen goes (even US editors, who use fewer hyphens than other anglophones, would insist).
    • "The hot waters and geysers found in the park are caused by a volcano which has ..."—You could probably remove "found in the park", or at the least "found", since it's readily recoverable from the context, and you've told us of their existence already.

I won't go on; that was just two and a bit paragraphs. Please network to find copy-editors (edit history pages of related FAs and FACs are a good place to start: approach individually). Tony 22:19, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I read through the essay you have about meeting criteria 1a and definitely agree that waiting several days to perform a copyedit is a good idea. I'll try and get some members of the wikiproject to look over the article and make further edits to streamline and improve the prose. I did remove numerous (ad nauseum) "in the park" and similar, and made the adjustments you mentioned above. I ended up adding a few more refs as well. A snapshot of my edits since your comments can be seen here.--MONGO 04:13, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mongo, you might try asking Deckiller (talk · contribs) or Outriggr (talk · contribs) to help. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:17, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks...I'll drop a few folks a request to copyedit and probably step back from this for now. My only interest in seeing this article continue to be featured is due to the subject and I have no personal vested interest otherwise. I want it to be as good as it can possibly be and hopefully can convince a few others to take care of issues I am either not able to see due to my closeness to the subject or due to a lack of ability overall.--MONGO 05:41, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another possibility is KP Botany (talk · contribs) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:39, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In the first paragraph of the "Park creation and later history" section, the article mentions "large-format photographs by William Henry Jackson." Some can be found here: [10] Works by Thomas Moran can be found here: [11], [12] While I know the article has plenty of images, might it be worth including something from this expedition to go with the text? The first two paintings on the NPS site [13] depict not only the landscape but also the expedition party and are high resolution images. --Aude (talk) 15:45, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That was a good idea...I added a painting made by William Henry Jackson to the article...thanks also for your copyedits.--MONGO 16:35, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note Let's wait until ce has been performed. If no outstanding issues are left the review may be closed without FARC. Joelito (talk) 12:36, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question This article has undergone massive effort to get it to this level of quality. As such, I'm curious if an article like this can be on the main page again. Last time it was on the main page was over three years ago. Though being on the main page is a vandal magnet and not sure its desirable. --Aude (talk) 15:40, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We could ask to have it again on the mainpage if this gets recertified.--MONGO 16:40, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Raul/Mark has been asked that question many times, and has never agreed to run an article on the main page a second time. Considering we have about 100 articles that have never been on the mainpage and are waiting their turn, there's no reason he should. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:22, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

edit
General copyedit. Marskell 14:17, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Work's slowed down so we'll finish up down here. This is still a very solid article. Marskell 14:17, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 08:35, 3 May 2007.

Global warming

edit

Review commentary

edit
Messages left at WikiProject Climate change, WikiProject Environment, WikiProject Meteorology, Natalinasmpf, and Blue Tie.

This article blatantly fails to meet FA criteria 1(d) and 1(e), i.e. neutrality and stability. Since the first week of March 2007, there has been an ongoing POV discussion on the talk page, culminating in an edit war the last few days. During this conflict, NPOV and weasel word tags were inserted and removed. Yesterday, a mediatation was initiated, after which the article soon had to be protected to contain the edit war. This article clearly cannot be labeled as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community under these circumstances. The fact that stability is no longer achieved needs no assertion. And as long as a significant minority (or perhaps even a majority) disagrees that the article is NPOV, we cannot define it to be as such. Nick Mks 17:51, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So long as a few of the weaselly words can be removed and some other minor points can be addressed, I think the NPOV can be dealt with fairly easily. It's up to the dissenters though to take the initiative and agree to remove the weasel words (or provide a source other than Wikipedia that reiterates the statements). On stability, I agree the article is not stable, and has not been for quite a while. ~ UBeR 18:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's some todo I think is necessary.

  • Shorten the lede (not long enough to warrant 5 paragraphs)
  • Terminology is very short, compared to the other sections. It should be expanded or moved, IMO.
  • Get sources for every statement
  • Shorten further reading (if some of them are references, they don't need to be listed twice)
  • Pre-human Global warming and Pre-Industrial Global warming should be further to the top. It doesn't make sense to have the earliest stuff be last
  • Mitigation should be expanded, given how important of a topic it is
  • Attributed and expected effects should be later on, given that they're in the future
  • Re-read and re-write to ensure it flows well

Hurricanehink (talk) 19:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article is just fine. The problem is that there is one group of people (William Connolley, Raymond Arritt, Stephen Schultz, 'etc) who are interested in keeping this article factually accurate, well cited, 'etc, and another group of POV pushers who are interested in pushing their anti-global warming POV into this article (Rameses, Britannia, Blue Tie, 'etc). They don't have a leg to stand on, factually, so they complain of POV, because POV is subjective and therefore it's harder to show they are flatly wrong. Raul654 19:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong disagree. The users you mention (William Connolley, Raymond Arritt, Stephen Schultz, 'etc) are the ones who are stubborn about introducing weasel words into the article yet they flatly refuse to provide a citation establishing consensus. These users appear to believe that WP:A doesn't apply to them. --Tjsynkral 23:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong disagree. I completely agree with the above quote by Tjsynkral. --Sm8900 19:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong disagree. I stand with Tjsynkral & Sm8900. The machine512 00:24, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is a whole article of sources available - the trouble isn't that they refuse to provide sources - it is that you refuse to accept them (even if cited on page). Subtle difference. --Kim D. Petersen 09:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The stubborn use of weasel words has been demonstrated (see this discussion as well as this one). William M. Connolley most notably said that he sees "no need for a precise definition of 'climate scientist'". And the idea of a consensus, being built from a presumption that all the anonymous scientists in the world agree since they have not expressed disagreement, remains original research. --Childhood's End 14:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, "a presumption that all the anonymous scientists in the world agree since they have not expressed disagreement" is pretty much the only way anyone establishes consensus isn't it, once those who want to have spoken? --BozMo talk 15:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In this case, no. There exists no scientist on Earth that can wholly scientifically invalidate climate change predictions - they can only give opinions with regard to their specific fields of knowledge (climatology involves dozens of different fields of research). It could thus be that there are scientific agreement with regard to certain specific aspects of climate evolution, but when it comes to the whole idea of anthropogenic global warming, the idea of a consensus is OR. --Childhood's End 15:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The last sentence pretty much sums up the incredible huztpah of the "anthropogenic global warming is a lie" group. Even sceptical scientists now agree that human activities are resulting in a warming climate, but simply say that cannot ascertain how much. [1][2] . The scientists in related fields that do contribute to the article are under almost constant barrage by those who obtain their opinions from information sources shaped by political and/or vested interests. I agree with Raul, Connelly, and others that this article is stable, balanced, and FA-worthy. --Skyemoor 19:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Research yes, but not original research surely? The whole point of the IPCC reports and vast list of signatories for their reports which give huge ranges in forecast and conclusion is that they are a consensus. You have to have a prejudiced view about the IPCC not to accept this: now please listen when I say that there may be all sorts of reasons to doubt the IPCC, but those reasons (valid though they may be) are where we are lacking notable sources, surveys of scientists and where we are in the realms of OR. There is not any kind of serious grouping (e.g. not more than for evolution) who oppose the IPCC conclusions as far as I can see. --BozMo talk 18:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The problem, BozMo, is the inclusion of what is either original research, a simple POV, or synthesis (counts as OR). If no source is saying it, why should we? If you can't find a reliable source that is saying what you are trying to include in the article, it's inclusion is meritless. It's really a simple idea, and I do not understand why a select few of you wish to gripe with this policy. ~ UBeR 19:58, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's also about a misleading characterization of how the IPCC produces its reports. The contributors do not contribute to the whole reports, as the misleading concept of "climate scientists" wishes us to think. Each scientist contributes to a small part of them in his research field and has no scientific idea about the validity of the whole thing. --Childhood's End 20:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am listening, but synthesis AFAICT is only original research if it is done "in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor". Without NPOV synthesis Wikipedia basically couldn't exist, we do it everywhere. So are you saying that the synthesis of IPCC is being done with a POV by WP editors, or that the IPCC reports themselves summarise with a bias or both? If the former, take me through what the IPCC summaries say. If the latter refuting a synthesis by a credible organisation is problematic and OR: lets find someone credible who has done it and quote them. --BozMo talk 20:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What I'm saying is that if you do not have a source outside of Wikipedia for something you are trying to include (for whatever reason), then do not add it! I'm honestly trying to make this as simple and basic as I can so I can illustrate my point. Wikipedia isn't about truth; it's about verifiability. If sources aren't saying, neither should we. ~ UBeR 20:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And what we have said dozens of times is that we even have quotes of sceptics saying there is a consensus they oppose. As for quoting other references in WP (if that's what you mean), we follow WP:SUMMARY. --Skyemoor 00:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This same old argument, even after I explained it to you? Wikipedia is not a reliable source. (I can bold too, you know.) Here, I'll prove it to you with a quote: "Wikipedia and other wikis sponsored by the Wikimedia Foundation are not regarded as reliable sources." I don't know how I can make myself any clearer. Can anyone who actually understands my logic here help me explain this simple point? I mean, I could explain how the WP:OR policy supports this conclusion, but if this simple idea cannot be grasped, I don't think it prudent to even bother. As for WP:SS, this applies to overly long sections that merit summarizing main points from what might be a more extensive article. It, of course, does not bar references in the article it's being summarized in. It does, however, limit it to sections, not leads. Read over the policy again. ~ UBeR 01:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You avoided acknowledging the point above about skeptics agreeing that there is AGW, just not sure how much. As for referring to other portions of WP, please quote the portion of WP:Summary that states that one cannot refer to references from spin-out articles in the lede. I have asked this same question before with no answer. --Skyemoor 01:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You avoid acknowledging I'm correct. I don't care which skeptics agree there is AGW (could they really be defined as skeptics, as such?), because so long as you aren't citing them, it means nothing to Wikipedia. Wikipedia cares not for your original research, but rather verifiable data. If you're refusing to allow verifiability for what you're writing in Wikipedia, not much can be done. As for my discussion on WP:SS, maybe you're not looking hard enough. Try Talk:Global warming for starters. ~ UBeR 01:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Those skeptics who agree that there is some AGW are on the skeptic list at Scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming and I indeed cited 3 of them above (which you avoided acknowledging above). You have again refused to support your claim about the lede being limited to what can be referenced, so we are left without any basis for your claim yet again. --Skyemoor 13:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


As far as stability here is the diff for the last 500 edits, to March 5. 500 edits in three weeks is not all that uncommon for a high profile article like this. Furthermore, if you look at the diff, the content itself has barely changed - it's almost exclusively confined to changing the style of the references. In other words, there is no stability problem here at all. Raul654 19:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is possible that Raul is correct about stability. However, if my experience on that page is an indication, the reason it is stable is over-zealous protection by a few editors who will revert and remove contributions by other editors in short order. Hence, their contributions remain stable over time.
I have already suggested a re-structuring of the article on the talk page. Other reviewers here have also suggested restructuring in this FAR. So it might be a reasonable idea. But it is rejected by the current guardians. --Blue Tie 02:32, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Raul. The article is stable, as the diff shows. The NPOV and weasel tags are spurious. The medcabal case is irrelevant. I disagree with some of Hh:
  • The lead can be re-paragraphed, but thats trivia
  • Terminology needs to be high up to be useful; it was once a side-box and was better as such, IMHO
  • There is no reason to list things in chronological order. Pre-human stuff is of minor interest and so is best low down
  • Mitigation is a sub-article
  • Attributed and expected is important so needs ot be near the top
William M. Connolley 21:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC) (belated sig - date wrong by about 2h)[reply]
Not to get in the middle of high emotions, but a factor in reviewing this article has to be how much of the article is or should be for Global warming as fact or against. People have used Undue weight as an argument, but that would presume that Global warming is believed by most people or scientists, or that that matters more than science. Science is not subject to peoples opinions or emotions, so perhaps this article needs extensive copyediting for neutrality rather than de-featuring. Judgesurreal777 21:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree what you said. Science is not a subject that allows emotions to take its course. They need facts and theories to back up the findings. This is why scientific journals (e.g. Nature) requires extensive scientific community peer review prior to publishing articles. OhanaUnited 01:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have not contributed any of the text in the article but have been around it reverting vandalism etc for a while. I supported the request for a review but the summary at the top of this FAR bears no relationship to the reality of the article. In my opinion the article easily meets the requirements for neutrality and stability (compare it to a random choice from a couple of months ago: it evolves slowly thats all). The problem with the article is that it represents a fair selection (tip of the iceberg) of the spectrum of scientific view and gives due weight to small minority views, whereas a small number of editors have repeatedly tried to get undue weight to these views. The article does not reflect my own views on Global Warming, but it does reflect consensus in the scientific literature as far as I can tell. This review will be useful if it achieves one thing: making other Wikipedians with a scientific background aware that a flagship article is in danger of being seriously undermined by a narrow interest group. The behaviour of the attacking minority has been raised repeatedly at WP:AN/I but they always manage to swamp the complaint with so much additional material nothing much comes of it. --BozMo talk 09:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is really too much personal attack and defense going on here. It should be about the article and its quality. I view it as a weakness of those declaring the article to be of high quality that they should personally attack the individual editing instead of focusing on the article and the facts. If these are in your favor, there is no need for personal attack.
As far as a "flagship" article.. it is very good, but it is not perfect. It has NPOV problems. It appears that the article is suffering from ownership problems. There is no baby being killed here, but perhaps the main editors of the article feel like they are under personal attack when their article changes. Other editors may suggest changes and these should not be immediately condemned as they are. The whole process on wikipedia is to discuss. It does not happen on this page though. Instead, new editors are insulted. This page is not so wonderful that it cannot be significantly improved. And if it would take the fall of a so-called "flagship" article to bring some civility to the talk page there then I would vote for that in an instant.--Blue Tie 02:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is >300 kb of talk page content in just the last three weeks. It does get "discussed", but a large part of that discussion is pointless because a number of people don't approach it in good faith but rather use the talk page merely to advocate for their own preconceived notions, without any concern for seeing the other side. I've followed global warming since way before it was featured, and I don't believe the presense (or absense) of the featured label will have any lasting effect on the amount of conflict it generates. Dragons flight 03:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you and it is sad to think about. --Blue Tie 03:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This artical sucks. It is totally a position artical and should only have facts, not oppinions. Leave the opinions to the consumers. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 137.86.167.112 (talk • contribs).
What specifically is opinion in this article? It looks like there is a citation for most sentences, and only two "citation needed" tags. Overall, pretty good for a controversial topic. Gimmetrow 21:25, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do not believe the article should be featured -- yet. I believe it can be greatly improved in terms of structure (but perhaps not in content). I also believe that it is not exactly neutral. I believe that this is a matter of experts with too much depth in the subject and passion for the subject editing it. I would also add, that I have been falsly accused of being a POV pusher. That is a false charge. --Blue Tie 23:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe a lot of the people complaining on this FAR about this article (specifically its neutrality) have no interest in doing productive work on the article. With their "help" this article would never have become a featured article. So claiming it's not a featured article "yet" is transparently disingenuous. Raul654 16:27, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with these accusations or their very appearance here, but at least you are open regarding your biases. One of the standards for defining ethical behavior is to ask "What if everyone behaved like this?" With you I would ask: "What if everytime there were disagreements, each side truly believed the other side was not interested in productive work but just disruption?" This is in direct opposition to the standards on wikipedia that say we should assume good faith. That is a standard that you, especially, should hold up high and live by example, yet you do not as you cop to above. How can others be expected to behave to a level of quality that wikipedia leaders do not abide by? Yet you will sit in judgment upon them. I have tried very hard, and am continuing to try to work with serious intent to improve the article, yet I have not been given a moment of consideration. No hard feelings about that, but your accusations would not hold up to scrutiny nor do your attitudes comport well with policy. --Blue Tie 17:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary. - Wikipedia:Assume good faith Raul654 18:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Raul654, I strongly suggest you retract your previous statements declaring those who have discussed in this FAR have no intentions in contributing in good faith and productively on global warming. Wikipedia asks you assume good faith. Because you disagree with them gives you no right to avoid this rule, considering you have no evidence to the contrary. ~ UBeR 19:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The evidence is manifold - Tony's off-wiki attack site (Right to Race), the sockpuppeting I uncovered using checkuser (Rameses, Britannia, Persephone), your now-deleted hit-list, and the blatantly biased edits you and others have been making to this article. Contrast that with William et al's infinite patience in putting up the never-ending supply of POV warriors who attack that page, and leave a month later only to be replaced by someone else - yourself included. William et al have gotten this article up to FA status despite the handicap of having to deal with such users. Raul654 19:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Considering you have not been involved in the article or this dispute whatsoever, your judgment is very poor. Considering you have made no real observations of either of latter claims, your faulty logic will be ignored. ~ UBeR 22:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A small POV section of editors (who come, go, and for the most part are replaced a few months later) have been waging war against this article for years now. It's been made a FA despite their efforts, and should stay that way. The controversy here has no correlation to reality. Mostlyharmless 10:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Raul654 16:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Or perhaps even non-POV editors come and go because the guardians are so strict and even abusive that it discourages people from participating. --Blue Tie 17:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't seen any evidence of this, unless you mean strict in the sense of enabling the pillars of WP. --Skyemoor 15:17, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, I believe he means what he said, in no uncertain terms, and I agree with him. I have felt crushingly demoralized by this article and its talk pages. Not so much do to my own insignificant requests being shot down, but from reading the discourse (to use a kind word) between others. This article is under the complete control of William Connolley, whether directly or indirectly. --64.222.222.25 06:04, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, the article has been protected. It is not going anywhere for now. Would editors please be so kind as to state their objections to the current revision. As far as I can tell Hink and William Conelley are the only ones who have stated their objections clearly, but these don't seem to be enough to remove this article from Featured status. Please be civil and cool-headed beyond this point. Thank you. -RunningOnBrains 17:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a poll on the talk page to unprotect the page and revert to a particular old revision, which curretly has a high degree of support. Raul654 18:04, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That I can see. Still, I'd like to concentrate on the FAR, as discussion regarding that must occur here. Otherwise it will by default retain its FA status, and I'd rather see one of our project's articles removed than a sub-standard article remain an FA. I have not read the article fully yet, but I'd like to know if the consensus is that it needs reviewing or not. -RunningOnBrains 20:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article seems to suffer from a severe case of WP:OWN. Any attempts to raise attribution, POV, or synthetic OR concerns get reverted on sight, preventing other editors from being made aware of issues on the article. --Facethefacts 22:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To Running: Yes per nom and Facethefacts and the rest of the discussion above. ~ UBeR 01:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To Running: No Support FA Status, per the discussion above. The complaints are from some who have a particular POV that only has tiny minority status among scientists, though there is still much discussion amongst politicians and pundits. Since the article is focused on the science, any political/punditry predilections should be identified on Global warming controversy. The article retains the quality required to continue its FA status. --Skyemoor 15:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Have to agree with Skyemoor on both counts. I haven't written more than a couple of words in the article but am often on the talk pages where these accusations keep being made. I keep asking what the substance of the POV complaint is and just get non-sequitors and abuse back from what seem to be a minority group of people who want to slant the article with fringe views and upset everyone in the process. I find it rather tiring and have complained at AN/I Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive198#Personal_attacksWikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive77#Reigning_in_Uber.27s_trolling but this hasn't stopped e.g. [14] --BozMo talk 15:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
BozMo, I urge you to retract your statements. Once again, you fail to assume good faith. Is the view that statements should be sourced so fringe? Oh, really, BozMo? Is my view that original research should be withheld from articles a fringe view? Oh, really, BozMo? Is my view that attribution should be given to sources a fringe view? Oh, really, BozMo? Admittedly, it might upset those who insert their POV and unsourced claims, because these rules prevent this very thing. But that is not a good enough reason to ignore them. You you should also note the author of the previous complaint was unable to convene any evidence for his unfounded claims. Shame. ~ UBeR 22:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The views you present are mixed. I am happy to acknowledge that some of your contributions are appropriate and that some of the changes you make are improvements. However, I still find the way you conduct yourself often uncivil, personal and aggressive however good faith you are. And although with good faith I am happy to believe you are convinced that there is a valid POV complaint I still find your replies full of non-sequitors and don't know what the real complaint is. --BozMo talk 15:42, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, I thought we already discussed this. I'm trying to figure out how I can make my message any clear, but it's difficult. I do not see how if a statement isn't sourced it does not follow that it should not be included in Wikipedia. Sequitur. It follows. However, note the current version is fine. ~ UBeR 22:02, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


It is unclear to me how people can claim that this article has the stability a FA requires. In the 30 hours following unprotection, there have been 53 substantial edits to the article, a countless number of them involving (sometimes full) reverts or POV/weasel word allegations. It is also my conviction that if a minority (no matter how small) continues to be of the opinion that this article is not NPOV, their concerns should be taken into account, or at least acknowledged on the article page. Not by allowing them to include whatever they want of course, but ignoring or supressing their opinion just because some of them are alledged trolls (if I can believe the above, I'm not choosing sides here) is just as unacceptable. And certainly if this is done to preserve FA status at all cost. I hate to make the comparison, but look at George W. Bush. This is also a flagship article (as you like to call this one), it's even one of the most edited articles, but due to constant problems is not featured either. I'm afraid this is just something we'll have to live with concerning controversial subjects. Nick Mks 15:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from a couple of page blankings (and there's a semi-prot on now) I don't see any of the changes in the last 30 hours as substantial? The odd word or reference here or there but personally I would have been happy with any of the versions in this time: not that I wouldn't want the odd bit of polish. --BozMo talk 15:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support FA status I personally have no qualms with the article. It is an ongoing issue, so of course there will be frequent edits to the article. However, it remains balanced and reflects scientific opinion on the subject very well. As other editors have already stated, the complaints about POV stem from very small minority viewpoints, and there is no reason to give significant weight to them. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 16:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support FA status Concerns about stability don't seem to have enough merit; I've seen real edit wars and this seems more like some minor quabbling over some wording.

I do have a few minor qualms however:

  • "Although most studies focus on the period up to 2100, warming and sea level rise are expected to continue for more than a millennium even if no further greenhouse gases are released after this date." This could use a source, it is an important assertion.
  • The "Global dimming" section is a stub, either merge it or expand it from the main article.
  • Fix the few "citation needed" areas.
  • Why does a single scientist with an admittedly minority view get a whole section? ("Pre-industrial global warming") If he is notable enough to mentioned so prominantly, there should be some sort of reference to the effect.

Other than that, I don't see many problems. Of course, I wasn't looking too hard for weasel words, can anyone spot any? -RunningOnBrains 18:03, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As for weasel words, I have pointed in an earlier discussion that "climate scientist" is weasel wording and it remains a problem in this article (2 occurences as of now). For example, in the Mitigation subsection, we have "The broad agreement among climate scientists that global temperatures will continue to increase...". To who does this refer exactly? Each is left to guess. Please read these discussions (see this as well as this). This sort of wording is stubbornly used by climate activists roaming this article in order to give a false feeling of authority to claims that cannot be verifiable otherwise. Besides, I'm all willing to support the FA status if this sort of problem can be resolved. --Childhood's End 19:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To answer one of your points, Brains, Mr. Connolley has reverted any content added to the global dimming section. As to why Pre-Industrial Warming has so much content and very little helpful information, I do no know why it is expanded so much, especially considering his data is disputed. ~ UBeR 22:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to ROB for some helpful comments. Continued warming - its essentially obvious, but the AR4 says it bottom of p17. I've put that in. Global dimming - is nothing but a pointer to the GD article. If there is a better way to link it, I'd be happy to hear it. Pre-ind warming is a fairly short section (I'm afraid I don't understand so much content and very little helpful information). The view is marginal but not obscure... its not big enough to be its own article (yet). In scientific terms, the view is probably as well supported as the solar variation stuff, which gets far more prominence William M. Connolley 22:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since the removal of the protection, this article has been steeped in POV edit warring by both sides. It is not stable due to these continued efforts to push one side's extremist view or the other's. There is no middle ground, apparently. Recommend de-featuring due to lack of stability and, apparent, POV problems. Kyaa the Catlord 04:33, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, since unprotection we have done fairly well. While there still is quibbling about some details, very many of the edits are constuctive (if small).--Stephan Schulz 08:07, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed: it has been rather peaceful and constructive for a bit/--BozMo talk 14:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is not even a question that this page has a completely warped and biased point of view about Global Warming. The graph to the upper right of the page is labeled "Global mean surface temperatures from 1850 to 2006" and shows a huge increase over the last 20 years. However the index is labeled "Temperature Anomaly" with a spread of -.6 to +.6 C. Which is it? To a high school student it looks like global temperatures are increasing wildly which is I'm sure the point of view that the hysterics would like to convey. Either show a graph with actual temperatures for that time period or label it correctly to negate the clear slant in POV that there has been some huge increase in temperatures. Why am I the only person to point this out? I'm not even a Climatologist and I can see this without cracking a book? Connelley edits this page to correct grammar but yet ignores this type of gross misrepresentation and you wonder why people question the wisdom of being locked out of correcting this page.

The above critique of the article was left by Showman, deleted by Raul and then returned to the page by Showman. I believe that it is a fair critique of a graph in the article, one that I had also wondered about, and should not be deleted. However, I have moved it from the top of the section nearer to the bottom where it should have appeared originally. --Blue Tie 20:35, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see a POV problem. It in no way pushes a point, and all axes are clearly labeled. If someone is too lazy to even read what is represented on the graph, of course they are not going to get an accurate idea of what the graph is portraying, but how can we guard against that?? Why is it our responsibility if the person doesn't actually read anything?-RunningOnBrains 23:23, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is because I added anomaly to the description after he pointed it out. ~ UBeR 23:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the scale of the graph was also an issue somehow. Perhaps the idea being that a few degrees is not a big deal? I think that with a long-enough time period displayed, the difference from a mean is the better way to go. But perhaps a graph that shows average temperatures and not difs from mean would be interesting too. --Blue Tie 14:05, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The actuals are not known as well as the anomalies. But since all it involves is shifting the whole graph up or down by a constant, or rather adding a constant to the labels on the y-axis, what difference would it make? If we're down to this level of trivia, the articles FA status is secure William M. Connolley 14:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think that the chart is a problem, an appropriately labeled and discussed, it is fine. ZBut I think the comment creates an interesting sort of problem. It would seem, based upon what I read, that the person writing there wants to see what they would call the "real" temperature. Maybe degrees C above zero. I think what he or she is getting at is the relative difference of temperature. Expand the scale and the numbers look smaller. But then, the only absolute temperature scale I can think of is Kelvin and that would too substantially minimize the graph. However, recognizing that this is the line of thinking that some folks may have when they see such a graph, somehow it would be a good thing to include words or discussion about the "how" of measuring the warming trend. I do not exactly know how to do this efficiently but I think somehow, some folks will think "Oh, only 2 degrees? When the "average" is maybe 25, thats not so bad." The article should help (or should direct to an article that helps) improve this understanding. I am also thinking of tipping points. In superconductors, bathed in LN or LH, you can get a localized hot spot that will raise the local resistance. This is unstable and can spread through the whole mass, sometimes with interesting results. But the localized hot spot might only be a few degrees different from the rest. I see it as analogous. Anyway, I do not think this added education of the casual reader is necessary for it to be FA, but I think there can be other improvements.--Blue Tie 15:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Possible Restructuring
edit

In addition to issues with regard to POV on this page, one of the criticisms of wikipedia articles is that they are created and edited "piecemeal" and as a result they lose a sense of consistency and cohesiveness. In addition, the overall structure is sometimes a bit hodge-podge. I think this article suffers less than most but I also think that the POV in the authors caused structure issues and the whole article could be improved by re-organizing the current content and then filling in holes or (in a few cases) deleting extraneous material or moving it to a better page. I have noticed in other articles that go through a restructuring process that starts with an outline, that some huge holes emerge that were previously overlooked.

I am currently working on a re-organization along the lines of:

  • Introduction (Summary)
  • What Global Warming is (and how it comes about)
    • Factors that may produce Global Warming (The science of how it works)
      • Greenhouse gases
      • Solar Radiation
      • etc?
    • Factors that may mitigate Global Warming (The science of how it is reduced)
      • Aerosols
      • Volcanism & Disasters
      • Clouds and Albedo
      • etc?
  • How Global Warming is Studied (and the history of its studies)
    • Historical Global Temperature Studies
    • The (alleged) role of civilization on Global Temperature Variation
    • Projections of Global Temperatures
  • Possible effects of higher temperatures on other Climate and Environment factors
  • Debates over Global Warming, forecasts and actions
    • An explanation of the difficulty in developing and interpreting evidence
    • Debates over the existance of the phenomenon
    • Debates over the role of man in the phenomenon
    • Debates over climate forecasts
    • Debates over efforts to mitigate anticipated warming

Where there are separate articles that cover these sections, they should be summarized reasonably and linked. The introduction should summarize these sections and should be written both first and then scrapped and re-written over again after everything is consolidated. This would produce a better article that would not face as much resistance if the old article were not FA. --Blue Tie 20:30, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article excellent as is. There is no reason to do a rewrite. And your rewrite is a POV whitewash of massive proportions. Case and point - where does your rewrite mention a no-so-tiny detail like how much temperatures have gone up as a result of global warming? The 16th paragraph. Raul654 20:35, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do not consider it a re-write. I consider it a restructuring. I used the outline described above. I have not changed any wording from the version that I brought over from the article page. I just changed the order of things along the lines of the outline above because the current article is sometimes a bit convoluted and jumps around a bit. I created the outline without any particular agenda in mind except to present the subject in a logical order. I would expect all aspects of the various elements, including temperature increases to be described in the lead (or lede as some say it), which I have not written because I have not finished anything yet. First restructuring. Then wordsmithing. I am not finished restructuring.
I am trying to improve the article. I think it needs improvement enough that it should not presently be FA. I know you disagree -- even to the point of removing valid but negative comments from this page -- but in my opinion the current article still needs more work. --Blue Tie 10:19, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree the specifics of global warming should be in the lede, I fail to see any POV in that format. However, I believe that a re-write is exactly what this article doesn't need; it needs to reach a stable solution, and there is little wrong with the current version. -RunningOnBrains 02:50, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you recognize that I am not really calling for a re-write. I was suggesting that, after the bit here and piece here editing of the article a comprehensive re-structuring, to follow a logical presentation of the subject matter should be done. THEN, if it becomes clear that some parts need to be smoothed or that some information is missing would writing take place. I believe that the restructuring is appropriate prior to FA. I think the article is not quite as well rounded as it should be if you look at it in the outline I describe above. Regardless of how that outline gets structured in terms of order, there are bits that seem to be missing. --Blue Tie 10:24, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments. External links need pruning per WP:EL, WP:NOT. See also is a wreck; pls refer to WP:GTL; to the extent possible, important articles should be linked into the text in order to minimize See also. Further reading is all over the place as well, not alphabetical, with no particular order or formatting style. (In other words, all of these aspects combined show that some POV is probably in play here, with many different editors wantiing to get their two cents in.) Publishers (author and pub date where available) aren't mentioned on all sources, examples — Climate Change 2001: Working Group II: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Retrieved on March 14, 2007. and Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis. Retrieved on December 19, 2005. Last access dates as well, example — ^ Climate Change 2001: Working Group I: The Scientific Basis, Chapter 12. Ref cleanup is needed after the article rewrite is completed. See WP:LAYOUT, see also templates go at the top of sections, not bottom. Of course cite needed tags need to be dealt with, as well as POV issues. This is out of place in the lead, which should summarize the article: (See: List of Kyoto Protocol signatories.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:51, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, SandyGeorgia, the further reading actually was ordered alphabetically. One or two of them had the authors first name in front of their last name, perhaps making appear as if they were not alphabetized. Only one was not in the correct order, and it was the most recent one added. I fixed those issues. I try to work on some of the others issues you pointed out. Should any of the links that appear in the article be removed from the "See also" section? ~ UBeR 04:01, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Purged the see also of all duplicate links. Deleted the see also to Kyoto signatories. Further reading was cleaned-up quite a bit, but still requires more work. Will try to get all missing info from References added, to the extent possible, later. Cheers, ~ UBeR 23:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, most of the references are to scientific journals. In my experience, it is very unusual to give the publisher of these. Of the 96 journal articles in my private BibTeX file, exactly one has a publisher (and yes, this file is used to generate references for scientific publications). --Stephan Schulz 08:24, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An anon added what I think is nothing but noise here. If you want to re-insert it... I wish you wouldn't William M. Connolley 18:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose FA ststus This article fails the comprehensive criterion in as much as its omission of information that is vital to the global warming debate.

  1. For starters, the article treats the issue as purely scientific. There is no information on the part played by the media is the portrayal of global warming (for example, how the media may or may not have exaggerated the issue)
  2. Secondly, it fails to summarize the argument surrounding the Kyoto protocol. Why have some countries failed to ratify it?
  3. This is obviously a pro-global warming article. Any opposing opinion is not adequately addressed, but simply linked to at the bottom of the article. That is unacceptable. We need a section devoted to this. As it currently stands, I'm surprised that this article passed FAC at all. Orane (talk • cont.) 17:54, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The subject matter is scientific. Other side aspects have their own articles, such as Global warming controversy. Kyoto Protocol has its own article as well. As this article is based on the scientific evidence, that which is contrary to the prevailing view is in a tiny minority. --Skyemoor 09:49, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mediation
edit

Just want to let everyone know, this article is currently the subject of a mediation case. You can view it at the following page. Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-03-25 Global warming. I will also place this information on this review's talk page. thanks. --Sm8900 00:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unstable
edit

The article is apparently unstable without protection. Protected twice in two weeks because of so many edits and reverts. FA Articles should be better constructed so as not to result in such disputes.--Blue Tie 23:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article is largely stable; the main ideas, structure, and text has remained essentially the same for weeks or months. The text has been superficially cleaned a bit, and there were some edits before it was protected the second time which will take some further review, but for the most part the article is fairly constant. In fact, in a previous section you yourself said it was stable, and thought this stability was (in a sense) a problem with the article:[15] . It would seem the actual problem you're driving at is that edits by a handful of editors are not being accepted by most of the editors of the article. This does not seem to speak to the article's instability, it speaks to its stability in the face of controversy. --TeaDrinker 00:55, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. The edit warring and OWN issues on that article really need to be killed before it can even be considered a GA. I continue to recommend removal of FA status. Kyaa the Catlord 04:39, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think you missed my point. If there is a chance of a controversial article being featured, the Global warming article is it. Global warming fits FA criteria as well as an article on a poltically controversial topic can. It accurately presents the science, has established scientists edit the article, and retains an accurate view of the science in the face of political pressure. I certainly support restention of FA status. --TeaDrinker 06:08, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't responding to you. I was responding to Blue Tie, hence the single colon. GW fails criteria 1(b) in that it currently minimizes or simply dismisses large sections of GW, the political, social and economic aspects of the phenomena. Until it overcomes this and the editors who stubbornly stand in the way of anyone seeking to expand the coverage of such aspects in the name of "science", it should not be a FA. It also has historically had problems with 1(e), it is a hotbed of edit warring. Kyaa the Catlord 06:49, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
GW is inherently a scientific topic. Other topics are generated as a result of its attention, such as Global warming controversy, Effects of global warming, and so forth, though these have their own article niches and should not pollute the explanation of the science. Other FA articles receive high levels of attention and editting, even to the point of protection, though they remain FA as well. --Skyemoor 09:54, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Other FAs do not undergo tens of edits containing the comment rv without being followed by vandalism in two weeks. Nick Mks 10:13, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Near the end of the last protection, an editor explicitly expression the intent to continue inserting what most editors thought was pov pushing, even in the knowledge that it would be reverted. Is that vandalism? It is not simple vandalism er WP:VAND, although I would call it disruptive. It warrants a revert, but calling it vandalism may be inappropriate according to a strict definition, and in any event, would only would serve to inflame. I don't think is it reasonable that reverts of edits made in questionable faith, even if not marked vandalism, should be taken as evidence of instability. --TeaDrinker 15:48, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, my remark was meant to be funny, but obviously it made my sentence too complicated to understand. I meant to say that many rvs were made to this article in terms of edit warring and content disputes, while normal FAs only undergo rvs as a result of vandalism. Nick Mks 16:27, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On a second read, it seems to me that you did understand my intentions, but disagree. However, if you do not consider a surge of (pure) vandalism-unrelated, dispute inspired reverts a sign of unstability, then what is? Nick Mks 16:32, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article is only unstable because some editors constantly attempt to push their POV into the article (in fact, these are in part the same editors who wish to demote the article from FA status). I do not mean to comment on the contributors rather than the contributions, but it is the most rational way to explain the stability issues, in this case. Before this edit war started, the article was much more stable. Besides, the nature of many of the edits are without a doubt disruptive, as TeaDrinker already suggested. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 17:13, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So what? WP:FA says [s]table means that the article is not the subject of ongoing edit wars and that its content does not change significantly from day to day; vandalism reversions and improvements based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. (emphasis mine). It does not provide an exception in the case that the majority thinks that the edit war is caused by a minority of POV-pushers. That leaves two options:
  • either have that minority blocked as vandals or (since they are a minority that should be easy) by having them violate WP:3RR, or;
  • acknowledge that the above option would be POV-pushing from the other side and admit that, whoever is right, this article in its current state is unfit to be termed stable and neutral. Nick Mks 17:25, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and concerning the people who are trying to demote the article being the edit warrers, I'm the nominator, I have made exactly 0 edits to the article and 3 to its talk page (all pertaining to the FAR). Nick Mks 17:29, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is not a doubt in my mind that the article is neutral, and I would hesitate to call the edit war "ongoing," as it is a rather recent phenomenon. Either way, I do not agree with such strict interpretation of the stability criterion; the article's virtues easily outweigh that one single vice. I suppose then, if you truly believe that it is unstable, that I must invoke WP:IAR, because the article is an excellent example of what a Wikipedia article should strive to become, despite the edit wars. Otherwise, we are straying too far from the main purpose of the featured article program, which is to mark Wikipedia's best articles for all to see. The stability criterion is there to ensure that articles which constantly change and could soon fail the other criteria are not marked as featured. This article is not at risk of failing the other criteria, though, as it has remained in pristine condition, and has actually changed little as a result of the edit wars. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 06:03, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"as it is a rather recent phenomenon". Recent you say? I encourage you to look again at the full history of discussions on this article. Nothing is recent about the disputes, edit wars and lockdown of this page. I must emphasize that there would only be no dispute if nothing was seen as lacking with this article. But, complaints on this have been brought up by literally hundreds of comtributors, members and admins, in the past and very little has been resolved by the act of compromise. WP:OWN is clearly a very major issue here and the idea of an evolving and open article simply does not exist. Wikipedia is still a very young system and in my opinion this is one of its greatest faults. The machine512 11:32, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I actually did look at the full history, and while there have been POV edits for ages, the edit wars have not been as escalated as they are right now. The fact remains that the only people who destabilize the article are skeptics who wish to do so. In my opinion, many of these edits are akin to vandalism, or at least should be treated as such for the purpose of the stability criterion. WP:OWN is definitely not a major issue here; if you look at those who revert the changes, a good deal of them are not major contributors to the article (I have reverted several POV edits, for instance, but I have not actually written anything in the article). Also, I find it odd that you call for both a constantly evolving article and a stable one. The two do not go hand in hand, unfortunately. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 06:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but I must disagree. An article that is almost constantly protected to contain edit wars and has page long hostile discussions on its talk page is not something I want a visitor to find labeled as one of Wikipedia's best... Nick Mks 10:39, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to have been involved in a number of astronomical FA articles, including Binary Star, which are subjects near and dear to my heart, though they do not have the level of attention and political controversy that this subject attracts (even Brown Dwarf :-). Yes, other FA articles are highly editted, even with some edit warring and protection, such as Barack Obama for example. So that in itself is not a reason to remove it from FA status. --Skyemoor 11:06, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, well, I don't know what to say to this. I've already given the example of George W. Bush, which is also an extremely high profile article but is not featured either due to edit wars. Maybe the comparison with real political topics such as those is not appropriate though. I guess it's more natural for a political topic to be so actively debated than (what should be) a purely scientific one. Nick Mks 13:16, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What I am struggling with, suppose FA stsus is not retained. How do we improve te article? We can't change reality to reflect the views of the GW skeptics (in fact, if we did, we would rightfully get a bunch more critics). I feel like you're arguing that some articles can not be FA in principle, no matter how well written, well cited, etc.. I don't edit the Bush article, and don't really know what the issues are there, but it seems downright bizzare that we would deny FA status in principle because it is politically contentious. --TeaDrinker 18:15, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Like TeaDrinker said, there are other controversial featured articles. I still hold to my belief that this article's virtues outweigh its stability issues. It does seem a little unreasonable to exclude certain articles from FA status simply because they are controversial. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 06:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support FA status I think that this is an excellent, well written article. Apart from a few citation issues there are no real problems. The stability issue raised above is not a problem. The article's content has remained stable despite attempts to bring in the view of the skeptics that are not part of the scientific literature.

Stability of content won't become an issue in the future, precisely because there is a strong scientific consensus about the issues discussed in the article and the article focusses on the science of global warming. This means that the critics can only "back up" their flawed arguments by referring to unreliable sources (right wing blogs, unpublished papers, flawed preprints rejected by journals etc.).

This is completely different from other politically charged subjects that are not scientific in nature. In such cases there are often two or more equally valid perspectives and you can find reliable sources where all these points of views can be backed up. This can lead to edit wars that cannot be settled easily. The case of this article can perhaps best be compared to the article on evolution. There are probably creationists who e.g. want to write that "evolution is just a theory" and make many such edits every day that are then reverted within 20 seconds. This in itself is not a stability issue. Count Iblis 01:13, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As far as the scientific/political difference is concerned, that is exactly what I mean. Therefore, edit wars and POV allegations are slightly more acceptable and expectable in a political article, and should be totally out of the question here. Lately, I do not at all agree that this is the case. I'm not gonna sum up my arguments here again, but I'll reformulate them soon enough. Nick Mks 08:53, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FARC Request
edit

Today, April 9, 2007, at 17:49 UTC to be exact, this FAR listing will have been up for two weeks. I hereby quote from WP:FAR:

The nomination should last two weeks, or longer where changes are ongoing and it seems useful to continue the process. (...) If the consensus is that the deficiencies have been addressed, the review is closed; if not, the article is placed on the FARC list.

As far as the first sentence is concerned, I am convinced that it is not useful (in fact, totally useless) to continue the process. As a matter of fact, the topics/arguments/edits in this FARC, the article's talk page and the article itself, have barely changed over the course of this fortnight. We are even back to sqaure one with a new protection. In my opinion, this could go on until the next ice age without yielding anything productive, let alone consensus. This brings us to the second sentence above. Unless somebody is convinced that we have a consensus in the discussion above that this article is now NPOV and stable, I must suggest that we move on to the next logical step in the process, i.e. FARC.

As the nominator, I shall also give my personal view, which will be my declaration if and when FARC is initiated:

Remove FA status: while I sympathize with the arguments of the article's writers defenders of FA status, I must disagree with them. Since the problems with this article only began recently, it can be hoped that they will end someday soon. Currently however, with nearly one thousand edits to the article talk page since the FAR initiation, most of them under headers containing words as POV or neutrality, and hundreds of edits in the article (tens of them in edit warring - I believe some people's "r" and "v" keyboard buttons must have worn out), in my interpretation this article fails FA criteria 1(d) and 1(e) more than ever. As a matter of fact, this article is currently in all the following categories at the same time: Protected, Articles with unsourced statements since April 2007, All articles with unsourced statements, Articles with unsourced statements since February 2007, Articles with unsourced statements since March 2007 and Wikipedia articles needing factual verification. The culmination of all this misery is the most recent protection and the resulting subdiscussion. On a side note, I'm currently struggling to get the article Moon featured. There it comes down to discussions on what kind of dash should be used in what situation per WP:DASH. If being featured requires having the right number of pixels in your dash (which I do not dispute), then I consider the current problems with this one of another level. Nick Mks 09:12, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disclaimer: I point out again that I labeled the above as my personal view, which will be my declaration if and when FARC is initiated. It was therefore not my intention to initiate FARC right away (I am unaware who is authorized to do so), and regret that it has been interpreted as such. Nick Mks 16:36, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is worth pointing out that characterising the above commentators as "the article's authors" looks rather wide of the mark.--BozMo talk 16:23, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did so (without thinking about it) because I assumed the correlation to be high. I have never looked up any names, and I presumed that mainly the people who worked hard to get the article featured would defend it. I changed my wording to avoid any confusion. My apologies if this has caused any discomfort. Nick Mks 16:36, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. The second biggest contributer in terms of edits seems to be UBeR who is unhappy with the status quo. By contrast as a defender, although I've have been on talk pages a bit I didn't really write any of the current text. --BozMo talk 17:48, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support Continued FA Status: The article is at a fairly high level of refinement, and WP is fortunate to have scientists in the field participating in the updating of new findings in the field. The source of much of the edit warring comes primarily from those who exhort 3RR edit warring, engage in wikilawyering, want to change the article for completely political reasons, and have been so disruptive that Jimbo "would be happy for them to be shown the door". Indeed, the only reason the article remains an FA is because of the persistence by neutral WP editors to maintain NPOV in spite of the efforts of those who would prefer to make ideological points instead. --Skyemoor 12:49, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe it is refined. I believe to some extent it is disjointed and could be better written regardless of the POV or NPOV problems. But also, the article's name and content are being reconsidered in a very basic way. It is not stable. I particularly object to your uncharitable characterization of the editors who bring objections. Some of the people you brought up are not even editing on that page. Its a strawman. --Blue Tie 14:16, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Each of the persons discussed in the links I provided above have been active in editing the GW page. Simply because their comments also bleed over onto user talk pages and the like is no reason to pretend they are not involved in editing GW. And notice I said "much of the edit warring comes primarily from" which is in no way an indictment of everyone on the side who wants to politicize the GW page. --Skyemoor 14:51, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If Skyemoor could ever make a non-fallacious argument, he might be listened to. ~ UBeR 17:14, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations, you have combined trolling and a personal attack in one short sentence. --Skyemoor 17:46, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Remove FA status The naive belief that global warming science can or should be seen independently of politics is what drives some good faithed people to require that this article be edited or discussed independently of politics. It is easily forgotten that global warming science mostly emanates from the United Nations and that every scientist in the world, just like every other human being, is subject to his personal interests' imperatives which can only be served by politics. While unfortunate, the political debate surrounding the global warming issue cannot be parted from the scientific debate since the science herein is primarily used to push public policies rather than for science itself. Both debates are intertwined and inherent to each other. This article is thus inherently political and should not retain FA status until the science has escaped the political sphere (and the UN's grasp foremost). --Childhood's End 14:08, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you all please stop entering Keep/Remove opinions in the review phase? Remove/Keep "votes" are entered once the article moves to FARC; the two weeks has never been hard and fast, so please relax. It will get there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:57, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So you are assuming this article will move to FARC? Why the assumption? --BozMo talk 16:21, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose it could be read two ways. I perceived it as meaning that remove/keep votes are only entered at FARCs. That is, that's the only place such voting occurs, not necessarily meaning this article would be nominated to that. ~ UBeR 17:13, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My question was a genuine question, not a protest. I don't think a "consensus" is likely here (and FARC seems the right place for settling this to me personal), so I thought perhaps it was WP:SNOW ... perhaps I misread the "there" in "it will get there". --BozMo talk 17:45, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A note on the process: when there is no clear consensus to retain status without FARC, Marskell usually moves articles to FARC, where editors may opine "Keep" or "Remove". But yes, my note was only to please refrain from entering "votes" at the review stage, which is for "review". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:20, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

edit
Suggested FA criteria concerns are neutrality (1d) and stability (1e). Marskell 09:31, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I assume we can start now? As announced, here goes:

  • Remove FA status: while I sympathize with the arguments of the defenders of FA status, I must disagree with them. Since the problems with this article only began recently, it can be hoped that they will end someday soon. Currently however, with over one thousand edits to the article talk page since the FAR initiation, most of them under headers containing words as POV or neutrality, and hundreds of edits in the article (tens of them in edit warring - I believe some people's "r" and "v" keyboard buttons must have worn out), in my interpretation this article fails FA criteria 1(d) and 1(e) more than ever. As a matter of fact, this article is currently in all the following categories at the same time: Protected, Articles with unsourced statements since April 2007, All articles with unsourced statements, Articles with unsourced statements since February 2007, Articles with unsourced statements since March 2007 and Wikipedia articles needing factual verification. The culmination of all this misery is the most recent protection (which will enter its second week tonight) and the resulting subdiscussion. On a side note, I recently struggled to get the article Moon featured. There it came down to discussions on what kind of dash should be used in what situation per WP:DASH. If being featured requires having the right number of pixels in your dash (which I do not dispute), then I consider the current problems with this one of another level. Nick Mks 16:27, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep - all of the problems are due to insurgency by the skeptics. Featured article status should not depend on the type of dash; nor should it be removable because of tendentious editing by skeptics. The article was (deservedly) of featured status before; it is now. The article is neutral and also stable - as pointed out before, the edit history demonstrates its stability, not otherwise. As to neutrality - the complaints are froth not substance William M. Connolley 16:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC) Well its not stable at the moment; nor am I convinced the current version is better than the old one. Perhaps a huge revert is in order William M. Connolley 10:45, 14 April 2007 (UTC) Its back to stability (following some harsh but necessary admin intervention) and back to being good, so restoring keep vote William M. Connolley 14:24, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • How is requesting a source for an unreferenced and contentious statement skeptical? There is a problem with this false categorizations as people as "conspiracy theorists" or "non-scientists" and are used to discredit suggestions made by the editors, when in fact an overwhelming amount of what is being said has nothing to do with science at all. ~ UBeR 18:55, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is not "neutral." When people point out why, and how to remedy it, you say that you are "bored" with the discussion, and that's the end of it. This is not how I define "neutral." It is also far from "stable." It is indeed under control, but this, again, is not how I define "stable." --64.222.222.25 06:50, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove FA status -- very interesting article and some good work in there. But neutrality is indirectly compromised by overly narrow interpretation of what sources are acceptable and what items should be covered under this general topic. Stability issues are huge and relate to the neutrality problem just described. UPDATE: The stability issue is not actually a recent one. Excluding November and December of 2006, the article has pretty consistently experienced an average of over 500 edits a month since October 2005.--Blue Tie 16:56, 13 April 2007 (UTC) ANOTHER UPDATE: It really is not ready for FA. The article will continue to have POV problems and will be the subject of edit wars until two conditions are change: 1). Ownership of the article by people who have very strong biases, needs to be reduced. This ownership is preventing the article from being improved because the owner/authors do not consider the current work to be substantially improvable. 2). The structure of the article is not good. It is a structure that comes from a particular pov and then perpetuates that pov. These two things have combined to produce an article that is not stable and furthermore, invites disruption. Until these issues are fixed, it is not FA material. --Blue Tie 14:50, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove FA status -- There are valid issues being discussed and contended here. They have been points of valid but great contention.I agree completely with Nick Mks, above. William, do you really mean to characterize the other side of this edit discussion as an "insurgency"? That seems an odd way to characterize a valid set of views and actions done by numerous good-faith editors. --Sm8900 17:04, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep FA status per William. Those who oppose global warming can create an article that presents the opposing view points. No more challenge on neutrality. OhanaUnited 17:27, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove. 1c, 1d, 1e, and 2. What a very strange situation for a featured article. I just had a look so I could fix the sorts of MOS things I usually fix at this stage, and guess what? I can't; the article is fully protected. So, there are WP:MOSNUM, WP:GTL, WP:DASH problems and incompletely formatted footnotes (at least, missing nbsps, incorrect use of dashes, See also templates in the wrong place, and blue-link only footnotes as well as other formatting errors in footnotes). So, right now, the article fails 2, and can't be edited because it's unstable (1e). I also can't add cite tags, and there are cite needed tags in place (1c). (oh. That means only admins can edit the article. Interesting.) Some of the comments above are quite illuminating ("insurgency by the skeptics" and "create an article that presents the opposing view points" - uh, that would be a POV split); do editors not understand what NPOV means (1d)? Apparently there is complete intransigency with respect to neutralizing the article, and mediation doesn't appear to have helped. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep in mind a lot of the style issues (criteria 2) can be solved when the article is unlocked. Could you perhaps point to some specific places, as I would very much like to fix any problems in violation of the MoS. ~ UBeR 21:15, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I can, but it's going to take me *so* much longer to type them up than it would to just fix them myself :-) I'll add a list to the talk page here (at the FAR) as soon as I get a free moment. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Article was unprotected, so I did a bit. UBeR moved the templates; I've fixed all the other issues I could find. The references still need a lot of work; they appeared to have been added piecemeal by many different editors, with no consistent style, a failure to use named refs on repeats, and there's a lot of missing info there. I'll keep working on those later if the article stays unprotected long enough. More to do still. There's a new issue at WP:ANI about not using px sizes on thumb images (Greek to me, but I removed them). Also, have a look at the use of nowrap to keep the temperature ranges together—easier than using lots of nbsps. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:27, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'll try to work some more on fixing refs and also making them consistent as possible. From what I could tell, it doesn't look any refs that don't have names are being duplicated, but I'll check more thoroughly later. Thanks for your work. Still trying to decide if using just thumbs instead of consistent 280 is good or bad. Tried to chime in at the ANI. We'll see. ~ UBeR 22:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • That thumbnail business is Greek to me, but I thought I should go ahead and do it while I was in there. I thought I saw one ref many times; when I get back over there (maybe tonight), I'll doublecheck. I was more concerned about the missing information (publishers, etc.) and it struck me that there was an awful lot of uncited opinion, but I tend to focus on one thing at a time, and I was only in cleanup mode. More later. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • This is the most unstable FA I've ever worked on, and I hesitate to continue cleaning up refs with all the reverts going on. If the article stabilizes to the point that I can work on the little stuff, someone ping me and I'll pitch in. In the meantime, 1c, 1d, and 1e are serious issues here; certainly not a fine example of Wiki's core policies. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:18, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • About one third of the article in printed form is footnotes and further reading. One third. And you don't even provide arguments as to why the article is to be considered unverifiable; you don't even try. As for complaints about stability, I hardly need to point out the absurdity of a FAR-regular voting to demote because of stability problems because the FAR itself has sparked another POV offensive by the Anti-Environmentalist League. Peter Isotalo 03:28, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Anti-Environmentalist League." That's a fallacy if I ever saw one, and an erroneous one at that, and probably a personal attack. I strongly urge you retract your statements and to use better judgment, especially when speaking about people of whom you haven't a clue. ~ UBeR 16:43, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's easy to get lost in the edit warring, the little details, and the sometimes vicious discussion on talk. But whenever I re-read the whole article, I'm positively suprised about the quality. I don't think there is a similar comprehensive, accessible, and well-sourced resource on this topic anywhere on the web. --Stephan Schulz 19:52, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I support removing FA status for this article. Not because of any viewpoint in particular, but because I don't think articles with any citations needed within their body should be FA. GA articles, let alone FA articles, are supposed to be completely referenced. It may also be unstable, depending upon your definition. Weasel words are also not supposed to lie within wikipedia articles at all. I support dropping it to either B or GA status until these problems are resolved. Thegreatdr 19:55, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep FA status. I can only buttress the comments of William M. Connolley. With specific regard to stability, if edits are proposed, discussed, and rejected by most editors on the talk page, and a handful of editors make the edits anyway (followed by an inevitable revert), this is not instability in the spirit of 1(e) any more than simple vandalism is. We have a curiosity that the page was locked specifically and explicitly to avoid having to block people engaged in this kind of bad-faith editing (violating 3RR in the process). While I am not saying it was a bad decision, I wonder if they had simply been blocked if this would even be an issue. With regard to 1c. issues, there are four fact tags in the article: 2 from April, one from March, and one from February. These do need to be taken care of, however it does not strike me as a substantial problem; there is no evidence for long-residence times for fact tags, the article is extremely well cited. With regard to neutrality, 1(d), I can not imagine better editing on a controversial topic with regard to neutral point of view. There is a clear scientific viewpoint on the idea of anthropogenic global warming, and the article presents it as such. NPOV does not require dissenting views be given equal weight in science; in fact, when there is a scientific consensus (as is clearly the case in the idea of anthropogenic global warming), including as science the views of the extreme minority of scientists who disagree would be undue weight. In fact, the only substantive criticism I have heard leveled is a violation of criteria 2; these, while important, are minor, few in number, and most importantly, are easily remedied when the page is unlocked. --TeaDrinker 20:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that the "most editors" you describe as rejecting certain edits have all made their allegiance to WMC clear in their GW talk comments. This could be construed as undo influence by WMC -- they are taking their cues from him. This only further bolsters the idea the true anonymity would benefit Wikipedia. Usernames should be abolished, and even IPs should be hidden from public view (using them to ban should of course remain).
  • Even though the page was not "locked specifically and explicitly to avoid having to block people", TeaDrinker raises an interesting point. If wikipedia could just block all of the people who have problems with the pov in this article and retained only those who do not have such problems, the article would be extremely stable. And there are probably other articles where editors disagree, causing stability problems. If only wikipedia would just choose the one correct side and ban the other editors as vandals there would "clearly" be less contention and more stable articles. That this has not been consider before gives one pause to go hmmmmm...--Blue Tie 20:38, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Thanks for the point, I should have been more specific; I was of course refering to the editing habits of editors, not their pov, being blockable. Not wanting to get into a large discussion here, I'll just add that I was refering to this comment by the protecting admin, in which he notes that the page was protected to avoid blocking people (for 3RR violations, not their views). --TeaDrinker 21:54, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep FA Status - The stability issues are a result of nothing more than efforts by the skeptics to include their POV in the article, which is perfectly neutral and reflects scientific opinion on the subject quite well (last time I checked, there are not any notable climatologists who deny AGW, or any peer reviewed papers which even question it). Now many would point to the stability again, but I think this is an excellent example of a time to invoke WP:IAR. Besides for the stability issues, the article is excellent. It really is one of the best articles on Wikipedia; it's well-written, informative and comprehensive, well-referenced, etc.. The article's virtues easily outweigh its one vice, and it would be a mistake to deny the article FA status simply because its subject is controversial among Wikipedia editors. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 16:00, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Remove. While I, probably more than anyone, would hate to see the article be demoted, the article simply isn't living up to the FA criteria. People here often use the fallacious argument of "it's unbalanced because they're skeptical." This is bollocks. Overwhelmingly, this article is unstable because there those who wish to insert unsupported information to support their views. Rarely, if ever, is the science behind the global warming in the article ever being disputed or changed or disrupted. Additionally, the article is not comprehensive. All links, even if it's just five words, pointing to any other article outside of the science of global warming are deleted. This wouldn't be a problem if the article was named global warming science, or some other. Various admins have voiced their opinions that the article should be comprehensive in scope, and at the very least devote little more than four sentences to other topics. Now there a few who wish to have absolutely no word on it, so as to make sure the readers never find any such articles with topics outside of the science. In order for this article to be comprehensive, it must deal with the topic of global warming, not just one specific and narrow point. I've made various suggestions to do this, but yet there remain the few who wish to keep the article limited and incomprehensive, often using unsupported allegations to support this. I do believe one day it could reach the requirements for FA, but at it's current state, it's simple a mess. ~ UBeR 19:04, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • I'm striking my original vote, because it was placed before I went over the edit history of the article today. It appears it has changed quite drastically, and I simply cannot keep up. But it's a clear indication with such changes that the article is not stable for FA. ~ UBeR 20:38, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. IMV the article, as I found it this evening, is neutral and covers the topic well. I've also done a few diffs to different points back in time and, while it has undergone substantial changes, I would not characterise it as 'unstable': the article has been improved and expanded, and there have obviously been a lot of revisions and reversions on smallish areas of the article, but I don't think that is a problem. (FWIW it's a substantially similar article to the one I remember reading a few weeks back). I think the separation of global warming as a scientific phenomenon from other aspects using summary style is entirely appropriate. I would be happier if the 'effects' section had less coverage of the extreme weather possibilities and more details of the ecological and human impact, but I don't regard that as a reason to delist the article. Regards, The Land 20:41, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep FA Status: The article is at a fairly high level of refinement, and WP is fortunate to have scientists in the field participating in the updating of new findings in the field. Claims of instability are from those pushing a tiny minority POV who realize that their edit warring might remove the article from FA status. The source of much of the edit warring comes primarily from those who exhort 3RR edit warring, engage in wikilawyering, want to change the article for completely political reasons, and have been so disruptive that Jimbo "would be happy for them to be shown the door". Indeed, the only reason the article remains an FA is because of the persistence by neutral WP editors to maintain NPOV in spite of the efforts of those who would prefer to make ideological points instead. --Skyemoor 12:49, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, excluding the effects of various missions to impose a specific POV on the article, it is satisfactorily stable. The article is well-balanced and accessible. Sandy's objections to it are not compelling. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:51, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove from FA list (pretty much all of criterion 1). 1c, 1d, 1e per SandyGeorgia, and I've commented on the article's talk page why it fails 1b. Currently, the article talks about the science of global warming adequately, but it is not called Science of global warming or any other similar title; it is Global warming, and as such, needs to have some sort of discussion about political and societal effects of GW. Unfortunately, the lack of stability in the article makes 1a debatable as well. It is sad, as it is otherwise a good article, but it does lack those details. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 08:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove from FA list for now - currently fails stability criteria and is undergoing significant changes to bring into line with summary style guidelines. Once the changes currently being rigorously discussed on the talk page are made it should be re-nominated. QmunkE 10:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove from FA status. There is too much edit-warring between those with very strong views on both sides which leads to a bad, disjointed, unstable article that does not read well. Furthermore the article contains false statements and breaks WP:POV and WP:OR Paul Matthews 14:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove per edit warring, stability, and POV issues that seem unlikely to be resolved anytime soon. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unprotected
edit

FWIW, the article is currently unprotected and 2 fact tags are gone. Whether this is still true when you read this is another matter... William M. Connolley 21:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: Its been protected AGAIN. Kyaa the Catlord 08:51, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: The article is now semi-blocked and that is why I do not yet vote remove. Although, otherwise I would. There are many problems in this article, such as:
  • The lead: 5 paragraphs for not a very long article?
  • "Causes": IMO the first paragraphs need better citing.
  • Stylistic: the inline citations sometimes are before the pm; sometimes they are after it, but with a gap before ...
  • "Controversy" section: Besides the fact that it is tagged, the prose there is too choppy.
  • "History" section: "The scientific consensus is that these greenhouse gases have been responsible for most of the present warming trend. That consensus is not unanimous." I think I read exactly the same think in the lead, where it was cited as a matter of fact!
  • "Related issues" section: The sub-sections there are too stubby. IMO you should merge or expand. But a one-sentence sub-section?!
  • "See also" section: I think it is huge! Nothing of these is already cited in the text?--Yannismarou 11:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: the article is permanently semi-prot. I don't quite understand why this affects your review. The article is 60k - since when is that "not long"? Causes: the cites are in the sub-articles. Controv: not tagged any more. History: I've just rm'd the first para since it doesn't really bleong there. See-also: agreed William M. Connolley 09:47, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to your comment "cites are in the sub-articles", Wikipedia:Citing sources clearly states that Note: Wikipedia articles cannot be used as sources. Therefore, if the citations from the subarticle are also used in this article, they need to be in this article as well. Thegreatdr 14:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Data for the record, as there seems to be some confusion here on size. The article (currently, whatever that means in this case) is short on prose in relation to many FAs. Prose size is 23KB, and refs are 9KB, according to Dr pda's page size script (which, btw, doesn't count the text in the image captions, which is too long, IMO). Perhaps a lot of the edit warring has been focused on the lead and a lot of content has been shuffled out, explaining the relative size of the lead compared to the article. There are several stubby sections. Comprehensiveness continues to be a concern (see further comments above by Titoxd), and comments on WP:AN seem to confirm that this article has been a long-standing problem.[19] And, it has been consensus on FAC for as long as I've been there that summary style doesn't necessarily allow for the main article not to be cited. I understand Yannis' reluctance to review or comment on the article because of the instability. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As for using WP:SUMMARY as an excuse to not to cite information, I don't see it as a very compelling one. There's no real reason not to have sources. Also, Mr. Petersen has proposed that we begin to actually review the summarized articles to see if our summaries are at all accurate. I agreed but also suggested to use citations anyway, regardless of how accurate our summaries are. One reason is because the summarized articles are mostly poor articles and usually very poorly sourced themselves. ~ UBeR 16:44, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is the reasoning behind not excusing the main article from citatations which rely on a daughter article; FAC and FAR reviewers shouldn't have to review every daughter article. The article content needs to be verifiable on its own. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:09, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neither should writers of very difficult FA articles need to jump through gratuitously defined hoops of demands set up by the FAR mafia. I know a lot of users here are extremely excited about forcing the "wherever the hell I tell you to cite"-rule of footnote density on everyone they disagree with, but as long as no community consensus exists to support it, both summary style and good faith are pretty darned important rules to abide by, as is the onus of actually providing good counter-arguments and valid counter-sources instead of just smearing generalized doubt based on personal opinion all over everything. If anything, this whole thing is a good example of when FARs should be avoided.
Peter Isotalo 01:29, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Remove because of the stability issues, it's a shame though. Aaron Bowen 07:12, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep FA status (I'm repeating the reasons I already gave above, I'm assuming that this is the "official vote"). I think that this is an excellent, well written article. Apart from a few citation issues there are no real problems. The stability issue raised above is not a problem. The article's content has remained stable despite attempts to bring in the view of the skeptics that are not part of the scientific literature.

Stability of content won't become an issue in the future, precisely because there is a strong scientific consensus about the issues discussed in the article and the article focusses on the science of global warming. This means that the critics can only "back up" their flawed arguments by referring to unreliable sources (right wing blogs, unpublished papers, flawed preprints rejected by journals etc.).

This is completely different from other politically charged subjects that are not scientific in nature. In such cases there are often two or more equally valid perspectives and you can find reliable sources where all these points of views can be backed up. This can lead to edit wars that cannot be settled easily. The case of this article can perhaps best be compared to the article on evolution. There are probably creationists who e.g. want to write that "evolution is just a theory" and make many such edits every day that are then reverted within 20 seconds. This in itself is not a stability issue. Count Iblis 00:54, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep This review contains little or no discussion which isn't pure meta-debate, ruleslawyering of vague guidelines, personal opinions about formatting and facts, or just subtle insults and POV-pushing. What's worse, though, is that the FAR itself appears to be destabilizing the article further and encouraging destructive editors. Instead of demanding that these rather obvious trouble makers be dealt with, editors are seriously suggesting we demote the article, which to me is just ludicrous and damaging to the project. William made some very good pointers which more or less amount to a lot of editors simply can't see the forest because of too many trees. Peter Isotalo 03:28, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove— the very fact that members of the community are so torn about the article's status as a featured article evidences that it should be demoted. In other words, a Featured Article, by Wikipedia's standard, is one that the community as a whole agrees is the best. Obviously, there is no community consensus here. If this article's status is kept, then the definition of a featured article should be altered to, "an article that some members of the community proclaimed was the best because their votes outnumbered those who opposed." Orane (talk • cont.) 06:02, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The problem is that those voting to remove have provided little or no justification as to exactly what is wrong with the article; it's mostly been a debate over piffling inconsistencies in formatting and ridiculously small details of facts on global warmning. There's a very sizable proportion of editors that are voting to remove because they're annoyed about an unspecified POV-problem, and most others seem to be voting to remove because others are voting to remove. That doesn't make any sense and shouldn't bring down an article. This FAR should have been restarted or simply thrown out weeks ago. It has damaged the article, not helped it, and it's seems totally absurd to demote an FA just because the review process itself has gone astray. Peter Isotalo 11:03, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'd be much more inclined to see your point of view if you'd been involved on the article talk page - I've checked the history back to February (long before I got involved) and I don't see a single contribution, which doesn't instil me with confidence that you are in a position to judge the reasoning of the people involved in that discussion. Assume good faith doesn't just apply to article edits - it applies to discussions too. QmunkE 12:15, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I heartily and entirely disagree that people are annoyed with unspecified POV problems. I have, from time to time, provided specific comments on this issue. For example, I have proposed very specific changes to the first sentence of the article in great detail showing cites and sources and the basis for my concept. My comments have been rejected but not on the basis of any argument on the points I raised but simply dismissed out of hand by the owners of the article. I could provide a very long discourse on how my process and proposed changes are entirely in compliance and supportive of and supported by the NPOV guidelines, but it does not matter if the cluster of owners do not want it to follow those guidelines. And, more or less, they have said that that they want special rules for this page.--Blue Tie 17:11, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        You either have a different memory or use different semantics for English than I do. Your proposal was rejected as chatty, imprecise, somewhat wrong, and violating WP:COMMONNAME, as references to global warming do indeed nearly exclusively refer to the current instance of global warming. You may not agree with these reasons, but claiming that none were given is wrong.--Stephan Schulz 17:34, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Your command of English is superb. It is probably a different memory. In short, I believe you are wrong on what you are claiming but I do not believe this is the page to discuss this. I suggest, if you are interested, I would discuss it either on the article page or on my talk page (which I think is probably more appropriate in this one instance). But I think, rather than discuss it, you would prefer to arm wave the rejection without looking at it critically. Once again: I have not said that there were no reasons given but the reasons were arm waving. They were a failure to deliberate. This is a hallmark of pov, a problem with the article that has been repeatedly described by many editors. Simply waving your arms does not make the flood of pov objections go away. You need to actually deal with them. --Blue Tie 17:55, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • You know, not all of us have time to read 1000+ talkpage edits just to get to the gist of whatever is wrong about the article. You're supposed to present and summarize it here, for everyone to see. As for assuming good faith, I think Raul's previous comment summed a lot of it up. And I don't accuse everyone seeking to remove of bad faith, just occasionally bad judgment. And this isn't the first FAR that has degraded into a pure slug fest, so I'm not really confident about this being the appropriate forum for the article right now. But, please, try to actually convince me about what's missing in the article instead of telling me I have to sift through overwhelming amounts of heated debate. You might even convince me to change my mind. Peter Isotalo 12:38, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • The problem is neither you nor Raul654 have any "evidence to the contrary" because neither has a clue of what's going on in the article. ~ UBeR 16:46, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Well said. What I've also noticed is that many of the people here who want the article's status upheld use the defense that the dissenters are either trouble makers, or they are fanatics of the theory that there is no global warming. Or both. This is a gross oversimplification of the issue. I do not want the article to read, "global warming is a myth." What I want to see is that global warming is no more only a scientific issue; it has now gone into the realm of politics, the media, the economy etc. It has become an enterprise, a bureaucracy all on its own. An article that fails to mention theses things isn't worthy enough to be featured, because it is extremely narrow in scope. And the talk about creating "our own article" is nonsense. This is the 'mother article'— all the main points of the daughter articles should be incorporated. As the policy states, Wikipedia isn't concerned with the truth. We summarize existing, attributable knowledge. The 'scientists' here should learn to deal with it. Orane (talk • cont.) 17:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • "Wikipedia isn't concerned with the truth." That is simply not true. According to Wikipedia:Attribution/FAQ, "Wikipedians do care about the truth, but we are mindful of our own limitations. We want to produce a high-quality encyclopedia, and by insisting on the use of reliable sources, we depend on the published research and opinions of informed commentators. Editors should ensure that all majority and significant-minority opinions are included in articles, in rough proportion to the representation of those views in reliable published sources." The key here is "reliable, published sources," none of which question anthropogenic global warming. "...we can follow the consensus of experts." I'm beating a dead horse here... -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 20:30, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • I think that there are some assumptions in your statement. One assumption is that your list of reliable sources matches everyone else's list. That may not be so. I suspect, that even your list would include some papers that would express doubts about the nature of the anthropogenic warming, even if it were just a very few... its probably more than none. --Blue Tie 21:13, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                  • In reply to Cielomobile, Wikipedia is not so much concerned with truth as it is facts. We are here to present what it is being said in the world, in an encyclopedic manner. That is why Wikipedia is "verifiability, not truth." Wikipedia isn't here to find the truth. And I don't think what Orane was speaking about was fringe theories on Wikipedia. What I think he was speaking about was discussing the broad range of global warming. That is, not just scientific ideas. Albeit a large part of global warming, there is, in fact, more to it than science. A lot more. So that's what I think Orane was talking about when he says "it has now gone into the realm of politics, the media, the economy etc. It has become an enterprise, a bureaucracy all on its own. An article that fails to mention theses things isn't worthy enough to be featured . . . The 'scientists' here should learn to deal with it." In all, your attempt to misconstrue his point into something that he isn't arguing at all is pretty embarrassing. ~ UBeR 21:39, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                    • In response to Blue Tie, find me a reliable, published, peer-reviewed (this is also part of WP:A) source that expresses skepticism of AGW, and then we can talk. As for you, UBeR, I admit, that was a bit of a straw man I set up there. However, my point is still valid, about using reliable, published, peer-reviewed sources. Anyway, you could've done without that last remark; attacking me is certainly no better than making a straw man argument. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 01:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                      • Do you mean like this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blue Tie (talk • contribs)
                        • I do not know if that source is even reliable, though. Speech is heavily controlled by the government in China, if that means anything. I would make more conjectures, but there are scientists editing this article who could better gauge the source's reliability. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 03:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                          • OK. but you are the one who asked for a reliable, peer reviewed source and then "We could talk". So I complied. If you are not able to judge such things then why issue the challenge in the first place? The source is published in the US and is indexed in ASCA, BIOSIS, CAB Abstracts, Current Contents, Inspec, and Science Citation Index, and it is peer reviewed. What more do you imagine it takes?--Blue Tie 03:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                      • Also, from WP:A, "Exceptional claims should be supported by the best sources, and preferably multiple reliable sources, especially regarding scientific or medical topics, historical events, politically charged issues, and biographies of living people." -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 01:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Cielomobile, again, you are exploring Gw in a narrow scientific scope. For the political, economic, and/or social side of Gw, we have exceptional and reliable sources like New York Times, LA Times, National Geographic etc. The reason that the literature opposing AGW is limited is because these scientists are not as organized as the supporters. But that doesn't mean that the article should ignore them. Orane (talk • cont.) 03:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The subject is scientific in nature. This has been argued countless other times, and the consensus reached has been that the subject should focus on the science. There is a short summary-style section linking to the politics of GW and the GW controversy; that is sufficient. I am not going to beat this dead horse any longer. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 05:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. There is no consensus that THIS article should be scientific. That is a major debate in fact. There are a large number of editors who believe that Global Warming encompasses more than science. That alone is one reason the article should NOT be FA. There are more reasons than that. --Blue Tie 05:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The latest straw poll would indicate that 70% (18 to 8) want the subject of the article to be scientific. Obviously that is not the kind of consensus that there is in the scientific community about AGW, but it's enough to pass an RfA here at Wikipedia. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 02:13, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So apparently you've never heard of the statement, "Wikipedia isn't a democracy." Wow, 18 people? I guess that's definitely the majority of the community. After all, there's only about 30 accounts open here. Orane (talk • cont.) 02:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That does not mean that you can just shrug off a 70% majority and give the minority what they want. The current consensus is that the article's focus should be scientific, like it or not. If it was only a slim majority in favor of keeping the topic scientific, then consensus would be much harder to determine, but in cases like this, it is quite obvious where the consensus lies. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 03:01, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First off, its 'Orane' ('e' included). But I digress. Let me explain how this consensus thing works, especially in WP's case. A 70% consensus can't be reached and considered valid when only a minority of editors participated in this so-called straw poll. In other words, 70% of 20% of the people involved in this conundrum can't dictate what should or shouldn't be. Secondly, it's not necessarily the numbers that matter— it's the idea behind these numbers. So even if those people who wish to treat the issue purely scientific outnumber those who disagree, the fact still remains the the dissenters/minority still have valid points and ideas that shouldn't be overlooked. If Gw was purely scientific, we wouldn't need all these daughter/spin-off articles that discusses non-scientific aspects. Orane (talk • cont.) 05:49, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure the 70% is true. For example I agreed with the idea that the article should be just science -- but ONLY if it were renamed. Many other people who also agreed that it could be just science also agree that it cannot be titled "Global Warming". --Blue Tie 05:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for butchering your name in my edit summary, but understand my mistake; it is different than your user name and difficult to read in diff form (how I generally read new comments) because of your elaborate signature. Anyway, we can never get the opinion of the entire community, so we have to make due with what we do have. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 18:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yet another testament to the fact that Cielomobile hasn't been paying attention to anything going on with the article. The (flawed) poll results came out 17:8:5. The 5, of course, being other options not included in William's "policitcs [sic], finance, whatever," most of which were broadly in concord with option 2, which was an article broader than science. (E.g. "my ideal world is a lot closer to Option 2 than Option 1.") The 5, of course, are just the amount of different options; many more people voted for these (around nine, making it somewhere near 17:8:14). Additionally, many comments left in the pure science article vote suggested even perhaps more options. For example, BozMo's "unless we move the science out to 'Global Warming Science'?" So to say there's any consensus at all is pure rubbish. ~ UBeR 16:39, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I ask you again to refrain from personally attacking me, or I will have to leave a notice on the administrators' noticeboard. As for the consensus, some of the third options proposed a summary-style section linking to controversy and politics; this has been done. There has already been compromise; how can you really ask for more weight to be given to you? -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 18:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The WP community has managed reasonably well to keep this article balanced and NPOV. There are scars which are getting sorted out. If we cannot even manage to get this article to showcase standard what hope for Wikipedia's quality improvement going forward. --BozMo talk 06:32, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'm not sure if this has been mentioned here, but it came up on the GW talk page. It is only in the U.S. that there is even remotely significant skepticism among the public. Pretty much all Europeans have accepted the reality of AGW, the French conservative presidential candidate Nicolas Sarkozy going so far as to propose taxing some behavior which causes emissions (I can't remember what exactly, but I read it in this New Yorker article: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/04/23/070423fa_fact_kramer?currentPage=1 ). Anyway, the point is that even if the article were to not focus on the science, in order for it to maintain a global perspective, it should give little weight, if any, to skepticism, or else risk U.S.-centricism. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 01:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment on comment. Shouldn't this be on the article talk page instead? Incidentally, the link does not look like it supports your point (I glanced and did not see what you are talking about) and anyway, to declare that all of europe agrees would be OR. --Blue Tie 12:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Go to the print view for the whole article. I suspect Cielomobile refers to this Sarkozy quote: "I want to put an import tax on carbon emissions for countries not respecting the Kyoto treaty." But I agree that gosing from that to "pretty much all Europeans have accepted the reality of AGW" is a stretch. However, pretty much all Western European governments have accepted AGW as a reality (I simply don't know about the others). Finding sources, if necessary, should be possible. --Stephan Schulz 12:35, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Seeing as neutrality has been one of the reasons for demoting the article from FA status, I believe that this is a perfectly legitimate place for my comment. I believe that Mr. Schulz has answered the second part of your question. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 02:04, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - despite large discussions and occasional edit-wars (which is unsurprising on a subject that has large scale political implications) the article is surprisingly stable - and in general is improving beyond the earlier FA status. --Kim D. Petersen 08:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove per SandyGeorgia's reasoning. And for God sake, can the clowns edit warring over this article grow up? Or is this too much to ask maybe? LuciferMorgan 14:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep! The article represents the basic science in an excellent manner. Removing the FA status because of some skeptics who find that their views are not dominating the article would be a very bad idea. In my view, "alternative" explanations do already fill up too much space, at the cost of more important parts that could otherwise be included. For such a topic, it is no surprise that it experiences a lot of vandalism. Especially not on the internet, where the vast majority of skeptic nonsense is being discussed. The Politics of global warming are being dealt with in a separate article, and a poll on global warming's website just recently made clear that the Kyoto Protocol is not to be included lengthy. Overall, the article really deserves FA status. Hardern 09:27, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove: The article is controlled by a select group of editors, led by William M. Connolley. This can be confirmed by the edit history, as well as the talk pages which show the same group of core editors attempting to rationalize their revisionism. All this points to a conflict of neutrality. I am also concerned that by placing a "gold star" on an article, we give it undue weight. Readers might believe such articles to be infallible, which of course no Wikipedia article can ever be. I have no problem with giving articles a temporary honored place on the front page; my concern is that they are then forever labelled as "special." --64.222.222.25 07:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here, it is a criticism of placing a misleading "gold star" on the GW article. Were we discussing any other article, it would be a criticism of having such a star on that article. The FA system is the root of the problem (actually not the entire system, just the stars), but at the moment I am only concerned with its effect on the GW article. --64.222.222.25 23:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove from FA status. Although the article is more neutral than it used to be, it still doesn't present all sides very well. Until it does, it will remain extremely unstable. By the way, from my count on this FAR so far, there are 17 votes to keep, and 18 votes to remove. Cla68 08:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a vote. Marskell 09:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sure its a vote. Its just not a Majority Rules vote. On the other hand, its hard to call it a consensus for FA either. --Blue Tie 10:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Over all, I like it and I think it meets the FA criteria. This is not to say the current version is perfect or that nothing needs to be changed, and this should be made explicit should the FA remain. ~ UBeR 17:15, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Moving toward closure
edit

Comment. Lost in the big debate are some small concerns over structure. What's sticking out to me is the stub sections from economics on down. Can we fill those out a touch? Marskell 08:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm seeing in a lot of the "keep" comments that users feel that global warming sceptics are trying to get this de-featured because it doesn't contain enough on their POV. I don't think that is the case - it certainly isn't why I object to the article being at featured status. I am quite satisfied that minority views on the science be given brief mention in the appropriate paragraphs and not overplayed. The real debate is over things like the inclusion of political controversy and economic impacts, and the stability issues - I'd just like to point out that stability shouldn't have to mean stagnation, which has at times been the case on this article. QmunkE 09:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Although now that I look at it, many of my concerns have been resolved. Hmm, maybe I need to reconsider my !vote...QmunkE 09:41, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's improved. I believe most of the MOS issues have been resolved. The ref formatting doesn't seem entirely consistent, but the principal attribution information is there. I've just made some headway in removing stub sections at the end (hope it sticks). I did add two cite tags, the first of which seems critical to me. There's also a bit of a link farm at the end, which should be pruned.
As for 1d concerns, I honestly don't see it (at least in the current version—I haven't watched this page). Skeptical viewpoints and alternatives to anthropogenic change are presented; because they are a small minority view at this point, they should be treated as a small minority view. In fact, mentioning the American Association of Petroleum Geologists in the intro arguably gives them too much credit.
Which leaves 1e. I can't very well close this when it's receiving a dozen plus edits a day, so it's a bit of a pickle. Marskell 12:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I will add here, this weekend, specific examples of areas where I believe it still falls short. --Blue Tie 13:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The reference section is nonuniform...the same referencing scheme needs to be used for the whole article, whether it is ref, cite web, whatever. If you cite author names in one source, it should be in all your sources. I've had a couple articles that have failed GA because they didn't meet this basic criteria. Thegreatdr 13:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point. --BozMo talk 13:36, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree. I was guessing from previous comments that it had at least been improved. Hopefully Sandy can work her magic over the weekend. Marskell 13:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully Sandy can work her magic over the weekend. I'm trying to catch up from my forced wikibreak, and can try to work on the refs this weekend ... but ... I have SO much to catch up on now, and it's discouraging to invest my limited time in an unstable article. I'll have a look in the morning (Sat), and hope that things have improved. (I did some work on Humpback Whale too :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Um. I agree that all references should use <ref></ref>. If they also use the <nowiki>{{cite}} templates, that is great. But what is important is the rendered output, not how it was achieved. Finally, not all references have listed authors. The Climate Change Policy of the AAPG, lists no authors, but has an end note ascribing it to "certain scientific members of the Governmental Affairs Committee of the Division of Professional Affairs". --Stephan Schulz 14:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then AAPG can be listed as the author. The author of the Hurricane Katrina service assessment was NOAA. There's no harm in listing an organization as an author, if a primary author is not available. =) Thegreatdr 14:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, rendered output. As one example, ref 10 has a bracketed date first in the ref. Is that a format used anywhere? I was actually going to point to the AAPG as another example. I would think it better listed as the publisher and no author provided. But I suppose that's debatable. Marskell 14:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I will work on making all references uniform tonight or tomorrow. Thanks. ~ UBeR 22:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Comment One thing that I did not notice missing until just now is the lack of history on the scientific debate. When did scientists first realize that global warming might be a problem? How has that understanding evolved over the years? Not crucial to the article, but would be a boost to it. -RunningOnBrains 17:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi RunningOnBrains. Wow, that would create a lot of problems. First of all, that would detract from the article's focus on the pure science. Second of all we already have a pretty big number of sub-articles, and it's better to put new topics into those, so that we create a larger number of sub-articles, and eventually make users have to visit other articles for all such information.
Also, I'm not personally sure that would add to the value of the article, so it wouldn't be good for you to add it, because it doesn't fit into my picture of what I want to see in the article. --Sm8900 17:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
the preceding was sarcasm. --Sm8900 00:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article does not and should not focus on pure science. It is an article on Global Warming. That is a topic that is larger than just the science of global warming. --Blue Tie 22:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's an article primarily on the physical phenomenon of global warming, described and explained in scientific terms. It mentions the surrounding polictical and economical debate only briefly and points to the relevant articles. That's how it should be, in my opinion. --Stephan Schulz 22:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's no need to beat the dead horse, Blue Tie. This has already been discussed extensively both here and on the talk page. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 23:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Discussed != resolved. --64.222.222.25 03:15, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ugh. The references are still sporadic; if the article stabilizes, the work should be done. First, PDFs aren't identified, so my old laptop bombed on the first link I clicked on while I was trying to watch the Sox destroy the Yankees - please identify PDFs by using the Format option in the cite templates. Last access dates are not given on websources; please see WP:CITE/ES. Date formatting isn't consistent. There are quite a few blue-link sources with no publisher, last access date, and author or date when available. Examples:
    • ^ Trends in Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide - Mauna Loa.
    • ^ 2007 IPCC Summary for Policymakers
      • Identify publishers, and give last acess date. And is there an author/date of publication on these blue links?
    • Further reading and See also are still out of control — probably symptomatic of POV issues. Are ALL of those article really seminal and necessary, or is that just a result of battling POVs trying to prove something ?
    • Work is needed on the souces; if the article stabilizes, I'd be willing to help do it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:47, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah, I'll work on that today. However, don't PDFs that are linked to have a little PDF icon next to them? That should identity them as being PDFs without the format identifier. Also, {{citation}} seems to allow for more properties than {{cite journal}}, but it doesn't have a format property. What do you think? ~ UBeR 18:18, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • The little icon isn't viewable on older computers, browsers, or versions of PDF — not sure which — but I get had by PDFs when I'm on my old laptop. I believe the format parameter works on all the templates. When it doesn't work, I just add (PDF) to the article title. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:08, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reference formatting looks very clean now. Not sure what the hyphen inconsistency is about here:
    • the values ran from US$-10 per tonne of carbon (tC) (US$-3 per tonne of carbon dioxide) up to US$350/tC (US$95 per tonne of carbon dioxide), with a mean of US$43 per tonne of carbon (US$12 per tonne of carbon dioxide).
  • I did a couple of examples of the nowrap template — it might be better to use it rather than nbsp on the complex temperature ranges. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:31, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmm, I believe they are meant to represent negative signs. I.e. US$-10 = negative 10 dollars. Not sure 100% though and it doesn't make a lot of sense. That whole section is a mess, and not very helpful to the reader, in my opinion. The person who wrote the section is now banished from the article for three months. Political and controversy still probably needs some work. I'm not exactly sure how I feel about the nowraps. Previously, just the space between the number and the degree symbol were kept together, now the entire range is (e.g. 10-15 °C). If other people are fine with that, I am too. ~ UBeR 18:44, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hello - just to answer that question, yes, the US$-10 is a negative, i.e. some of the studies include in their ranges a negative cost, or positive value, per tonne of carbon. Hal peridol 20:14, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • What's the correct orthography on that? Marskell 20:42, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Not entirely sure. Not too often are dollars expressed negatively. Perhaps it's best to spell it out with words. ~ UBeR 01:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)*Remove from FA status. Although the article is more neutral than it used to be, it still doesn't present all sides very well. Until it does, it will remain extremely unstable. By the way, from my count on this FAR so far, there are 17 votes to keep, and 18 votes to remove. Cla68 08:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a vote. Marskell 09:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sure its a vote. Its just not a Majority Rules vote. On the other hand, its hard to call it a consensus for FA either. --Blue Tie 10:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on Problems that remain.
1c Problems: The article uses weasel words. For example, "many" scientists have been ordered to not discuss global warming while "few" disagree with the IPCC TAR. Note that both weasel words work in the favor of one pov. Edits that would remove these weasel words and leave an entirely neutral structure have been removed with the justification that neutrality gives too much creedence to one pov (!) but sources that would provide specific numbers have also been removed. So the weasel words remain.
1d Problems: The article is still not NPOV. Specifically, it does not give sufficient weight to the alternative points of view and this failure to give reasonable and sufficient weight to these alternative views. NPOV is frequently cited as a problem for this article and that is the main reason. In the economic section, the positive effects of global warming are not mentioned at all -- as though they do not exist. I am not sure that the doubts about the forecasted effects or future modeling of global warming is given any mention at all.
1e Problems: The article is only artificially stable due to demonstrable unusually aggressive actions taken by admins and by Ownership issues that have not been resolved yet. Stability is seemingly achieved when an article is locked and this article is permanently, partially locked -- not for vandalism, but for stability purposes. But when locking and aggressive admin actions are required to stabilize an article after having an average of 500 edits per month for more than a year, that should not be considered stable in the sense of the article having come to rest in a widely accepted, well decided answer where only minor edits are needed to clean it up.
2a Problems: The article discusses the history of global warming over thousands and millions of years. It also discusses economic effects of global warming. But the summary does not include these parts of the article.
I could give more but it is late where I am and I have to sleep. But I promised to make this list so here it is.--Blue Tie 10:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Regrettably, the article isn't NPOV, because it gives excess weight to skeptic/alternative POV. This will always remain an area of disagreement. And of course BT is wrong: the semi-pro is prot against vandalism William M. Connolley 10:10, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I reckon it wasn't heavily vandalized during the period between removing full lock and putting back semi-lock. ~ UBeR 16:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There really is no problem with permanent semi-protection; many FAs have this in place, and I don't see it anywhere in the FA criteria. As for POV, like William says, this will always be an area of debate, but I believe that the article accurately reflects consensus right now, so it's best to leave it be. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 18:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Cielomobile. This article always has been a topic of debate and probably will be for some time. As long as the article accurately reflects the state of the science, as it does now, those who prefer not to believe the science or who wish to promote small-minority scientific viewpoints will be unhappy. (I agree that the article already gives undue weight to the minority viewpoint, but the problem isn't serious.) Consensus would be nice, but we shouldn't consciously mislead the reader just to make peace with the skeptics. Raymond Arritt 04:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is not that the article is controversial. The problem is that it is non-neutral. "Making peace" is not the issue. It is a matter of NPOV. That it is a matter of "not making peace" in order to maintain a pov lies at the heart of the many reasons this article should not be FA. --Blue Tie 05:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are always going to be people who believe that any contraversial article is POV, and who perhaps never will believe it is NPOV. That doesn't mean that the article IS POV, nor that it cannot be featured. But saying the problem is that some people think it is POV is the same as saying it is contraversial. The question is partly finding a basis for determining where neutrality is (and scientists put NPOV in a different place from politicians) and partly also everyone swallowing that NPOV means there will be content they disagree with --BozMo talk 07:24, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One way to put it: is dissent over anthropogenic change a minority or a tiny minority? Let's split the difference and call it a small minority. So does it get small minority coverage? Yes, I think so: the last half of the first para of causes details alternatives and solar gets its own sub-section. Dissent is not ignored here. Marskell 08:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is not a "split" nor, if it were a split would it be a fair split. Minority includes the full range from nearly zero percent to nearly 50%. Small Minority appears to restrict the general sense of Minority to less than some arbitrary but undefined amount, that to me is not very far from tiny. That is not a "fair" split. Now, it may indeed be tiny, but to know that requires original research. It also requires some original research to say it is a minority, but this is not highly contested. To know that it is "small" requires original research. WP guidelines and policies do not permit that. Removing the adjective from "Minority" is neutral and covers the full range. Adding information about the Oregon Petition and the poll that I provided that suggests (but does not fully confirm) a lower limit for the majority of 59% provides detailed insights so that readers may judge the matter for themselves, but these numerical contributions have been previously objected to. I note that the contradictory view is already denigrated by describing the scientists who disagree as "individual" scientists, though some of them work in groups or with each other (again removing the adjective would improve neutrality), and there is no balance to recognize that some of these are highly recognized and acclaimed scientists. So, if you are looking for fair splits that somehow includes adjectives that would also be an issue to address.
This is not the only problem with the article.
I am curious about something. How long is the FAR going to last? New contributions to this review are down to about one a week and the poll is about 50-50. Even the main contributor to the article conceeds the article is not NPOV but for reasons different from other editors. Is FAR, in this case, acting as a mediation process? I have not viewed it as such so far and have not treated it as such, but if it is, I would like to know. It seems to me it should not be a mediation method but rather a validation process.--Blue Tie 13:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(reset indent) To paraphrase Raymond Arritt above, this article always has been a topic of debate and probably will be for some time. As long as the article accurately reflects the state of the science, as it does now, those who prefer to believe in a UN-sponsored politicized science or who wish to promote policy-bound scientific viewpoints will be happy. But we shouldn't consciously mislead the reader just to make peace with a liberal political agenda. In other words, the fact that there are fewer voices against the science than for it should not lead us into misleading the reader into believing that this necessarily means that the objections are of lesser quality, or that they have been answered by the mainstream science. Such a biaised presentation serves those who wish to eliminate doubt in order to push a political agenda, and this should be avoided. --Childhood's End 13:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I must protest the mischaracterization of this article's editors as those who prefer to believe in a UN-sponsored politicized science. A simple reading of the Scientific opinion on climate change should dispel that. --Skyemoor 17:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well Skyemoor, as I said, I was merely paraphrasing RA. I could also protest the mischaracterization of this article's other editors as "those who prefer not to believe the science" by pointing you out the scientific opinions upon which these editors support their contributions. --Childhood's End 18:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An outside perspective
edit

From a recent story in the Denver Post:[20]

On the much-debated topic of global warming, Colorado State University's Scott Denning called the Wikipedia entry "a great primer on the subject, suitable for just the kinds of use one might put to a traditional encyclopedia. Following the links takes the interested reader into greater and greater depth, probably further than any traditional encyclopedia I've seen," said Denning, the Monfort Professor of Atmospheric Science.
Denning said he was pleasantly surprised how the main articles "stick to the science and avoid confusing the reader with political controversy." Students who want to study up on the controversy, however, find plenty of links if they want them. Denning wishes Wikipedia offered better links to basic weather science. "Apparently there is still a role for real textbooks and professors!" he said.

So I guess we could use some more basic science links. Raymond Arritt 04:43, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you mean better links to basic weather science. Anyone can feel free to take up the Denver Post's request. LuciferMorgan 14:22, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. But given the prevailing scientific illiteracy among the public, it might also be useful to link some basic concepts like thermodynamics and Archimedes principle. Raymond Arritt 17:18, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I mostly agree with Dr. Denning. ~ UBeR 17:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This supports our approach of keeping the science as the article focus and minimizing the mention of political debating points in the article. --Skyemoor 17:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Long closing note
edit

A note on the process first: we have never properly decided at FAR what to do with no consensus. The "status quo" is a keep but, as Orane points out, community division argues it shouldn't be kept. What we have decided is that if an article lacks references it will be removed regardless of consensus. That isn't the case here, and I'm going to keep this. (Given a couple of double removes, there might be a one or two kp majority, but it obviously can't be decided by numbers.)

To go over 1c first, there's been debate over NPOV presentation of references but no one has challenged their reliability per se. For a short article (it's still only 23k of prose) the volume of refs is in keeping with other FAs. With thanks to Uber, formatting is clean and consistent. So fine on that score, and ditto on MoS issues (2), none of which appear to be outstanding.

People didn't raise 1b directly, but comprehensiveness issues were implied in quite a few comments, particularly a lack of political information. The last four sections on the non-science subjects have all been slightly expanded and I think it now gives a nod in the directions a reader would expect (short para on Kyoto, mention of emissions trading, rise of China, etc.). In brief, these points deserve a mention, and the edits seem to have stuck.

So POV (1d). I honestly don't see it. Dissent is raised briefly in the lead, at greater length in the first para of causes, and solar variation gets expanded coverage. Obviously some people disagree, but I don't find it convincing.

Which leaves stability (1e). Checking history back three months, I agree with the argument that there is a core article that has remained in place. There's been changes to presentation of minority views and compression of some sections, but the basic structure and info (History, Causes, Effects, Related) remains. Day-to-day edit flare ups?—I think they're inevitable. This is top of Google on one of the most talked about issues of the decade. If we remove on that basis, we're saying it cannot be an FA for the forseeable future, which isn't right to me. There's a group of editors watching closely for changes? I don't think that's entirely a bad thing (though some of the responses on Talk are needlessly abrupt and dismissive). So I don't buy 1e either, although we might need a fuller debate about how we should interpret that criterion; Raul raised it somewhere recently. Marskell 08:34, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That leaves me very confused. The very definition of FARC reads:
If, after a period of review, the deficiencies have not been addressed and there is no obvious momentum to do so, the FA status is removed. If consensus has emerged that the changes have brought the article back to standard, the review is closed.
I do not have the impression that the last sentence applies here. If you are of the opinion that the first one doen't either, then this review should stay open until one of them does. Another thing that I do not understand: in a FAC discussion, one objection among tens of supports is likely to halt the process. Here, a 50/50 division would be no problem? Come on... Nick Mks 08:43, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you'd like to appeal, do so here. This review had to be closed one way or another and was bound to be criticized whatever the decision. This discussion is closed; the bot will make it official. Marskell 08:55, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 20:21, 1 May 2007.

Tamil language

edit

Review commentary

edit
Messages left at Sundar, Ganeshk, India noticeboard, Tamil Nadu, and Languages.

I am far from a regular participant in areas related to featured articles. But I know when something at least comes close to acheiving featured article status. I appreciate the work that has gone into this page, but this, I'm afraid, is far from featured article quality at present. There are justifiable {{fact}} tags littering the intro and pretty much all of the rest of the article, and some of the prose is vague, unsupported and/or weaselish. Examples: "Tamil is one of the few living classical languages and has an unbroken literary tradition of over two millennia[citation needed]." No citation or mention of this at all in the body of the article. "However, there are many purists who would argue against the use of such characters as there are well-defined rules in the Tolkāppiyam[citation needed] for Tamilising loan words." Who's "many"? This barely begins to describe the woes of this article. Grandmasterka 07:09, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • The infobox contradicts the lead (giving the rank as 13-17; lead says 18, with cite-needed tag). Only four (!) footnotes for the entire article--the scattered {{fact}} tags Grandmasterka mentions don't even tell the full story...because barely any claims in the article are referenced, not just claims with {{fact}} tags by them. It gets worse, though: all four of those footnotes are from one section, "Legal Status"; more specifically, they're all from the second paragraph of that section. Three of them are citing a single sentence. So for all practical purposes the article cites two claims, those two claims being in two successive sentences. Totally unacceptable. As it stands now, I agree the article is clearly not FA-quality. --Miskwito 02:09, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If citations are added, it could still be a featured article. Also there is the issue of red links in the languages of the Tamil Family like Kaikadi. Even if these are tackled, think this could only become a Good article. --Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 02:52, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please Consider the following references

Tamil has been declared a Classical language by the Indian government. This has been done after an extensive research and a political process. See:

This article assumes some basic Tamil background knowledge from the reader. Continuous literary tradition is well established. Please do some background reading about Tamil literature and, one can understand that statement. The above web site would be of value in that regards.

Counting only the first lanaguage speakers: Tamil is #15, according to the following paper: http://www.frenchteachers.org/bulletin/articles/promote/top%20languages.pdf

If second language speakers are counted it drops to #18, according to Ethnologue. http://www.davidpbrown.co.uk/help/top-100-languages-by-population.html

13-17, probably due to uncertainty or same number of people speaking some other lanuages.

I am an editor at Tamil Wikipedia. This article is well researched, and written by informed contributors. Let me know if I can be of more help.

--Natkeeran 05:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Vandalism

This article has gone under a very calculated vandalism. The article’s primary monitors are not highly active at this moment. The statements are being manipulated to degrade the quality of this article. I urge those with good spirit to compare the actual FA or a stable recent version (before vandalsim), and the current status and revert the vandalism as much as possible.

I can assure that the quality of the article was much better before. But, now it be being down graded little by little. Particularly, the into and history sections have been badly degraded.

--Natkeeran 06:48, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I responded on the article's talk page. This is the approved featured article version, when the standards were much lower, which still has the more significant problems I pointed out. Grandmasterka 08:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you are probably right about the references not being adequate, but when the content is being manipulated the references can not match. There is vandalism taking place. I can sense by reviewing the edit history. I have notified other contributors, they may be able to help us improve and/or recover the article.

For example, see the contradition in the following two statements:

External chronological records and internal linguistic evidence, however, indicate that the oldest extant works were probably composed sometime in the 2nd century CE.
The earliest extant text in Tamil is the Tolkāppiyam, a work on poetics and grammar which describes the language of the classical period. The oldest portions of this book may date back to around 200 BCE (Hart, 1975).

--Natkeeran 07:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Example 2: Why is the following statement necessary in the first sentence? When did UNESCO became the primary authority to declare a language classical or not. It could be a footnote. Not necessary in the first sentence.

"(Recognized by the Indian Government and still not yet recognised by UNESCO)"

Example 3: The below statement is totally opposite to what was before.

The ordinary form of the modern language used in speech and writing, in contrast, has undergone significant changes, to the extent that a person who has not learnt the higher literary form will have difficulty understanding it.[clarify]

Due to continuity, classical Tamil is understandable with some study. The statement before was “The written language has changed little during this period, with the result that classical literature is as much a part of everyday Tamil as modern literature. Tamil school-children, for example, are still taught the alphabet using the átticúdi, an alphabet rhyme written around the first century A.D.”

In other words, the claim that the modern Tamil writing changed significantly is an arguable claim. The fact that school children are able to understand ancient work with little study shows that Tamil writing has not changed that much; relative to other classical languages.

Example 4: Recently added comments...

"But unfortunately the word "Sangam" originates from Sanskrit word "Sang". This throws some light on origin of Tamil from Sanskrit. The "Aa", the first alphabet of Tamil resembles Semitic "Aleph". Tamil words for house, town etc seems to be originated from Proto-Hebrew. Tamil words for king, life, god etc seems to be originated from Sanskrit. Recent researches show that Tamil is a borrowed complex language than a self-evolved classical language."

This article has been vandalized with an intent to demerit Tamil as a classical language, (along with perhaps other motives), and of independent origin of Sanskrit. This is a well established conflict. Please do not engage in this controversy at Wikipedia. Take a 'live and let others live' attitude. Please let your views know in the discussion page before making erratic changes to a FA.

Thank you. --Natkeeran 08:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see here. I have responded to Natkeeran's dubious claims. Sarvagnya 10:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

His respose has be shown to be inadequate. But he has identified the problem as content dispute, and not random vandalism, which is a good thing. I urge a reasonable discussion.--Natkeeran 20:26, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dbachmann

I might give it a {{GA}} in its present state, but only just. Observations:

There were number of stable versions. I will try to note the versions. So, please reserve your judgment.

  • the 'ஃ' section is completely superfluous and belongs merged into Tamil script
  • You may be right, it can be added to Tamil script. However, that letter has cultural significance, and a special use that can justify its own subsection.
  • a clean presentation of a romanization system is missing. Tamil script gives a transliteration scheme, but doesn't identify it. It is imperative that a romanization scheme is introduced before various romanized forms are discussed. Is it National Library at Kolkata romanization?
  • Is a presentation of a romanization system mandatory requirement for all languages. Please explain.
  • the "Sounds" section has a "Phonology" subsection. This should be re-arranged, i.e. the h2 section should be called "Phonology". Create a main article Tamil phonology to stash the gory details. The "tongue twister" link belongs under external links or "see also".
  • Yes, I agree. This section can be improved.
  • the grammar section is fair as it is, but it discusses morphology under a "parts of speech" header for some reason. Treatment of nominal and verbal morphology is very brief compared to phonology.
  • the merit of the "example" section is somewhat questionable (I would merge it into Tamil grammar), it should in any case be cleaned up to get rid of the crappy ASCII transliteration scheme.
  • the Literature section looks fine, but it should perhaps be broken up in a "grammar/lexica" section vs. sociolinguistics studies etc. (compare Arabic_language#References). Which are the standard works used in academia?
  • Which academia? Tamil Literature is an important conceptual scheme in the Tamil context.
  • the pdf screenshot Image:TolkaappiyamExcerpt.png strikes me as useless and unencyclopedic. If we don't have a nice manuscript image, the section is better off without an image.
  • You ignored the content of the image, which was the main part. If you read it. It is very understable to most Tamils. It is there to illustrate the accessibility, and continuity of the Ancient work. Sure, if there is a better way to present it, that would be nice.
  • the "Vocabulary" section needs its citation requests worked out, and should maybe be merged with "History", since it discusses historical layers of loans.
  • The vocabulary section is under a “Content War”. Reference requests are being used as a weapon. But, you are right to point this out.
  • the article absolutely needs a "Literature" section summarizing Tamil literature.
  • Yes, you are right.
  • ah, and of course the intro needs to be kept free of empty hype. The "one of the most ancient languages of the world" statement has no place here, just say it is attested since 200 BCE and be done.
  • Intro is being highly contested at this point. It is not stable.
Overall, your observations are valuable, and positive. You have concretely identified some weakness in the article. I can help address your concerns. But, the Content War must stop. Otherwise, there is no point in the cycle of insert/delete recover/degrade saga.

I primarily contribute to Tamil Wikipedia. There we are working on a Language Article Prototype. We have discussed the following structure.

You seems to be an expert in the lanaguage front, I would welcome your comments about the above structure. I can suggest this for Tamil language in enWpedia as well. I was not very involved in the early editing, so I am hesitant to make any significant changes. --Natkeeran 20:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

dab (𒁳) 16:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Content War

Wikipedia allows for multiple view points, but not replacement of view points. The native Tamil view points are being edited out. The purpose it seems to be show:

  • Tamil is not a “global classical language”; which is not true. It is or it can be under any reasonable set of criteria. Please provide the criteria, and one would be able to show whether it is “global classical language or not.”
  • The second attack is from Sanskrit Extremists, who are playing out external political battles in Wikipedia.
  • Why was ranking changed to 20?

If there is a content war, then request for reference becomes a weapon of war. Lets discuss content issues in the talk pages. And not get into insert/delete, recover/degrade cycles.

--Natkeeran 19:23, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

“global classical language”;..... which is not true. It is or it can be under any reasonable set of criteria.
'Reasonable set of criteria'? Would you mind spelling out what that 'set of criteria' is? Would you first start by providing proper references for Classical languages and answering the concerns of other editors on Talk:Classical languages. And I request you to stop your conspiracy theories NOW! Sarvagnya 20:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.ciil-classicaltamil.org/ Centre of Excellence for Classical Tamil; [21]
It is the official Indian government's website. It has some best minds in the field. Visit that website. It is in English. You can get a sense of the entire scholarly and political basis and process behind the assertation that 'Tamil is a Classical language'. If you have a bias, or some dispute, please declare. I can try to help you address your concerns. --Natkeeran 20:38, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sarvagnya, the Indian governments criteria for classical language can be a starting point. --Natkeeran 20:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Both of the articles you cited about are in dispute already. If you can provide credible criteria, I can show whether Tamil fits or not. If I come up with or use a criteria that I put forward, you can still accuse me of bias. --Natkeeran 21:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unreasonable expectations - The primary readership of this article includes Tamils It is unreasonable to expect that all English speakers should understand completely an article about Tamil without any background study. Wikipedia science or technical articles would not expect everyone to understand complex subjects immediately. Similarly, an article about a language has diverse readership.

A primary source of readers about Tamil are the Tamils themselves. It was written in such a way to provide valuable information to Tamils, alnog with others. It is a reasonable assumption. Why Ayutha Eluthu is important can only be understand in its cultural context.

Of course, Wikipedia is open for everyone to contribute. But, it works because there is certain level of respect shown towards other contributors, and there is an effort to learn the contexts of an article. --Natkeeran 19:23, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure why you are bringing this up on FAR. Criteria for the Tamil language article are the same as for any other language article (excepting the English language one, of course, since English is the only language knowledge of which is intrinsically required on en-wiki). Fair examples of language FAs are Swedish language, Aramaic language, Bengali language and Russian language. dab (𒁳) 20:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the examples. I am not sure what FAR stands for, but I must say it is difficult to write articles about a lanaguge. I have tried to address and/or provide some comments about your concerns above. When I say backgrond study, I did not mean language study, but perhaps some knowledge about basic linguistics or and some awareness about the cultural context of the language. --Natkeeran 20:44, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FAR is "Featured Article Review", which is what you're reading right now. This is a subpage of the main FAR page, which is getting clogged up by this thing. Grandmasterka 21:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Sarvagnya I feel that the article is well short of FA quality. No doubt it is a well written article and lot of effort has been put into it by editors like Arvind and Sundar. But the article badly needs more solid referencing. I get the feeling that the editors have taken lot of info for granted and have failed to think from the lay reader's perspective. In other words, what might be 'common sense', 'common knowledge' to the editors of the article may not actually be so for the lay reader even if he has some background in history and linguistics. This is just genuine oversight and I am sure it can be remedied simply with the addition of references. I have added some fact tags where I feel references are a must if this article is to be FA quality.

In other places, I feel the language sounds a bit confused and I have added some "clarifyme" tags. For example, the article says,

"The origins of Tamil, like other Dravidian languages, is unknown..." - Does it mean that origins of all non-Dravidian languages are known?

Then it goes on to say, "...but unlike most of the other established literary languages of India, are independent of Sanskrit..."

Kannada is an established literary language in India. Does the above sentence imply that Kannada is NOT independent of Sanskrit? Clarify please and/or at the very least reword.

Sarvagnya, I agree that the sentence could be reworded, but "the other" literary languages excludes Kannada as a preceding clause clubs the Dravidian languages together for exclusion. However, it still would be a problem for an Indian language belonging to a third family. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 14:21, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And a request to Natkeeran, please sign every single comment of yours and keep your discussions germane. Please spend some time on making your comments intelligible(indenting etc.,.). Thanks. Sarvagnya 22:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To all interested/involved editors, please shift detailed discussion/suggestions (or whatever) to the talk page of the article. Hopefully, all these discussions will result in adequate improvement of the article, so that the article retains the FA status. After or during the improvements, summary of improvements done can be presented here in the review. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 05:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Sarvagnya that the article as it stands falls short of FA quality. Not all that far, an expert editor could fix it in one or two hours. I am not sure this is going to happen, however, and it may be better to revoke FA status until the concerns voiced above are addressed. dab (𒁳) 07:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the FA standards were lower when this article was promoted. I've added a copule of refernce to address {{fact}} tags. I'm contacting Arvind (the primary contributor) asking for help. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 14:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in France on a research trip at the moment, and the only materials I have deal with esoteric points of French legal history, but give me a few days and I'll see what I can do to address the points that've been raised. Let's not be in a rush to de-feature it if it can be salvaged, OK? -- Arvind 17:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've added references and rewritten chunks of the text. The section on Sounds / Phonology still needs a good overhaul. I'd suggest hiving it off into an article of its own and leaving a well-written summary here - any volunteers (hi, Sundar)? The section on dialects could do with a little polish as well, especially re caste-based dialects. Apart from that, are people's concerns starting to be met? -- Arvind 22:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for stepping in, Arvind. I've copied the Sounds section to Tamil phonology blindly and have attempted at a modest condensation. Would try summarising it tomorrow. I hope the article will soon meet FA standards with some help from other volunteers. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 15:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Progressing well
edit

Great job guys, I never would have thought this would be salvageable anytime in the near future, but I can see a light at the end of the tunnel now. I never expected this outpouring of editors to come along and fix it. I'm still not sure it will be a FA when the smoke clears, but it will at least be relatively close. Grandmasterka 22:59, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it is in very good shape to be retained as FA. If there are still areas of concerns, it is best to point them out here- so that it can be reviewed and addressed. --Aadal 13:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC)--Aadal 13:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think most issues identified in this page have now been addressed. As Aadal says, if there're any further issues, it would be useful to have them enumerated so we can do something about trying to fix them. -- Arvind 15:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think pretty much all the issues have been addressed. The only thing I'm really concerned with is that the grammar section isn't very referenced, but I don't necessarily think that's a huge, major deal right now. --Miskwito 20:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments Work to be done. Mixed reference styles; cites in infobox should be converted to cite.php to conform with the rest of the article. The note in the lead has an unprofessional appearance; is there a better way to incorporate that information, for example, in a footnote? Footnotes are not formatted, for example, the first note is ^ Top 30 languages of the world. We need to know at minimum publisher and last access date on websources, and author and publication date when available. Examples are available at WP:CITE/ES. External links should be pruned per WP:EL, WP:NOT. References would be easier to deal with if they were listed alphabetically by last name of author. Pls see WP:DASH; I changed one as an example—there are many more. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:33, 31 March 2007 (UTC) PS, as an aside, is it possible to combine some of the eight sections above? This review has taken over the FAR TOC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:34, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've tried fixing problems mentioned by Sandy above. Please check out. I'd need someone else volunteer to fix dash style issues. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 08:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Refs still aren't done; I left a few samples which include inline comments that must be addressed (I wasn't sure what date format is used in India, so one date I entered may be wrong, and one of the sources is a Wiki link going nowhere, Wiki isn't a reliable source). Another example of an incomplete ref is a b Statement by George L. Hart Who published it, what date, last access date needed on all websources. What is this ref? the report submitted by Tamil Nadu State Government to Central Government of India to claim the Classic Language status. I'll work on the dashes unless someone already did it. There are empty ISBNs in the list of books (?)—they should be left off or completed—in the infobox on my userpage is an ISBN finder. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC) I think I caught all the dashes; can the suggested merge be dealt with ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm inclined to send this to FARC on the basis of the prose in the lead alone. An article on language, a beautiful and powerful language at that, deserves to be described in the best English, and to be organised logically on the clause level.
    • Second sentence—category problem: " It is the official language of the Indian state of Tamil Nadu, and also has official status in Sri Lanka and Singapore." What's the difference between official language and official status? Remove the redundant "also".
    • Third sentence: "With more than 77 million speakers,[2] an ancient history, a rich and continuous literature, and an international and modern presence Tamil is one of the major languages of the world." What's a "continuous" literature? Is this necessary? What's a "modern presence"? Comma just about mandatory after "presence".
    • Fourth sentence: "Like the other Dravidian languages, Tamil is characterised by its use of retroflex consonants and by its agglutinative grammar, where suffixes are used to mark noun class, number, and case, verb tense and other grammatical categories." The problem here is cohesion: "retroflex consonants" vs "suffixes". I'm confused, so most of our readers will be too. Are these suffixes strictly consonantal?
    • "Like many languages with long tradition, Tamil is also characterised by a marked diglossia, with three basic styles ...". Why "with long tradition"? ("a" is required after "long", by the way.) I don't think "styles" is the best term here; are you referring to acrolect, mesolect and basilect? Some linguists use "dialects" as the generic term here. "Di" means "two", so is misleading in this case.
    • "Tamil literature has an unbroken literary tradition of over two millennia." Again, this continuous thing; what does is really mean? One artist took over exactly where one died, in a continuous chain? Who cares?" "More than" is more elegant than "over".
    • "The earliest epigraphic records date to around 200 BCE,[5] and the oldest literary works in Tamil were composed between the 200 BCE and 300 CE.[6][7]" Again, cohesion is at issue. Use the same wording for both; here an ellipsis can be used, and the year range rationalised: "The earliest epigraphic records date to around 200 BCE,[5] and the oldest literary works in Tamil to 200–300 CE.[6][7] Tony 21:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The terms ‘official language’, and ‘official status’ have legal connotations. Official language generally implies, it is THE language of the government. “Official status” implies that the language speakers have legal rights related to language, but the language is not necessarily the language of the government. ‘and also’ may be replaced with just ‘and’.
The term “continuous literature” refers to the tradition of literary work over 2000 years in Tamil. The term can be replaced by “a rich and continuous literary tradition”. The Tamils continuous literary tradition is not just an empty description, but a consciousness and a conceptual framework. It is understood by most Tamil scholars. It is a very important historical statement to make.
“WHO CARES?” The notable contributors to the article care. I care. Tamil people consider that tradition as one of their important contribution to human civilization. The knowledge and memory invested in that tradition will only become evident when one learns that language, and its literature.
If you want to improve the prose, you are welcomed to provide the alterantive version in the talk pages. If the integrity of the content is preserved, then we can replace the prose.
--Natkeeran 15:50, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

edit
Suggested FA criteria concerns are referencing (1c), and weasal words (1d). Marskell 17:49, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There's so much to sift through above, I'm not sure what the feelings are on this one. Moving down to keep it on track. Marskell 17:49, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The general feeling among the key contributors is that most of the concerns forwarded by FA Reviewers have been addressed, and the article is in stable condition. The content disputes have been mostly settled by the addition of extensive references. The ‘English prose’ can surely be improved. But, that is not a major concern. Thus, I strongly disagree with putting Tamil language as a FARC.
"Moving down to keep it on track" is not a valid reason for FARC. User Marskell was not part of FAR, and it seems unreasonable for him to pull us all into FARC, when the other FA Reviewers have noted the progress satisfactory, and the general feeling among the key contributors is that the article mostly meets the FA standards.
--Natkeeran 19:35, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

whats wrong with this article theres some mistakes that had to be corrected thats it thats doesn't means its a garbage. let the users to correct those mistakes. but by removing the article your guys going to achieve nothing. --User:74.116.34.117

  • I agree that some of the comments of Tony are valid and need to be addressed, but they need not be used to pull down the FA. Some needs to be clarified for a general reader. For example the Official Language and the official status. Official language pertains to the fact that government business is conducted in that language (in the case of India, in the state of Tamil Nadu) and usually one can see the language represented in their currency (money bills), for example in India, Sri Lanka, Singapore. On the other hand 'the official status' means it is given an official recognition and it means some government services may be available etc. (but usually the language will not be used in their currency -money).
  • Tony's comment about the 'continuous literature' and the related wording simply means that there is an unbroken tradition of producing copious high quality literature of varied sorts. It is a fact. I'm not quite sure how to effectively bringout this. Ideally a century-by-century key literary compositions may have to be documented. About English syntax and style issues, some of the expert editors can help. Some of the suggestions of Tony can readily be implemented. The article is in my view is of FA quality - which does not mean it can not be improved and polished. --Aadal 20:03, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"unbroken tradition of" is much better. Or even just "a long tradition of" or "a literary tradition stretching back more than ?two millenia". Tony 23:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also felt that the word diglosia should strictly mean only two styles. Perhaps referring to formal (written) and informal (spoken), but it practice it is hard to define this and it is more like multiglosia, though I've no idea whether such a concept/word exists and whether it is advisable to use it in WP. --Aadal 20:10, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Addal, Tony is mistaken about the dates. The earliest literature work is composed between 200 BCE and 300 CE. The confusion comes in because the earliest epigraphic records date to around 500 BCE. But I do not have solid references at hand, except the Hindu article and a video documentary. --Natkeeran 20:34, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fourth sentence that Tony refers to is now modified. The sentence is split and it should be clear now. Please advise if this is okay. --Aadal 20:33, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Natkeeran, I know that the 500 BCE ref you're referring to is the news item in Hindu with comments from Iravatham Mahadevan. The point is not so much about the dates etc. but it is about the syntax, flow and cogency. Proper referencing etc. The facts should be fully and clearly given with reliable citations. It is important to address the concerns and rectify any mistakes. I don't see anything seriously wanting here, but let the other editors give their opinions and concerns. --Aadal 20:43, 8 April 2007 (UTC)--Aadal 20:46, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The current statement is wrong. It puts the dates in the current era 200 to 300 CE. --Natkeeran 20:49, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Addal, I think intro should be general, and provide direct and simple characterization of the language. If the "metalanague" issue bugs a lot of people, perhaps you should considered it including it in the body. The classification section is appropriate for such detail. “but it also uses a unique liquid l (ழ்).” Again, I am not sure how people are going to perceive this phase. Having said that I am not sure whether there can a characterization of Tamil grammar, phonology etc that can satisfy all.--Natkeeran 20:54, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Natkeeran, yes, I believe the reviewing editors, at least a good majority of them, have to feel that it is good. The point is we have to satisify the highest standards and it should be a fine example of FA. I believe the significance of liquid l (ழ்) and the aytham (ஃ) have to be clearly mentioned, as they are unqiue to the language in the subcontinent, however, they have to be included in a proper way. It should read well and be informative for a general reader, not just for tamils. About the 500 BCE inscription, I think you're referring to the Adichanallur finding. Even if we say that the preliminary findings, based on thermoluminence data indicate a date around 500 BCE, I doubt whether other editors will accept this as epigraphy (for sure it is a writing and an important one, but perhaps not epigraphy. Not sure other words like inscription etc. would fit). I hope Sundar or Arvind or Parthi would step in to fix these simple things. --Aadal 21:13, 8 April 2007 (UTC)--Aadal 21:43, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Whenever there are outstanding issues to be addressed, Marskell and Joelr31 move articles to the FARC phase for an additional two-week period. Tony's comments are examples only, indicating the need for a thorough copyedit of the entire article (not just the examples he gives). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:03, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Would someone please let us know whether it is only copyediting the whole article? I'm sure someone, fully familiar with style manual, can help to fix the problems. --Aadal 13:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is not clear where additional supporting references are needed and where exactly are the weasel words used as pointed out by Marskell. I'm sure I don't want any such omissions to be there, but it is not clear where such things are wanting.--Aadal 13:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comments. Since its move to FARC, some copy-editing has been performed, but more would be good, especially since this article is about language. Why stop at 90% quality?
    • In a few places, it almost falls over itself to be explicit about information that can be assumed. For example: "External chronological records and internal linguistic evidence, however, indicate that the oldest extant works were probably compiled sometime between the 2nd century BCE and the 3rd century CE, with estimates of the precise dates varying within this broad timeframe." I'd remove the last phrase ("with ...). You've even provided references.
    • "dated on linguistic grounds to the 1st or 2nd century BCE"—Unsure what linguistic grounds are, in this context. Sorry to nitpick. If it's too complicated to explain, you could just remove "on linguistic grounds" and rely on the reference.
    • "The early Mediaeval Period"—might some readers question whether this refers to a European or an Indian historical period?
    • I see lots of redundant "alsos". Please week them out and the flow will be stronger. There are other redundancies, such as "very" in "do not differ very significantly". Tony 23:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Thank you so much SandyGeorgia and Tony for your great help. I agree that it needed work. I've implemented a few on the lines suggested by Tony. I think it still needs a bit of work. I hope to complete all that I can do by Sunday. Unfortunately two of the key contributors to this article, Sundar and Arvind are able to participate only in an intermittant manner. Thanks again for your hihgly constructive suggestions.--Aadal 21:39, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Try booking them up for a couple of hours each, and ask for more time here. A deadline might marshall them into action. Tony 23:52, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Could we have a few more days to complete any remaining copyedits? The article looks like a fine FA to me, but some of you will have to give your opinions. I'm sure we can fix any small bugs if someone finds them. The article is much more tight now and has much new information including details on epigraphy, a small summary of literary developments, better referencing etc. Please let me know if something can be improved. Thanks again for your help! --Aadal 01:54, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is ridiculous, why should compelling restrictions be made to improve an article. If people are really concerned on the quality of an article, let them edit and improve it. Wikipedia is a community program, where coordinated efforts are required rather than to enforcing restrictions on others. - விஜயஷண்முகம் முருகேசன் 02:47, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Vijayashanmugam Murugesan, please understand that certain standards will have to be maintained in order that an article remains as a featured article (FA) - an example of an excellent article. At present only 1,342 featured articles exist in English Wiki, out of a total of 1.7 million articles (1,738,706). No one is forcing you or me, but if certain criteria are not met, it will have to lose the status as a featured article, period. It would still be a Good article perhaps. It is actually a great opportunity to review carefully and improve it Please do understand the absolute need to uphold strict standards for such articles. The folks here are actually doing a terrific job! Wikipedia is and should be evolving into a standard bearer, where people can come read reliable information. Should know that all info are well supported and which are being subjected to review etc. I hope you'll understand and help rather than challege the vital needs for upholding the standards. Thank you!--Aadal 04:52, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question — what happened? Last time I peeked in, the article was sound and only needed a copyedit. Now the footnotes are messed up. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:05, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy, these problems are now fixed, I think. Thanks to Sundar and Praveen. --Aadal 19:29, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Few Comments: I found this ambiguous sentence in the "Sounds" section: Classical Tamil also had a phoneme called the āytam, written as 'ஃ'. Tamil grammarians of the time classified it as a special character (cārpeḻuttu), but which is very rare in modern Tamil. Does the last part of the second sentence say the use of the aytam is becoming rare or is it the particular type of classification that is becoming rare? This needs to be clarified.

Twice in the parts I have read so far, the term "word-initial" is used. It is an uncommon term and isn't Wikilinked so I suggest to explain it in the article or replace it with a better expression. GizzaChat © 23:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking a look and copyedting. The aytam letter is used only in few places (old words). The particular type of classification (carpeluttu) is the same (no new additions or deletions). The second sentence could be written as follows: 'The old tamil gramamarians classified it as a special character, but this character occurs rarely in modern times. ' --Aadal 00:22, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's much improved. Can someone fix the spelt-out "twenty-two" (inconsistent in the article), and smooth out the stubby paragraphing in the Dialects section? Tony 10:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tried to smooth out the paragraphing in Dialects section.--Dwaipayan (talk) 10:11, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, I'm close to keep but I see a bit of tweaking/completing needed on the footnotes to fill in missing info, make them consistent, etc. (for example, I noticed things like a speech from the President with missing date - things like that). I can do that if no one else gets to it. I'm still concerned that external links should be pruned per WP:EL, WP:NOT. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I worked on the sources — reference formatting looks good now, except someone needs to check this: http://presidentofindia.nic.in/scripts/eventslatest1.jsp?id=587 I don't know if it's July 6 or June 7.
    • Since External links weren't moving, I pruned personal websites (like Geocities), an old conference, and several "learn Tamil" websites - Wiki is not a Berlitz school of languages, and one or two "tutorials" should be enough. I might not have chosen the best links to prune, but since no one else did it ...
    • More importantly, what is the disputed tag (factual accuracy) about, and what's being done about that? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:11, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply: Sandy, about your last point re factual accuracy. I have sought input from the person who had added this flag. I think the information in the article, as far as I know, is accurate. The minor confusion is due to a lack of consensus even among the linguistic experts (see the material I've quoted from two well-known experts - Andronov and Bh. Krishnamurti - who have written numerous research articles and recent books). There is a certain variability in the pronunciation among speakers and this is refelcted in the chart I believe. If the person who had added the flag would come forward to repond to my explanations I can work with him to modify it as needed. I personally feel it does not require any revisions (but open to make revisions if there are compelling evidences). --Aadal 05:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Concern over pics
edit

I have some concerns over the copyright status of couple of pictures used in the article. I have detailed them here. Please comment there. Sarvagnya 00:08, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This has been satisfactorily explained by Arvind. See the talk page here--Aadal 15:00, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 07:13, 1 May 2007.

Genesis (band)

edit

Review commentary

edit
Messages left at Arejay and Biography. LuciferMorgan 03:03, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although this is now one of my favourite bands, I am nominating their article for review per FA criterion 1c (a trifle for a newer FA, which was promoted last April). For starters, three statements have {{fact}} attached to them, hence conflicting with the proper requirements:

  • "However, Collins, in a Genesis history video, explains that the whole story is about a split personality." (referring to The Lamb Lies Down on Broadway)
  • "The Lamb Lies Down on Broadway strained relations between members of the group, particularly Banks and Gabriel."
  • "Phil Collins, whose backing vocals had featured previously in the Genesis sound of the Gabriel era, was given the job of coaching prospective replacements, including Jon Anderson of Yes."

I sense rightly it must be the only thing wrong with the page. If there are any other issues, feel free to tell me about them. --Slgrandson (page - messages - contribs) 01:50, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I have addressed the concerns above here. However, I will go through the article again to eliminate weasel/peacock words and anything that seems to be an interpretation of Genesis' work rather than a statement of fact. AreJay 15:47, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the music samples are to long. Samples can't be longer than 30 seconds or 10% of the length of the song, whichever is shorter. (see: Wikipedia:Music samples)— miketm - Queen WikiProject - 19:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments Footnotes are not formatted to a consistent (or any) biblio style, including publisher and last access dates; See also templates are used incorrectly at the ends of Sections; dashes and hyphens are used incorrectly throughout (pls see WP:DASH). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Have not read article yet, but a number of the sound files lack a fair use rationales. The most usual justification is that a file is used to "illustrates an educational article that specifically discusses the song from which this sample was taken"; little evidance of that here. Ceoil 21:52, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

edit
Suggested FA criteria concerns are referencing (1c), and various formatting issues (2). Marskell 08:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Fair use rationale added to sound files, although some exceed the typical 30 second cut off point. Have tidyied up the refs, however most are from 2nd hand reproductions of reviews/interviews, and a number of the links are dead. The copy needs extensive repair, which I may or may not get round to (really don't like Genesis). Ceoil 01:15, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Have worked on the article, the copy editing needed was relatively light; think this is close to a keep. Ceoil 01:01, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My only concern is the number of ogg files. Ceoil 10:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove—The writing needs a serious copy-edit before this is worthy of retaining the gold star. There are many WPians who could be enlisted to improve the writing throughout the article, not just these random examples from the lead and the first section.
    • Why are dictionary terms such as "album" and "hiatus" blued out? We do speak English. Ration linking to direct readers to the high-value links, please.
    • The opening sets up a chronological frame, yet the Grammy Award in the second sentence has no year attached.
    • En dash has a left space and no space on the right. Try em dashes without spaces (my preference, but the current format is unacceptable).
    • "The band's origin lies in the late 1960s, when founding members Peter Gabriel and Tony Banks were"—past or present tense? Choose.
    • "and layered string arrangements into the arrangements"—ungainly repetition.
    • "The album sold poorly, however, on advice from King,"—This is not the intended meaning; needs recasting.
    • "Genesis recruited a new drummer, John Mayhew, it is interesting to note that, during a show with the band Smile, Gabriel offered"—Please don't tell our readers what to note and what not to; the whole article should be interesting, too. The sentence is ungrammatical. Tony 22:32, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comment about fair-use audio excerpts. I'm concerned about the number of fair-use audio excerpts in the article (17!). I find it hard to justify their educational function, given that there is no mention of musical and/or lyrical features of these excerpts in the surrounding text (they appear to be decorative). The info pages do not specify the durations, an important issue for fair use. The recording company, the catalogue number of the recording, and the names of personnel such as the producers are not mentioned on the info pages. I've posted a note about this nomination, and more generally about the lavish use of fair-use audio excerpts by some nominations at FAR and FAC, at Wikipedia_talk:Fair_use. Tony 22:46, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Although I am usually of the opinion that our inclusion of brief audio excerpts for contemporary musicians is very much in the spirit of Wikipedia:Fair use, seventeen is a remarkable number. Tony1 is absolutely right that detailed copyright holder information is a necessary criteria for uploading audio files here, and that they need to be a small excerpt from the work. Purely from an editorial standpoint, it just isn't clear to me what educational purpose seventeen different excerpts is serving when they lack accompanying descriptive text explaining to the reader why they should be listening to one excerpt instead of another. Jkelly 22:59, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can the length of all samples be added to their info page? This'll help to prove / disprove fair use slightly. LuciferMorgan 18:34, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional keep—prose issues need to be fixed before this review can be concluded. Apparently, the quick glance I had didn't notice the underlying issues. — Deckiller 09:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update: Have asked AreJay to trim the number of ogg files. I can look after ce issues; but it will probably be towards the middle of next week by the time I finish. Request a hold until then. Ceoil 20:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note Extra time granted. Please inform when you have completed. Joelito (talk) 12:33, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Am not ignoring this, but its been a busy week in real life. AreJay has trimmed the oggs to an acceptable number. Ceoil 21:24, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. What's up here? This has turned into quite a long one. Marskell 11:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm about half way through a copy edit. I'll finish on thursday night at the latest. Ceoil 16:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have made progress on this, but unfortunately I under estimated the extent of the work needed. I'm still hopefull that it can be saved, and I appreciate the time allowed thus far, but two more days? Thanks. Ceoil 23:04, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. Keep up the good work. Marskell 13:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the sources were too vaguely described to keep, or were dead links. However, the notes adequately cite the article's statements-imo-and I took them out. Ceoil 23:19, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good now, so I'm a Keep. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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.
  1. ^ UAH Temp News
  2. ^ SPIEGEL Interview with Climatologist Hans Von Storch: "We Have to Take Away People's Fear of Climate Change" - International - SPIEGEL ONLINE - News
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/archive/May_2007&oldid=765515776"