Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article review/archive/May 2009

< Wikipedia:Featured article review | archive

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 by Joelr31 23:06, 24 May 2009 [1].

Sydney Roosters

edit

Review commentary

edit
Notified MDM, Sbryce858, WikiProject Australia, and WikiProject Rugby league.

Main problem with this one is a lack of citations, particularly in the Rivalries, Statistics and records, and Coach sections; the latter two are completely uncited. It also needs some prose and style cleaning. Photos need checking as well; the newspaper headline has got to go, and I have doubts about the PD status of the Sydney Sports Ground photo. Giants2008 (17-14) 01:25, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The rivalries section on that, and other NRL team articles, will be almost impossible to reference because it's just original "research" of some fan.--Jeff79 (talk) 09:21, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If the rivalry/derby is large enough to be notable, then it would be noted in the media. For instance, Manchester United's rivalries, or for a rugby league example, the Wigan-St Helens derby.[2] [3] [4] [5] [6] The term "derby", even "rival" in one case, is consistently used. GW(talk) 10:01, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alot of this will be referenceable. Will see what I can dig up. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:36, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the moment and to aid preservation of FA status I have moved the 3 x lists of record crowd attendance to List of Sydney Roosters records. Notwithstanding my own view that a list of crowd #s is tedious, let's move it back if it can have adequate citations. Statistics and Records section now looks as it did on day article was promoted. -Sticks66 13:29, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The uncited references to rivalries that read like OR have been moved to the end of Sydney Roosters and South Sydney Rabbitohs rivalry. Yes if it can be referenced lets bring it back. The rivalry with StGeorge is very unconvincing and if it did start in 2001 then it is hardly a "traditional rivalry". This section now looks as it did at promotion-Sticks66 13:29, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd still prefer it what it was the day it was promoted than removing the other unreferenced rivalries, as this is still currently no good, in my opinion.  The Windler talk  02:41, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Joel, if you mean getting rid of that stuff on the page currently which names famous fans then go for it. But I'm for leaving out the last paragraph about the Bulldogs even though it was there the day the article was promoted - a 7 year old rivalry in a 70 yr history since CB started doesn't seem much of rivalry to me; the 2nd sentence about the points-stripped has no relevance to the Roosters; and the final sentence says that in 2003 Bulldogs won 2 match-ups while Easts won the 3rd - big deal that's no particular rivalry. -Sticks66 11:36, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed the PD rationale on the Sports Ground photo to an Australian pre-1955 PD rationale, please see image page. There is a strong liklihood that the shot was taken pre-1955. -Sticks66 23:47, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've updated the rationale, as I can confirm that the image was from 1937, and is thus PD in both the source country (Australia) and the US. There was also an associated 1937 PD image showing the other half of the ground, so I've replaced the image with a derived work combining the two. - Bilby (talk) 10:37, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Added a pile of refs for history up to 2002. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 05:01, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


FARC commentary

edit
Suggested FA criteria concern is citations, prose and image copyrights. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 02:46, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have completely sourced the Crest, Colours, Stadium, Supporters, Stats and Records. I and other project members of WP:RL will do the History and Squad section within the next day. The main concern as noted by the nominator is sources, The Coaches and Rivalries section have been removed and Stats & Records has been completly sourced. As I just stated, the rest of the article will be done in the next day. Hopefully other more better people in prose and English, are able to help with the final concern. Thus I object to the delisting by one nominator.  The Windler talk  23:05, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No need to panic (I won't be closing it anyway). YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 00:32, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I generally reevaluate my positions on these things after work has been completed to bring the articles up to speed, so feel free to drop a note by my talk page when y'all are done addressing the above concerns. Cirt (talk) 03:56, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It should be saved no problem, I thought that as no other sources were being added apart from by me about three weeks ago that nobody was interested. Anyway, I think the references need to be checked to consistent formatting - templates make that easy, and also, SFS, SCG, SSG is used over and over when an abbreviation should be used I think. Also, if possible, subbing out some of the Roosters self-refs would be good. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 06:02, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's still one tag in Statistics and records and an unsourced paragraph in Colours, but the level of sourcing is much better than when I started the review. Hopefully these rugby sites are all reliable; I don't know much about them as an American. For the 1931 Three Blues photo, would it be possible to link to a page showing that image, instead of just a search engine? In the Stadium section, the Sydney Football Stadium photo is pushing the next heading to the right. Would be nice to get a copy-edit, as I found one typo and a faulty hyphen in a quick scan of the prose. Overall, though, it looks much improved. Giants2008 (17-14) 14:12, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Made the refs consistently formatted. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 05:34, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, I see referencing improvements throughout. Cirt (talk) 02:54, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Didn't notice this until now, but what is up with the enormous photo in History? It's taking up more than three-quarters of my widescreen. Otherwise, I'm satisfied enough with the changes, assuming that the sources are okay. I'll make a couple simple formatting fixes after finishing up here to help this along. Giants2008 (17-14) 02:30, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Originally, the image wasn't uploaded in the highest resolution avaliable. I uploaded the highest resolution image, but presumed it was at a set size on the article. Fixed now.  The Windler talk  05:44, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not the best prose in "History" ("the club", "the club", "the club"), but such repetitions are maybe inevitably in sports' history sections. Besides that, it reads fine, and it is well-referenced. Keep.--Yannismarou (talk) 13:47, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
copyedited teh history section and the lead. There were some oddities in there YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 23:41, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've made a pass for MOS and prose, and the article's pretty close. Some of the inline comments need to be resolved, for example the internet forum info in the "Supporters" section. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:41, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments I've made a few minor prose and MOS tweaks. Some remaining issues:

  1. It appears that "St George" should be "St. George" throughout, regardless of EngVar, as the article is at St. George Dragons, the category agrees, and even the team's logo uses the period.
  2. The Honours section would benefit from presentation in a table. The bolding is unnecessary.
  3. There are too many lengthy navboxes at the bottom of the article. Most of these should be true navboxes, and default collapsed here. Of what use is the group "Former...clubs", as the Roosters are not one of them, and the ones relevant to the article are already linked in the text?
Overall this is in pretty good shape.Maralia (talk) 17:13, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept by YellowAssessmentMonkey 08:35, 21 May 2009 [7].

Ronald Reagan

edit
Notified: none.
Previous FAR: Wikipedia:Featured article review/Ronald Reagan/archive1

Major 1(d) and 1(c) issues. Article is filled with neocon talking points and is poorly referenced. The most recent example of the propagandist editing of the article is this discussion on the lead and reganomics.--Sum (talk) 13:46, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • 1(d) I don't see this.
  • Poor references: This may have merit, but may be borne of the article's passing when requirements for FA sources were being made more stringent. I see citations from About.com. imdb.com, Encarta, citations that do not state the publisher or website (or any information: #65). I also see MOS problems: 1-sentence paragraphs, 1-sentence blockquotes used with cquotes, text sandwiched between images. Though I know that many articles are spawned from this one, there are places I think that could be expanded to flow more smoothly. It reads now like a collection of unrelated events used to direct readers to other articles.
  • To SummerWithMorons: It is customary to notify the original nominator of the article and the wikiprojects that have tagged it with a link to this FAR. --Moni3 (talk) 14:47, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep SummerwithMorons has made a total of nine (9) edits to the article, two of which were reverts. Eight of his edits centered around highlighting Reagan's brief status as an informant for the FBI; the information was good, but placed too much undue weight on McCarthyism. I reworded it, and Summer accused me of striking negative material (see [8]). Propagandist editing? If this were a puff piece, it never would have made FA in the first place, over a year and half ago. In response to Moni, I will go through the references over the weekend and see what I can do to bring them up to standard (though the majority are in tip-top shape). I disagree with the point about adding more material; if anything, a little bit more on his acting career should be added but that's it. Happyme22 (talk) 00:29, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep SummerwithMorons would apparently like the lead to be loaded up with information about how Reagan increased the national debt, without mentioning how Reagan reduced unemployment and inflation. That would not be NPOV.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:18, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept by Joelr31 01:52, 18 May 2009 [9].

Final Fantasy

edit

Review commentary

edit
Notified WP Video games, WP Square Enix , WP Final Fantasy, Guyinblack25, Tedius Zanarukando, WP103, Hibana, Kariteh, Seancdaug, Deckiller, Nimrand, Bluerfn, Mythsearcher

I am nominating this article for featured article review because I do not feel it meets the current FAC. In particular, it fails criteria 1c (factually accurate) as it contains large amounts of unsourced text. I would not say that it is "well-written", failing 1a. I'd also say it fails 1b as there appears to be no information on the series' overall legacy, just a minor note that the various games are referenced in pop culture.

It also fails criteria 2 regarding style guides. The lead is not a summary of the overall article and contains multiple new statements that should be sourced within the article proper instead, so it goes against WP:LEAD. I do not feel it has an appropriate structure, with the development and history placed low in the articles, some sections seeming out of place (why isn't music under development?), an overview section seems odd, etc. It seems cluttered and not very well organized. It seems like the game list should be lower down, after being first summarized in the development/history. For criteria 3, there seems to be no real need for an image of the composer. File:Ff6 magitek.jpg is included in the image, but its caption doesn't indicate its significance. The splits of the gameplay and common elements seem odd, as if it was just a way to get excessive details out of the main article rather than fully addressing them. In either case, those sections do not appear to be summarizing their current parent articles well.

I believe the article needs a lot of work to bring it up to current FAC standards. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:41, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am new to the FACR, so I may not be good help in bringing this to standard. It seems like your points are correct and I agree that it would take much work to solve. MythSearchertalk 08:12, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On the images, I see nothing wrong with a free image of the composer who became notable due to his work in the series as long as we're not wrecking the format of the article. The non-free artwork image probably needs a better rationale; the caption itself doesn't need to convey this (though it probably is better stated as "an example of the artwork by whats-his-name" to generalize it. --MASEM (t) 14:00, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
His image is in his own article. I see no valid reason to have it in an article on the series, even if it is free. It seems more decorative than anything else. Is it necessary to "see" the composer to know he made his career on the series? Film articles don't include images of the directors, producers, etc, why should a game article include a fairly random image of its musical composer? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:17, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Some film articles do include pictures of the production staff, and some literature articles include images of the authors as well. I don't really see how the image is random, it's of the chief composer for a large chunk of the games. (Guyinblack25 talk 15:51, 12 March 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Do some FA film articles, or just some in general? I really don't see how a biographical picture adds to the value of the article (and it also throws off that section which is only a paragraph). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:23, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Literature
Film
All FAs. (Guyinblack25 talk 16:52, 12 March 2009 (UTC))[reply]
To add another, Joseph Staten is in the background section of Halo: Contact Harvest, and Hiro Narita, shows up in Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country. I'm not saying that it's always proper to throw a free image in when its available, but people like having images, especially when it helps give the reader a mental image to associate with a name (generally that aids with comprehension.) --Der Wohltempierte Fuchs (talk) 21:34, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd argue for keeping the picture if it broke up an unsightly wall of pure text (as in Chrono Trigger#Development_history), but there are already some other images around that part of the article. Unless the music section is beefed up with more text, I think removing the picture is fine. But really, the only rule we have to be mindful of is the "living / recently deceased" thing, and I doubt Uematsu doesn't want to be connected with Final Fantasy. ZeaLitY [ DREAM - REFLECT ] 05:40, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In regard to the style concerns:
  • I agree the article should be restructured. I'll see about rearranging the content some.
  • To clarify, are the "new statements" in the lead you mentioned the lead: "...branched out into other genres and platforms..." and "...bested by Mario, Pokémon..."? Everything else I found in the article.
  • The main articles for the "Gameplay" and "Common elements" sections do not match what's in this article because those two articles are in poor condition and not really representative of their topics. The content in this article was written from the sources listed in "References", rather than summarized from those articles.
In regard to legacy:
  • The content is in the article, it just isn't labeled as "Legacy". "Merchandise and other media" touches on this some by illustrating that several titles in the series have been adapted and spun-off into other media. The Reception also mentions the series "...introducing and popularizing many concepts and features that are widely used in console RPGs", though it doesn't go into specifics.
  • Admittedly, I agree some more info would be a good idea.
While, I admit the article is not in its optimal shape, I feel that some of the issues are being exaggerated. Still, the article does require extensive work. (Guyinblack25 talk 15:51, 12 March 2009 (UTC))[reply]
There are nine sourced statements in the lead, some of which may be repeated in the article (though also repeated almost word for word, which also is obviously not summary). If the sections are not actually representative of the topics, that doesn't seem to meet the qualifications for their being summary splits, rather just shifting off bad content from the article to make the main look better. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:23, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the lead and whole article need prose revisions.
In regard to the split, the sections are representative and the split off articles cover their intended topics, just not comprehensively. The split occurred before this article was improved for FA, and the separate articles have been slowly worked on. (Guyinblack25 talk 16:52, 12 March 2009 (UTC))[reply]

What's the view on this at the moment? YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 01:09, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe everyone is in agreement that the article is not up to FA standards. I've been going through sources and organizing notes offline. I plan on making changes to address the concerns this week. (Guyinblack25 talk 01:30, 30 March 2009 (UTC))[reply]
It's not. The article has degraded significantly since the FAC, primarily because of shifts in style and content. If I recall, the prose was quite good as of promotion; what happened? — Deckiller 06:11, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Same thing that always happens. An innocent tweak here, a well-meaning tweak there, random vandalism here and there, and even a merge of content a while back. A year and half of that will degrade any article.
I'm still going through sources and making notes offline, but finding a good chunk of time to sit down and make real headway is difficult for me right now. Any help would be appreciated. (Guyinblack25 talk 14:14, 2 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]
I've also been fairly busy as of late; it was one of the reasons I left for a year in the first place. Great progress has been made, though. — Deckiller 16:41, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to help out with the plot section. The Gameplay of Final Fantasy and Character design of Final Fantasy sections will let us punt on some of the excess detail in this article. I'd advise scrapping these sections as they're currently written, and merging a summarized version from both these articles to the extent that information can be verified. That will resolve most of the research issues. Randomran (talk) 22:20, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Great job! It looks like the focus is now copy-editing and references. — Deckiller 01:46, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I'm still not very keen on the bullet list in the "main series" section. Could we somehow convert it to paragraphs, maybe one for each system? — Deckiller 21:22, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I remember switching it to prose a long time ago, but most editors felt the large chunk of text was too difficult to read. I kind of agree with them now; it was rather repetitive. You're welcome to try your hand at prose-ifying it. Maybe you can come up with something more engaging. (Guyinblack25 talk 22:19, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I took a crack at it. — Deckiller 00:38, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nice job. Overall, I like it and think it's an improvement. Still a bit repetitive, but there's only so much that can be done with that content. (Guyinblack25 talk 01:16, 4 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]
  • Anything outstanding in the "common elements" section? I feel like most of the outstanding issues could be fixed by summarizing the existing information and going into less detail. But curious if there's anything there that you would really like to have references for. Randomran (talk) 22:59, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think the biggest issue is the gameplay section. Everything up to that section is sourced, but the sources you used in Gameplay of Final Fantasy should fix that. I hope to have some free time this weekend to go through the gameplay article and summarize it for this one. Of course, others are more than welcome to give it a crack as well. (Guyinblack25 talk 01:16, 4 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]
      • Update- Finished up the Common elements section. Feel free to copy edit, add, and remove content.
        I think the main issues left are sourcing and copy editing the rest of the article. (Guyinblack25 talk 22:38, 7 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]
  • I went ahead and condensed that wall of text in the "main titles" section by gutting the plot blurbs; it seems better now. — Deckiller 17:48, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tasklist

Here's what remains, as far as I can tell:

  • extensive copy-edit by three people, one of which should be independent of our work;
  • sentence-by-sentence audit of claims and statements to ensure we're getting the correct point across, and trimming/expanding where necessary;
  • a few more references, as noted by "citation needed" tags; and
  • pruning excessive wikilinks.

— Deckiller 17:52, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with the list. Personally, I think our (the fixers) main focus should be on everything past the "Origin" section, including the lead. All in all, I think the article has made tremendous progress. (Guyinblack25 talk 14:22, 15 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]
I'm poking around this article from time to time. If someone actually flagged statements in the article with a "citation needed", I'd be happy to fill in a few. I don't have a lot of time, but Wikipedia is my way of taking a break, and I'm pretty solid with the research stuff. Randomran (talk) 17:55, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sourcing-wise, I think the weakest sections are the last three paragraphs of "Graphics and technology" and the middle paragraph of "Legacy". I think the GameTrailers retrospectives cover some of it, but extra sources would be good to fill in blanks. Like the legacy paragraph, I wrote it from the current sources and my own memory. I meant to dig up more sources for the content based on what I remembered reading, but got bogged down with other stuff.
Once those are done, we can rewrite the lead and focus on general copy editing. (Guyinblack25 talk 16:34, 20 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]
I guess it's not clear to me what hasn't been referenced. It looks like it's all referenced. I take it you want some references to be improved for specific statements? Randomran (talk) 20:57, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. Sorry for being too vague. The middle section in "Legacy" about Square's switch to the PlayStation and lack of third-party N64 titles needs a few more sources to back it up.
I'll keep working on the "Graphics and technology" section. I think the GT Retrospectives should provide the necessary citations, I just need to go through them again. Thanks. (Guyinblack25 talk 21:30, 22 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]
This is a great source on what the (lack of) Final Fantasy series did to Nintendo. If that's not enough, there's a few other sources that can fill in the gaps. This one talks about the cartridge/CD distinction, as well as this one, in the context of how it helped the playstation's dominance. This one goes so far as to describe an aborted FF7 for the N64. Fascinating stuff. I think those will be more than enough! Randomran (talk) 03:51, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and this one goes into more detail about the aborted FF7 for the N64. It's not reliable. But it does refer to some sources that *would* be considered reliable. This is more than enough information for the main series article, and starts to get into information that would only be suitable for the FF7 article, or the article about the console wars. Randomran (talk) 03:54, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome, I'll integrate them into the article. That Lost Levels source use to be in the article, but I removed it because I couldn't find anything to establish the site's credibility. Once this's done I think the only thing left to do is to get someone to copy edit the prose and audit the sources. (Guyinblack25 talk 14:01, 23 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Finished up the Legacy section and lead. The article is as good as I can make. A fresh pair of eyes to scrutinize the prose and references would take it that extra mile. (Guyinblack25 talk 15:55, 23 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

FARC commentary

edit
Suggested FA criteria concerns are prose and citations. Joelito (talk) 16:22, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep—article is far better than it was before; all that's left is copy-editing. — Deckiller 22:56, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, nice positive improvements, good work. Cirt (talk) 07:46, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I'm more than a little biased in this case, but I'd say the improvements address the concerns. (Guyinblack25 talk 17:30, 7 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]
  • Remove. The article definitely needs copy-editing, so I don't know why Deckiller voted "keep"; it's FA criteria 1.a. The prose needs to be better written. Some sentences are poorly worded in a way that leads to confusion, inaccuracies, or apparent original research. For instance:
    • "Games section"
      • "unique story" -> All video games in the world have unique story, unless they're remakes. This should be reworded.
        • Done.
      • "compilation" is Engrish; the real word doesn't mean what Square Enix think it means. "Metaseries" should be used here.
        • Done.
    • "Main series" section
      • The re-releases of the NES installments are mentioned but those of the SNES installments are curiously missing.
        • It does, it says they were all released on multiple platforms, same as it does for FF1 and FF2 - only three gets a specific mention, as it only had one port 16 years later.
      • "Final Fantasy IX, released in 2000, returned to the series' roots by revisiting a more traditional Final Fantasy setting." -> The article didn't mention that the series started using non-traditional settings at one point, so this sentence can be unclear (non-fans could think traditional = 2D for all we know).
        • Done.
      • The third paragraph has too many "released in". The third and fourth have too many "the first". Use synonyms or other syntaxes.
        • Done.
      • There's also way too many repetitions of "Final Fantasy [#]". The "Games" section's lead already said that the main games are numbered, so no need to be so repetitive (except for pre-FFVII titles due to the FFII and III renaming). Why not use "The [#]th installment" and things like that.
        • Done.
      • "large, interconnected areas" -> Unclear.
        • Done.
      • Final Fantasy XIII in 2010 -> Any better source for that statement? IGN's "April 1, 2010" seems like another of their random placeholders.
        • Done.
    • "Sequels and spin-offs" section
      • Too many redundant statements. "Final Fantasy Adventure is a spin-off to the Final Fantasy series"--obvious, considering the name of the section.
        • Done.
      • The paragraph also keeps saying that this one and that one have Final Fantasy elements in them... Just say it once in the first sentence.
      • "Other direct sequels" -> Not the appropriate term. Only two games in the Ivalice Alliance are direct sequels and Fabula Nova Crystallis has no direct sequel at all.
        • Done.
    • "Other media" section
      • "based on the common elements of the Final Fantasy series" -> Redundant; already stated in the second sentence of the paragraph.
      • "directed by Tetsuya Nomura" and "directed by Morio Asaka." -> How is that important? None of the other designers are mentioned in this section.
      • The Case of Denzel OVA is not mentioned. It was released in Advent Children Complete.
      • "The past decade has seen an increase in the number of adaptations and spin-offs." -> This is either original research or a pointless statement (or both).
      • "was partially continued in novels and a manga after the anime series had ended" -> Source?
        • Done.
    • "Common elements" section
      • "Holy, Meteor, and Ultima" -> Why Meteor? It's neither Japanese, Hebrew nor Latin and I don't think it's a reference to a particular culture.
      • "and an emblem designed by manga artist Yoshitaka Amano" -> Not always. The Compilation of FFVII logos come to mind.
        • Done.
      • "a character or object central to the story" -> "Central" is not in the source and not neutral.
        • Done.
      • "a kingdom in rebellion" -> What? That only happens in FFII and VI.
      • "the main antagonist introduced at the beginning of the game is not the final enemy" -> Garland is arguably the final enemy of FFI since Chaos is him. The Emperor in FFII clearly appears as the main antagonist in the intro and is the final enemy. Exdeath is also the obvious main antagonist in FFV (before his first appearance, there just wasn't any individual antagonist at all).
        • Done.
      • "Stories in the series frequently emphasize the internal struggles, passions, and tragedies of the characters" -> Only after FFI.
      • "In recent years, the series has featured several males with androgynous or effeminate characteristics.[47][48][49]" -> Biased sourcing? Amano's males were very androgynous and effeminate too. There are probably sources noting that.
      • Dissidia Final Fantasy should be mentioned in this section as it notably made a story connecting all the main installments.
    • "Gameplay" section
      • It should be noted that this section deals with the main series and that the other games have differing gameplay systems.
      • The explanation of the ATB is long but unclear, while that of the CTB is a short non-informative filler ("but added more challenging nuances." :/ ).
      • No mention of the fact that you can move around in FFXI and XII, and use Gambits (AIs for the characters) in FFXII?
      • "Like most RPGs, the Final Fantasy installments use an experience level system" -> FFII doesn't.
      • ""Summons", have been inspired by mythologies from Arabic, Hindu, Norse, and Greek cultures" -> Not exclusively.
      • "Following Final Fantasy VII, vehicles adapted more modern and futuristic designs." -> They're not futuristic in FFIX and XI.
        • Done.
  • I haven't read the other half of the article yet so I'll probably add more points later. This list is already too much issues though. The article is clearly not FA-quality. Kariteh (talk) 19:02, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, my keep vote was with the assumption that the copy-editing would get done. Unfortunately, I have more pressing matters than Wikipedia at the moment, but it seemed as if several others were getting ready to go through the article. I guess not? As a member of WikiProject Final Fantasy yourself, you are more than welcome to help work on this article. Since you're a member of this WikiProject, why didn't you make those prose tweaks yourself? — Deckiller 18:12, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm going to mark the ones fixed already- GuyinBlack has started on it and I'll try to do a few. --PresN 17:50, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(EC) Kariteh- I've implemented some of your above suggestions. However, I don't believe all are real issues.
  • Main series
    • In regard to the NES re-release, those particular re-releases are just more notable.
      1. The first game is the most ported RPG in the series.
      2. The second game is rarely rereleased on its own.
      3. The third game's remake was the last previous title to get an official Western release.
    • Each main title had some notable information included about it. The later titles had more notable information than re-releases.
  • Other media
    • Not every "other media" is mentioned just like not every video game "spin-off" is mentioned. I feel enough information is there to convey that franchise has branched into animation.
    • The statement about the increase of spin-offs/adaptations is not a controversial statement, and is supported by the sources used in the rest of the section. Admittedly, it does border on synthesis. If it really think it should go, then I'll remove it.
  • Common elements
    • Meteor was added in simply as a recurring spell name, not as an example of a culture word. However, the word is derived from the Greek word "meteōros" and I believe Greek is has traces to Classic Latin.
    • I removed the "central" part about the logos, but I'd argue that this is such a non-controversial statement would not need exact sourcing.
    • In regard to FFI's lack of character development, I realize not ever installment fits into a formula. So there will be generalized statements that do not apply to every title, but are still representative of the series.
    • The sources for the androgynous statement are all recent articles. Do you have sources for Amano's designs?
    • Having not played Dissidia, I'd say such info is probably excess detail. But what did you have in mind for its inclusion.
  • Gameplay
    • Though it applies directly to the main series, it was written in a way to be inclusive for most of the games, especially the last two paragraphs. I will, however, add a note to the first paragraph about the difference.
    • What part of the ATB content is unclear? Can you please be more specific.
    • That content about FFXI and FFXII seemed like excess detail to me. Perhaps this can be mentioned in the content to be added for the first point.
    • FFII does use an experience level system. The individual attributes level up from participating in combat. It's just not the traditional one used in games.
    • I don't believe that sentence states that summons are exclusively inspired by the listed cultures. Though I could be wrong in my interpretation.
Comments about the rest of the article would be welcome as it's needed a fresh pair of eyes. Please feel free to make corrections as you proof read as well. Thanks for the comments. (Guyinblack25 talk 18:15, 13 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]
  • Keep - the prose issue have been corrected to my satisfaction; the remaining problems Kariteh sees are largely not issues in my eyes. --PresN 01:15, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept by YellowAssessmentMonkey 00:55, 12 May 2009 [10].

Solar System

edit

The lead falls down on a number of points:

I think this part of the article fits the "May contain nuts" description.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_criteria

  • professional standards of presentation
  • well-written: its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard;


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Lead_section#Introductory_text

  • briefly summarize the most important points covered
  • stand on its own as a concise version of the article
  • more important here than for the rest of the article that the text be accessible
  • avoid ... and over-specific descriptions

The first paragraph reads like the ingredients from a Walmart microwave meal:

Solar System

Ingredients:eight planets, five dwarf planets, 173 moons, billions of small bodies (asteroids, icy Kuiper belt objects, comets, meteoroids, interplanetary dust).

This is not; of a professional standard; brilliant; or even engaging.

This would be better:

The Solar System is the astronomical name for the Sun, the Earth and the Moon, and the rest of the planetary system.

HarryAlffa (talk) 17:06, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The second paragraph is the same style, it just lists the categories of orbiting objects - dead boring.

The bullet list of planets and the other of dwarf planets looks a mess with all the trailing 000, 0000s, of distance in kilometres, and not in neat Astronomical Units. I would say that even including AU measurements is an over-burdening with detail in the lead.

The numbering of the planets I think is unique in any text, and it looks messy. HarryAlffa (talk) 17:16, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your points, but since your only problem is with the lead, wouldn't it be easier to voice your concerns on the article talk page? FAR is a fairly lengthy process and the lead problems can easily be resolved in a matter of a few days. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 20:16, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As Ckatz has refered to bellow, I've described these problems before, but the Ckatz Cabal simply wouldn't listen. The lead is a terrible piece of writing - end of story. HarryAlffa (talk) 13:13, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yes. Always blame the omnipotent cabal. The issue was never that the lead was good enough; it was that none of the solutions you offered were any good either, and that they in fact made the lead worse. Serendipodous 18:03, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There. I've had a go at rewriting it. No doubt you'll hate it. Serendipodous 18:45, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes you have had a go. It's a first draft, but you cannot say, "its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard", nor can you claim that it does "avoid over-specific descriptions". My understanding of the Lead Guide is that the solar system as a whole should be introduced, not details of the intrinsic components. Something like this is much better.
Example lead

The Solar System is the astronomical name for the Sun, the Earth and the Moon, and other orbiting bodies which make up the rest of the planetary system. It is most notable for the planet Earth as the only place in the Universe known to evolve and harbour life.

The Sun determines the solar system, it makes up 98.6 percent of the mass of the system, and the gravity of this mass dominates the rest. As well as generating heat and light from the nuclear fusion of hydrogen into helium at the core of the Sun, a continual but fluctuating, low density emission of charged particles called the solar wind "blows a bubble" called the heliosphere in the interstellar medium. This medium between the stars, most commonly thought of as outer space, is a very high vacuum but still has enough matter occupying it to interact with the high velocity (750 km/s) solar wind.

The Earth's orbit around the Sun is nearly a perfect circle, but it is more accurately described as an oval shaped, or elliptical orbit. Everything in the Solar System has an elliptical orbit, with some more elliptical than others. All of the planets orbit the Sun at different distances but on roughly the same plane as the Earth - the plane of the ecliptic. If you could look at the solar system "edge on" then all the planets would roughly be in this horizontal plane around the Sun.

I've introduced life, evolution and the uniqueness of it in the solar system. I have named only 3 components of the solar system, but have used them to explain or introduce significant structural aspects of the solar system: the gravitational influence of the Sun; the Heliosphere; elliptical orbits & their difference from perfect circles; and the plane of the ecliptic. In passing I've explained how the Heliosphere is created, and introduced the Sun's core, nuclear fusion of hydrogen, heat, light, the solar wind and that interstellar space equals outer space. All in only three, short, engagingly written paragraphs of prose, without overburdening the reader with extensive details.
Current lead

The Solar System[a] consists of the Sun and those celestial objects bound to it by gravity, all of which formed from the collapse of a giant molecular cloud approximately 4.5 billion years ago. The Sun's retinue of objects circle it in a nearly flat disc, most of the mass of which is contained within eight relatively solitary planets whose orbits are nearly circular. The four smaller inner planets; Mercury, Venus, Earth and Mars, also called the terrestrial planets, are primarily composed of rock and metal. The four outer planets, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune, also called the gas giants, are composed largely of hydrogen and helium and are far more massive then the terrestrials.

Two main belts of small bodies exist. The asteroid belt, which lies between Mars and Jupiter, has commonality with the terrestrial planets as it is composed mainly of rock and metal. The Kuiper belt (and its subpopulation, the Scattered disc), which lies beyond Neptune's orbit, is composed mostly of ices such as water, ammonia and methane. Within these belts, five individual objects, Ceres, Pluto, Haumea, Makemake and Eris, are recognised to be large enough to have been rounded by their own gravity, and are thus termed dwarf planets. The hypothetical Oort cloud, which acts as the source for long-period comets, may also exist at a distance roughly a thousand times beyond these regions.

Within the Solar System, various populations of small bodies, such as comets, centaurs and interplanetary dust, freely travel between these regions, while the solar wind, a flow of plasma from the Sun, creates a bubble in the interstellar medium known as the heliosphere, which extends out to the middle of the scattered disc.

Six of the planets and three of the dwarf planets are orbited by natural satellites, usually termed "moons" after Earth's Moon. Each of the outer planets is encircled by planetary rings of dust and other particles.

Your re-written version mentions: gravity (although not the Sun's); hints at the plane of the ecliptic; nearly circular orbits (but fails to name them as ellipses); the Heliosphere; the solar wind; and the interstellar medium. Note I said your version mentions..., and not explains... . Your version took three long, overly detailed paragraphs (and an orphaned paragraph/sentence) to fail to mention quite a lot of important stuff about the solar system as an entity, while listing many objects and listing some of their attributes. You also manage to throw in the age and formation from a giant molecular cloud - wrong place for that. The lead should stick to what the solar system is, not what it used to be - that's for later. I don't hate your re-write, I just think it's no good as a lead. HarryAlffa (talk) 20:04, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note re: previous discussions: For previous discussions relating to these issues, please see:

(and in fact most of Archive Three from "List In Order From Sun" on down.) --Ckatzchatspy 20:52, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've re-written the lead on Solar System, with an expanded version of the one above. It is far better than anything there before I hope you agree. HarryAlffa (talk) 17:23, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's wrong in a few places; most notably that outer space begins at the heliopause. Outer space begins outside the atmosphere. The lead is also far too Earth-centric. Earth is mentioned three times in the lead, but the largest objects in the Solar System other than the Sun, Jupiter and Saturn, are only mentioned in the lists. The lead fails to adequately explain what a dwarf planet is and why Pluto was demoted. You also forgot the note you removed. Serendipodous 17:28, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As usual, you are not worth argueing with, you misrepresent what my lead says, then you use that misrepresentation to critisise what I actually wrote. Shame on you.
The "too Earth-centric" criticism" {lacks intellectual rigour}. HarryAlffa (talk) 16:07, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  Administrator note: I strongly advise you to choose the words carefully. I also advise you to refactor or retract the last comment. Ruslik (talk) 16:54, 26 April 2009 (UTC) (OK - HarryAlffa)[reply]

Comment First, per the observations of several other editors, we should centralize this discussion at Talk:Solar System. Second, I have restored yesterday's version, and would ask that any changes to the lead be hashed out on a talk page first, and only applied after consensus is reached. Solar System is a core article, one of the most important ones in the "Astronomy" section, and we cannot have the lead going back-and-forth. Fair enough? (I was going to post a copy of the revised version here, but instead thought you could decide which revised version you wanted to start from.) --Ckatzchatspy 18:15, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No not fair at all. You and your Cabal will simply dig your heals in and call consensus when the Cabal says it's consensus. I simply do not trust you to operate in good faith. You implicitly acknowledge that the lead is a failure by asking for changes to be hashed out, unless this is just a ruse. All the changes User:Serendipodous has made simply make it fit my original criticisms! My version does not fail by the standards I listed, which you implicitly acknowledge, so I will restore that version as it MUST be a better starting point. Fair enough? Cheers. Just as I was writing this look what User:Serendipodous wrote below! Big surprise - he agrees with Ckatz! HarryAlffa (talk) 20:35, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think we can close this now. Serendipodous 20:27, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Is this closed? There seem to be ongoing discussions. 76.66.196.218 (talk) 07:07, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ckatz Cabal: Serendipodous & ASHill These two or three users have been responsible for the terrible state of the lead here[11], from at least as far back as last September, and even much earlier[12].

None of these meets Wikipedia:Lead_section, which begs the question why it was EVER a FA. HarryAlffa (talk) 20:03, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ckatz & Serendipodous should stand back They have demonstrated an inability to write a lead which conforms to

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Lead_section

Including Serendipodous [13] latest re-write.

They should therefore stand back and allow someone who clearly CAN write, to write. I'd written a lead which does conform, but it was reverted. I've tried, I really have, but the Solar System article really should be removed as a Featured Article. HarryAlffa (talk) 20:03, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Harry, your lead doesn't conform to WP:LEDE either. What's the need for the large text size of "Terrestrial planet" and "Gas giant" and why are the planets still written in a list-like manner? Also, why does your version present the Solar System in a geocentric manner? Why is it overly simplistic? Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 02:30, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Ignore my version of the lead. Concentrate on the current version. That fails the WP:Lead. HarryAlffa (talk) 13:31, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Other Problems If you were going to write an article about St Pauls Cathedreal, you would not simply list and describe, in detail, the different types of building blocks it used. You would give an overall descriptive view of the structure, then get down to details. The solar system article simply lists and describes the building blocks of the solar system, it does not give an overall view of the entity which is the solar system.

It must therefore fail the Featured Article test. HarryAlffa (talk) 20:03, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moved Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) comment to Ckatz & Serendipodous should stand back

Continued I do not agree with HarryAlffa's lead, it does not conform to WP:LEAD because it is not an introduction to the Solar System, it is instead an introduction to Earth's location in space. 76.66.196.218 (talk) 07:07, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. The Earth provides context for the reader. Read the WP:Lead. HarryAlffa (talk) 13:07, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Stop being dismissive, if you can't accept criticism, you should stop providing it. You need to read WP:LEAD, since your lead doesn't conform to it. The article your lead introduces is not Solar System, it is Earth's location in space. You don't provide context, you bias the article. 76.66.202.139 (talk) 05:45, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I must be some sort of genius! How else could I manage, Earth's location in space but, don't provide context, then bias the whole article with this amazing, 4 paragraph or so lead? I'll be dismissive if I think it appropriate. I've looked at your comments on my lead, given them careful thought, had a chuckle, and have dismissed them. We must agree to disagree. Anyway, it is the current lead which is the real concern. I think it is very poor, and does not conform with the points the WP:Lead asks a lead to, which I've elucidated on. HarryAlffa (talk) 19:15, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The version of the lead I just read in the article does appear to meet WP:LEAD. It unambiguously defines the topic then briefly describes its major characteristics with the appropriate relative emphasis (focusing on the Sun rather than Earth). Jay32183 (talk) 07:18, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Have you actually read the WP:LEAD where it says
   * briefly summarize the most important points covered
   * more important here than for the rest of the article that the text be accessible
   * avoid ... and over-specific descriptions

It does not say 

   * briefly summarize every single constituent
   * more important here than for the rest of the article that the text be as
densely packed with detail as possible
   * aim for ... and over-specific descriptions

The current version[14] has pretty much taken; 

Solar System
Ingredients:Sun, terrestrial planets(Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars), 
gas giants(Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune), asteroid belt,
Kuiper belt(scattered disc, water, ammonia, methane), dwarf planets(Ceres,
Pluto, Haumea, Makemake, Eris), Oort cloud, comets, centaurs,
interplanetary dust, moons, planetary rings of dust.

- which at least has the virtue of brevity, it has then been inflated with poor prose, with no differentiation of importance (Jupiter has as much prominence as comets), unless you count order of position in the text, in which case why is the ecliptic mentioned before the planets when it's such a small part (one sentence defines it) of the article? HarryAlffa (talk) 21:42, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have read WP:LEAD, which is why I feel this article does meet the criteria. The text is accessible, any 10 year old in public school from an English speaking country can read and understand the lead. It does briefly summarize the most important points covered in the rest of the article. Your third point doesn't make any sense as written. The Solar System is defined by the objects within it. Your cathedral comparison doesn't make sense because the cathedral is not defined by its building blocks; the ideas are not parallel. The lead reflects the way the rest of the article is written. It seems every attempt you've made to modify the lead as resulted in an inappropriate geocentric focus, over-simplification, and a lack of meaningful content. If that's what you're looking for you will never be satisfied with this article, because it will fail WP:LEAD that way. Jay32183 (talk) 06:44, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My third point doesn't make any sense? The third point is lifted directly from WP:Lead! "Accordingly, editors should avoid lengthy paragraphs and over-specific descriptions, especially if they are not central to the article as a whole."
 
Look up summary in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.
You clearly don't understand what a summary is: "A summary or recap is a shortened version of the original. The main purpose of such a simplification is to highlight the major points from the genuine (much longer) subject, e.g. a text, a film or an event. The target is to help the audience get the gist in a short period of time."
A summary is not listing, and describing (no matter how briefly) every component. This is exactly what the current lead does. It therefore fails.
You have misunderstood what is meant by accessible in WP:Lead; "It is even more important here than for the rest of the article that the text be accessible. Consideration should be given to creating interest in reading the whole article. (See news style and summary style.) Accordingly, editors should avoid lengthy paragraphs and over-specific descriptions, especially if they are not central to the article as a whole."
You've misunderstood "defined" here. The solar system can be described in terms of its components, but if you take away a few grains of orbiting dust, you do not change the "definition" of solar system, which "consists of the Sun and those celestial objects bound to it by gravity". Even removing a planet doesn't change this definition.
Now that you understand what a definition is, you can forget about it while you remember that the aim is description. Now re-read the next, cathedral-paragraph, and understand why it is a good analogy. Also remember that this is a criticism of the whole article - which fails as a whole, and must be restructured.
If you were going to write an article about St Pauls Cathedreal, you would not simply list and describe, in detail, the different types of building blocks it used. You would give an overall descriptive view of the structure, then get down to details. The solar system article simply lists and describes the building blocks of the solar system, it does not give an overall view of the entity which is the solar system.
The geo-centric description of my own lead completely misrepresents it. Shame on you. HarryAlffa (talk) 13:50, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I fully understand WP:LEAD. This article meets it. And why did you repeat the cathedral example after I pointed out how meaningless it is. The Solar System is in fact defined by the celestial bodies that compose it, it is not a region of space that happens to contain stuff, it is not an individual entity. The lead summarizes the article. The only thing I don't understand is the problem you have with this article. Every attempt you've made to change it has made things worse. You're version is geocentric, listy, overly simplified, lacking detail, and boring. You're attempting a lot of small paragraphs rather than a couple meaty ones. If you don't get it after hearing the review from so many others, then I'll just have to come out and say it. You are a bad writer. Jay32183 (talk) 22:05, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Definition: "The Solar System consists of the Sun and those celestial objects bound to it by gravity". If all you want is a definition then you can stop. The Solar System is an entity. How else could we prefix it with the definite article? If you don't understand this, then it is not my problem. HarryAlffa (talk) 17:26, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Solar System is not an entity, it is a collection of stuff. Astronomers intentionally use a fuzzy definition because it is not an entity. It certainly is your problem, as you are the only one getting this wrong. The definition in the opening sentence is correct. Listing the celestial bodies isn't like listing the bricks in a building, it's like listing the members of a band. Jay32183 (talk) 06:29, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A collection of stuff is a Set. A set is an entity. How else could we prefix it with the definite article? What fuzzy definition do astronomers use? Is it different from the exact one we use in the article? You are saying both that: "The definition in the opening sentence is correct", and : "Astronomers use a fuzzy definition". Which one should we use in the article? It's sounding like you have a problem. A band analogy? OK, I'll run with that. If the drummer leaves the band, next day you can say the drummer has left the band, because the band still exists. The drummer isn't part of the definition of the band, just a member of it. Get it? HarryAlffa (talk) 19:15, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A set is not an entity; an entity is one thing. The fuzzy definition astronomers use is the exact one that appears in the article. The drummer leaving the band is analogous to a comet leaving the solar system. A comet with a parabolic or hyperbolic orbit is only part of the solar system temporarily. However, not including it while it is in the solar system is incorrect, as it is bound to the Sun by gravity. The Sun is the core entity of the set that is the Solar System. Your version of the article mentions not only the Earth, but the Moon, by name in the opening sentence as if they are more important than other objects. Your "synopsis" continues to with the bad example you've set in your lead, being overly simplified, listy, and stubby. It was already deleted at AFD and your userspace isn't addressing the problems brought up there. It's time for you to give up. I know you think you're the only one who gets it, but really you're the only one who doesn't. Jay32183 (talk) 20:22, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
From Set (mathematics), A set is a collection of distinct objects, considered as an object in its own right. There is no fuzzy definition (if there is quote it for us), there is an exact intensional definition, "The Solar System consists of the Sun and those celestial objects bound to it by gravity". If you don't accept this then you'd better go and "correct" the Set (mathematics) and Intensional definition pages. Get back to me when you have. HarryAlffa (talk) 14:58, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

HarryAlffa only started this FAR to make a statement. The statement is made. The issue he raised has been resolved. Now all we're doing is arguing about semantics. Can we please close this FAR and move this discussion to the Solar System talk page where it belongs? Serendipodous 08:37, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also support the motion to close this FAR. Ruslik (talk) 11:16, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The point I'm making is that this article is (no longer) up to standard as far as FAR is concerned. I hold it to be self evident that the article doesn't pass muster as far as the WP:Lead is concerned. HarryAlffa (talk) 12:50, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Serendipodous, none of the issues I raised have been resolved. In fact before the FAR you, Ckatz & ASHill could, even would, not be persuaded that there was anything wrong with the lead as it was[15] before I raised this FAR. So you have just admitted: the lead before was "wrong"; by extension that my reasoning was sound. The same reasoning raises the same issues with the current lead, ipso facto the current lead is also "wrong". Unless your line about issues being resolved was put there so it looks like you're being reasonable. HarryAlffa (talk) 13:26, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Solar System, August 2008. The lead which inspired "May contain nuts"

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Solar_System&oldid=229261833

Ckatz, ASHill & Serendipodous wouldn't be persuaded there was anything wrong with it. HarryAlffa (talk) 13:26, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What about Ruslik0, Kheider or Jay32183? They've all made exactly the same points I did when we first "met". Or are they part of the cabal too? Serendipodous 13:40, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you respond to the logical reasoning above please? HarryAlffa (talk) 14:46, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support closing this review, especially considering that the only person who has endorsed it is the one who opened it. Any issues that have been raised can be addressed on the article talk page, and no-one who has posted here (again, except for Harry) has supported the idea of delisting it. --Ckatzchatspy 16:33, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well turkeys don't vote for Christmas, so you were never going to agree that an article you spent so much time on fails WP:Lead. HarryAlffa (talk) 19:42, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nice spin, "no-one has supported delisting it". The FAR is to bring it up to scratch, this was my only option to improve it. A couple of people have agreed with my points on the lead, do you interpret them as supporting a de-listing, or is my view that they are trying to improve the article the correct one? HarryAlffa (talk) 19:42, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. It is time to close this review. -- Kheider (talk) 16:58, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Nishkid64

Said Of this version[16]

  • I agree with your points, ... the lead problems can easily be resolved ... - 20:16, 22 April 2009

And of this version[17]

  • Harry, your lead doesn't conform to WP:LEDE either. - 02:30, 27 April 2009

The problems with the lead weren't resolved and remain the same. HarryAlffa (talk) 19:42, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ceranthor

Said of this version [18]

While I agree that the lead is problematic, ... 22:20, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

The lead remains problematic. HarryAlffa (talk) 19:42, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Headings

A reader can't find dwarf planets from the TOC.

Structure

Fails to convey the importance of the plane of the ecliptic to the solar system structure. A good image of this is wasted in the Terminology section below it.

Terminology

Why is there a section called Terminology at all? Why is it a sub-heading of Structure when much of the terminology has nothing to do with the solar system structure?

This section is a mis-mash. It defines the various regions of the system (which surely should be in the Structure section above it) then lists the components of different regions; planets, dwarf planets, small solar system bodies.

Then it gives the IAU definitions of planet and dwarf planet, and it totals and names them all.

It explains why pluto isn't a planet, and speculates about objects which may become dwarf planets.

It introduces the terms "small Solar System bodies" & "planetesimals", but doesn't define them, and only wikilinks "planetesimals".

Then it defines rock, gas, ice & volatiles while mixing melting points (wrong) and boiling points (correct) in doing so. It lists various ices and where they might be found.

This must surely be an example of how NOT to write for a FA.

HarryAlffa (talk) 15:51, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Umm... Harry, you introduced the "Terminology" section last September because you wanted to define gas, ice and rock, and you then argued over the contents for some time (including adding such lines as "Here we define those possibly confusing terms used in the rest of the article"). --Ckatzchatspy 20:10, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
False. My first contribution to Terminology was in August 2008 when I put some sub-headings in[19] to help navigate the mish-mash it was. This was rejected and it remains a mish-mash. I did define ices[20] 10 August 2008, then your Cabal unreasoningly removed ices, then rewrote it less beautifully, then included rock and gas. I think ASHill removed Terminology entirely, then in September I re-introduced it, and ... whatever.
Boring history over.
Having learned a little more about writing for Wikipedia, a section kind-of-like a Misc section is undesirable. I know how to re-write it without the Terminology section, and without loosing information, but the Cabal are completely unreceptive, so I'm having to simply point out the failings. HarryAlffa (talk) 16:55, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All the time you spent trawling through past versions so you could take a swipe at me would have been better spent answering even one of the points I've raised.
Or was the swipe at me because you can find no logic to refute them? HarryAlffa (talk) 16:55, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Galactic context

Just so it's not all negative!

This section and the following Formation and evolution section are much more like it!

A pleasure to read! HarryAlffa (talk) 16:04, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • User:HarryAlffa, you have several times in this review accused others of being part of a "cabal" and made personal attacks on other editors (sample), about which you've been warned. You also don't appear to be willing to respect consensus. I also suggest it's time to close this review. And there's the matter of the fork which was deleted. Please refrain from using FAR as a battleground. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:21, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • What has the fork which was deleted got to do with it? I put reasons why it should not be considered a fork, but didn't really expect it would survive. You seem to have thrown that in purely as a swipe at me. What was that about this not being a battleground? It seemed to me that three users (Ckatz, Sorendipodus, ASHill) acted as a cabal ... now it seems only in the past. One of whom was less than courteous at our first meeting, and things have not improved between us since. So you saw my lack of patience with him - and MUST also have seen that I withdrew the description of imbecilic of one of his opinions, but you chose to omit that. Is that exemplary - to pick out a withdrawn comment made in impatience, to vilify another? HarryAlffa (talk) 14:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm a little unsure what you mean by, "You don't appear to be willing to respect consensus". There were a couple of people who agreed with my original critique of the lead. I totally respect the right of anyone to hold an opinion. It does not mean that those opinions themselves must be respected - like extreme right-wing, left-wing and religious opinion. Are you saying because I am in disagreement with "the concensus" I don't respect it? HarryAlffa (talk) 14:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sandy, Yannismarou. Could either of you offer any counter arguments to any of the criticisms I've made? For example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Lead_section#Introductory_text 

   # more important here than for the rest of the article that the text be accessible
   # avoid ... over-specific descriptions

1. The first sentence of the lead, "The Solar System consists of the Sun and those celestial objects bound to it by gravity,". I like that beginning, it's an excellent definition. But it has to go, maybe somewhere else in the article, but it has to go because it is not accessible, as defined in the WP:Lead - you really only understand it clearly if you know the subject already, which is why those who know will find it pleasing - as I do. HarryAlffa (talk) 14:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2. Just about every sentence gives over-specific descriptions, eg, "The four smaller inner planets; Mercury, Venus, Earth and Mars, also called the terrestrial planets, are primarily composed of rock and metal". HarryAlffa (talk) 14:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Since no edits are taking place to improve the article with regard to any of the points I've made, I propose now listing the Solar System article as a Featured article removal candidate. HarryAlffa (talk) 13:02, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:CONS

Wikipedia does not base its decisions on the number of people who show up and vote; we work on a system of good reasons.

  • Featured article removal candidate No improvement. HarryAlffa (talk) 20:08, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:CONS seems to be the most widely misunderstood policy. Consensus is only possible if editors are civil to each other. Screaming "nonsense" and labeling other's comments "imbecilic" will not produce any new consensus. The comments of such editors are excluded from any discussion and have a zero weight. In my opinion, there is a consensus here that the article generally satisfies FA Criteria, and your insults mean nothing. What you are doing is called WP:forum shopping: when you failed to obtain what you wanted in the discussion on the talk page, you are moved it to another place. The quote above is actually from the paragraph that is specifically written to discourage forum shopping: Editors can easily create the appearance of a changing consensus by "forum shopping": asking again and hoping that a different and more sympathetic group of people discusses the issue. This is exactly what you trying to do now by actively canvassing other editors. Yes, you are violating WP:CANVASS by posting on the talk pages of many users, articles and projects. This disruption must stop. Ruslik (talk) 16:59, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I really like this article, but on an objective note, it is pretty clear that the article could receive some more attention with regards to referencing; there are multiple paragraphs that lack any sort of referencing, although the information in them appears to be disputable (including those terms are defined). Nergaal (talk) 00:24, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a citation for the tag you listed and clarified the paragraph. It would help if you placed citation tags on any other claims you felt needed referencing. Serendipodous 09:40, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept by Joelr31 16:19, 2 May 2009 [21].

J. R. R. Tolkien

edit

Review commentary

edit
Messages left at Deor, Ed Fitzgerald, Carcharoth, WP Children's literature, WP England, WP Middle-earth, WP Bio, WP Constructed languages.

Multiple issues, see Wikipedia:Featured articles/Cleanup listing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:38, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also has several images that violate WP:NFCC. Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:07, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the note, Sandy. I'm going to list the 'cleanup listing' entries here. Calliopejen1, could you expand on the NFCC violations you see here? Could you and others also list any other issues? Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 04:35, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Summary of 'cleanup listing' concerns

Summary of concerns about the J. R. R. Tolkien article from Wikipedia:Featured articles/Cleanup listing

  • The listing is based on a database snapshot of 6 March 2009.
  • 6 cleanup categories assigned, but it is actually seven (the Jan 2009 seems missing from the actual 'cleanup list' page): three from January 2009, and the MEfact template piggybacks on the fact template, so it duplicates the "October 2007" entry. All seven template-flaged problems listed below.

I also searched for and checked all the templates in use. The above seem to be all the issues that have been noted. More issues may have been raised on the talk page and in its archives, and other issues not mentioned so far may be raised here, but the above is a start. I can probably source all the above if no-one gets to it before me. That should leave only the NFCC concerns, and hopefully Calliopejen1 (or someone else) will start a new section on this. Carcharoth (talk) 04:35, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No feedback on the talk page yet (follow bolded link above). Shall I move my comments back here? I'm not sure, as I moved the comments to the talk page based on this edit summary "remove sub-sections, this level of detail would be better placed on article talk". Carcharoth (talk) 08:18, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unresolved talk page issues

There are only a few unresolved issues currently on the talk page.

  • Mantyxc felt Tolkien's religion should be listed in the infobox. There was no response or apparent action.
    I've replied in this thread on the talk page. Pi zero (talk) 12:10, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • 92.229.172.12 mentioned a contradiction between the English and German versions over the etymology of Tolkien's name, which may indicate the English version is incorrect. Again, no response or action.
    Now addressed by 92.230.2.104. -- Avenue (talk) 23:30, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Darth Predator complained that the last sentence about Wagner's influence on Tolkien's writing did not reflect the source, following up on a similar earlier concern. This seems confusing, as that sentence is apparently unsourced, and has been since it was added in July 2008 by PauloIapetus. But I think the paragraph would benefit from being rewritten anyway, and certainly the citations need reformatting.
  • PauloIapetus. The comment isn't "unsourced" Darth Predator, the quoted phrase was, indeed, of the linked text, the fact that it is totaly discordant of the main thesis of the article of David Harvey is a logical error commited by the author himself that, IMO, should exclud his essay as a balanced source, since that Edward Haymes and T.A.Shippey seem to be so much more complete and unbiased. —Preceding undated comment added 22:21, 7 June 2009 (UTC).
  • Calliopejen1 raised concerns about NFCC violations in August 2008; two people disagreed. Given Calliopejen1's comment above, this may not have been resolved to everyone's satisfaction.

I haven't looked through the archives yet. -- Avenue (talk) 10:26, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NFCC issues

This article uses six or more (depending on how you count them) non-free images. This is an article about a writer, not an artist, not a model. He is not known for his visual work or for his appearance. We should be able to give readers a clear understanding of JRR Tolkien without so many non-free images. I have no problem with one image in the infobox to show what he looked like. The non-free images that seem marginal are:

  • File:Jrrt 1972 tree.jpg - this one is purely decorative. He is standing by a tree. We already know what he looks like from the non-free infobox image. Yes, it is the last known photo of him. But there is a last known photo of practically everyone in the world- this alone cannot justify its inclusion.
  • File:Jrrt 1905.jpg - yes, this dates to 1905 but appears not to have been published until 1977, making it nonfree. readers can understand tolkien perfectly well without seeing a childhood photo of him.
  • File:Jrrt 1911.jpg - same issue as above.
  • File:Tolkien 1916.jpg - even though marked free, appears not to have been published until 1992? more research is needed here, or removal. not necessary to see a photo of him in uniform to understand his military service.
  • File:JRRT logo.svg - logo. not sure really of the value of this. i could be convinced that this one should stay in the article, but the problem here is mostly cumulative (this is the sixth nonfree image the reader encounters)
  • File:Jrrt lotr cover design.jpg - three nonfree images in one. the article does not discuss the design of these covers at all. even if it did, one illustrative example (rather than three) would probably suffice. Calliopejen1 (talk) 14:40, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the infobox image (File:Jrrt 1972 pipe.jpg) also violates WP:NFCC because it does not identify the copyright holder. Calliopejen1 (talk) 14:44, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My personal view would be to have a minimum of one picture of the person (either free or with a non-free use rationale), and then to consider the merits or otherwise of the other pictures (childhood picture, and pictures at other stages in life). That should come after a search for free pictures. I'm not aware of any freely-licensed pictures, but that possibility should always be kept in mind. It is also possible to get creative and think of where you can go and take pictures in public that could be useful for this article. A shot from a distance of a bookseller's stall dedicated to Tolkien books, for example. An arty picture of the entry for "Tolkienesque" in the OED (I did say these would be creative). Some suitable picture of the Marquette Collection (or sign thereof). That's about all I can come up with. The book cover artwork, I agree, can go (it can stay in the book article, though). So I'd say keep the main, pipe-smoking one, and the monogram logo, and lose the rest (though possibly keep one of the childhood pictures). The credit for the photos (not clear if they are the copyright holder, but I presume they are) are given for some of them in the Carpenter Biography. For the one you question, it is the third in a series between pages 174 and 175, labelled "15. In the study at Merton Street, 1972." In the list of illustrations, the credit is given to a "Billet Potter". I'll add that information to the image. Carcharoth (talk) 23:24, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments on each of the images:
In summary: (1) Keep File:Jrrt 1972 pipe.jpg. (2) Copyright information now provided for File:Jrrt 1972 pipe.jpg. (3) Keep File:JRRT logo.svg. (4) Possibly keep either File:Jrrt 1905.jpg or File:Jrrt 1911.jpg. (5) Remove all the rest. Carcharoth (talk) 23:47, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not convinced. For example, the modern photo is just an old man with a pipe. It doesn't actually contain any information which cannot be imparted by saying "Tolkien was old, clean-shaven and smoked a pipe." So, does fair-use really apply? If you're desperate for an image, there is a free one: File:J.R.R. Tolkien, da morto (2739646598).jpg, which shows an old, clean-shaven man smoking a pipe. I'm afraid the other images have similar problems: they don't really impart information which can only be imparted by a picture. DrKiernan (talk) 10:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That painting should be deleted. It's clearly a derivative work of this non-free photo. Calliopejen1 (talk) 12:27, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that painting would require a fair use defense too, so it doesn't get us anywhere. But I don't agree that the photo shows nothing beyond an clean-shaven old man with a pipe. It shows what he was wearing - probably not atypical for an Oxford don of that era, but probably also difficult to sum up in a few words. I think some measure of his character also comes through in his face and posture. Whether this sort of thing justifies fair use is a valid question, but please don't oversimplify it. -- Avenue (talk) 23:47, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree the painting is a derivative work, but the reason that photo was copied is because the image of Tolkien smoking a pipe has actually become iconic in Tolkien fandom. I did a search, and ironically one of the hits that came up was a mirror of a Wikipedia article deleted two years ago. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of famous smokers (2nd nomination). Tolkien was on that, but it was a pretty rubbish list. Have a look at this search for an idea of how the sort of pictures many people associate with Tolkien. See also here. My point here is not that this is an argument to include this picture as a non-free image, but that if we are going to include any non-free image at all, then it should be one of him smoking (or holding) a pipe.
The crux of my argument is more general though. My basic premise is: If there are no relevant free images for an article, then any non-free image used must be the one that is the most appropriate and relevant for the article. My contention is that for biographical articles, the most relevant lead image is one of the person the article is about (that should be beyond dispute). The question then becomes, in my view, whether for dead people we have no lead image at all, or whether we use a non-free image with a fair-use rationale. This question applies to all biographical articles of dead people where no free image is available. This general question should be raised at WT:NFCC. What might also be useful is to do a survey of featured articles on people who are not living, and see how many of them use a non-free lead image of the person who is the subject of the article. Carcharoth (talk) 00:12, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Found one so far: Michael Woodruff. My point here is that if non-free pictures just to show what the subject looked like are not acceptable, then all articles (and particularly featured articles) should be checked. And if they are acceptable, then a general principle should be enshrined at WP:NFC. And I've done so here. Carcharoth (talk) 00:26, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Shall we move this section to the talk page, per Sandy's comment here? Carcharoth (talk) 00:12, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A single fair use image for a dead person for identification (where waiting for a free image is not reasonable) is one thing, but i don't see any arguement from fair use for any others. As free images of adult Tolkien are in the article, i don't think being "iconic in fandom" is a reason to breach someones copyright.YobMod 09:51, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"As free images of adult Tolkien are in the article" - are you sure? I can't see any free images in the article. Carcharoth (talk) 08:20, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, my bad - i believed the PD tag on the 1916 image. If it is not PD, then you are right, there are no free adult images, in which case i would support keeping one fair use adult image.YobMod 08:27, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

edit
Suggested FA criteria concerns are citations, image copyrights. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 01:25, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
    • Image copyrights - in this edit, I have removed five images that are non-free or of uncertain copyright status (per the comments above) and leaving two non-free images (the lead image and the logo), per my comments above. Apologies for not doing this sooner. I was waiting for more comments above. There is support above and here (may be archived soon) for a non-free image being used to identify the subject of a biographical article (where no free image exists). Examples are Anne Frank and Michael Woodruff. I would suggest that a bot request be made to identify all non-free images being used in featured articles, and to do a review from that angle. I made such a request, (see here) but nothing got done.
    • Citations - the work done so far has been documented here. I was waiting for feedback on that as well, but as no comments have been received, I will carry on dealing with the "citations required" and aiming to clear them all by the end of this week. I also spotted a problem with close paraphrasing and need to rewrite that paragraph and check for others. There is also a concern (on the current talk page) about the Wagner paragraph and citations, which will need checking.
  • I believe this work, once done, will address all present concerns. Carcharoth (talk) 17:01, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Update: I believe that this diff (showing the work done during a series of 15 edits by various editors) has adequately addressed all the 'citation needed' points (and the issue of non-free images), except one. I will attempt to address that now, and that should remove this article from the "articles with unsourced statements" categories. Carcharoth (talk) 00:51, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • this is FAR is filed on completely spurious grounds. Our JRRT article is easily FA quality, and remains one of the best articles on Tolkien's biography available online. Seriously, this isn't what FAR was intended for. --dab (𒁳) 16:02, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you missed what the article looked like at the time it was brought to FAR; it was the FA most in need of cleanup on the Cleanup listing. Thanks for the kind words, at any rate. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:05, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spurious? Are you even aware of the current FA criteria? Anyway ... I liked the article; it reads fine, and it is indeed a well-written and well-referenced biography. Some remarks:
  • Wikilinking needs some attention. I saw Lewis linked at least three times.
  • "Tolkien also may have felt jealous about a woman's intrusion into their close friendship, just as Edith Tolkien had felt jealous of Lewis' intrusion into her marriage.[citation needed]" It needs fixing.
  • What I do not like (but this is maybe a personal preference) is the presence of so many quotes in certain sections, which break the prose. Maybe this is a reason why, for instance, the second half of "Politics" looked to me a bit listy (He ... He ...) .
These are my concerns, but the article in general is high quality—I clarify that I did not read all of its sections, but selectively some of them. Thus, and despite concerns, weak keep.--Yannismarou (talk) 22:24, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The one remaining "citation needed" point has been addressed. Will be going through the article with a fine tooth-comb over the next month to polish it up, but I believe major concerns have been dealt with. Carcharoth (talk) 12:36, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cleanup still needed: this article is not yet ready to be kept; there is still extensive need for cleanup in the citations. There are raw URLs, unformatted citations, and incorrect bolding, just on a quick glance. I haven't looked deeper, other than doing a bit of quick MOS cleanup. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:07, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks, Sandy. Some of the stuff you point out wasn't picked up or listed in the "cleanup listing" (which seemed to be based on the 'citations needed' and other tags) - presumably what is needed here is at the level where a good copyedit would fix things, rather than a detailed review of the content? It has been ages since I read the Manual of Style in full, but I will try and see what is needed. Are there any copyeditors active at FAR and FARC at the moment? Failing that, if examples are given on the talk page of the article, I could go through making the necessary fixes - and there are others watching the article as well - hopefully they can pitch in and help as well. Carcharoth (talk) 00:30, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The incorrect bolding in three of the citations has turned out to be citation templates that link to the author, but in this case the citations are to books where Tolkien is the author (or one of the authors). This means that the author link shows up as bold in the Tolkien article, and as a link in other articles. This might be a good thing, but to remove the bolding, I did the following clunky workaround: [22], [23], [24], [25]. If there is a better way to handle this, please let me know. Carcharoth (talk) 01:15, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Raw URLs (or citations needing better formatting, or just dodgy refs) are (from this version) the following ref numbers: 13, 26, 27, 30, 44, 79, 82, 107, 108, 109, 110, 112, 130, 131, 132, 138. Refs 68 and 124 are the same source and can be consolidated. Various access dates needed and all external links need checking to see if they work. Carcharoth (talk) 01:26, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've addressed the formatting of the citations numbered above, and some others. A few are not formatting issues: 130 (now 128) is too vague, 107 (now 106) is a dead link I couldn't track down, and 30 may not be the best source as it refers to Shippey. The citations could still do with further review, but I won't be able to get onto that for a few days. Most of the glaring problems with them are fixed, though. -- Avenue (talk) 07:26, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept by YellowMonkey 06:23, 5 May 2009 [26].

Idlewild and Soak Zone

edit

1a. As I've noted on the article's talk page, there seems to be significant repetition and some disorganization. Moving the "Attractions" section up in the article might be a helpful step.

1b. There are two other short articles, Wild Mouse (Idlewild) and Rollo Coaster, which should probably be merged into this one.

I will add that I have recently given links for Google Books previews of the two most cited sources, so that may be helpful. PSWG1920 (talk) 06:01, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Removed status

edit
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed by YellowMonkey 02:39, 27 May 2009 [27].

Mumbai

edit

FAR commentary

edit
Notified: Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities,User talk:Like I Care, User talk:Ninadhardikar, User talk:Utcursch, User talk:Pizzadeliveryboy, User talk:Abecedare, User talk:Hemanshu, User talk:Kensplanet, User talk:Nikkul, User talk:Nichalp.

FA from 2005, referencing/1c issues, lede does not adequately summarize article per WP:LEAD, couldn't hurt for images to be reviewed as well. Cirt (talk) 03:04, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Images
Honestly, I don't know why this article is under review. It is definitely Featured Article quality!! The whole article is written in Summary Style and the images are perfectly relevant to the sections.
It has almost half as many images as other FA city articles like Boston, San Francisco, Belgrade, Detroit, Louisville,_Kentucky, NYC, Providence,_Rhode_Island, etc. And all these images are perfectly relevant to the material being discussed in the section.
There may be some small errors, but the format of the article is definitely Featured qualityand the article definitely deserves to stay as Featured. Nikkul (talk) 02:17, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The caption of File:BSE.jpg does say that it is the oldest stock exchange in Asia..it is very clear english..i personally do not think we need to add anymore. Ninadhardikar (talk)
If you give the year of foundation, it will be clearer that the exchange is meant rather than the building. DrKiernan (talk) 07:33, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update Referencing work is going on. First, we are addressing citation needed tags. Then, we'll fix the referencing formats of already-existing citations (some of which are not in appropriate format). Meanwhile, prose is also being improved as needed. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 02:09, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

edit
Suggested FA criteria concern are citations, lead. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 00:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Actually some of the references used do not satisfy the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. Rather, some of the references used are children's works. Cirt (talk) 17:20, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think the article has greatly improved since it was (properly) nominated for FAR, and there is an ongoing effort to deal with any remaining issues. Since the primary aim of FAR/FARC is to try and improve articles, it would greatly help if reviewers listed any specific issues they may have with the sourcing, coverage, or wording here or, preferably, on the article talk page so that those too can be addressed. Abecedare (talk) 19:36, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for noting that the FAR itself was a proper FAR. Here is one of those children's sources: Students' Britannica India. Cirt (talk) 19:42, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Most old FAs suffer from entropy and, also fail to keep up with the improving FAC standards as wikipedia matures, and Mumbai was no exception. I wouldn't call "Students' Britannica India" a "children's work", but I agree that non-tertiary sources are preferable. The rainfall and languages spoken in Mumbai are easily sourcable and I'll try to add better sources this weekend, when I'll have more time. Can you and other reviewers list similar concerns on the article talkpage so that other editors and I can make sure that they all are addressed ? Abecedare (talk) 19:56, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you look you can see there are multiple other tertiary and less-than-preferable sources being used in the References section. Cirt (talk) 19:58, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I glanced through the list and the only source I would definitely object to was "Christopher, Paul J. (2006). Greatest Cities in the World You Should Visit. Encouragement Press. ISBN 9781933766010." Note that I would not have myself objected to using Student's Britannica for the statements it is being used for (rainfall and languages spoken in Mumbai) even though I agree that better sources can be used; so the issue seems to be "best sources" rather than "reliable/unreliable sources". Since editorial opinion can vary on this, it would be really helpful if you and other reviewers' could be specific and cut-n-paste the sources you find inappropriate. (I assume that you are not objecting to sources like, "Ghosh, Amalananda (1990). An Encyclopaedia of Indian Archaeology. Brill.", which may be mistaken for tertiary sources but which are, in fact, ideal sources for wikipedia). Abecedare (talk) 20:18, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the "Greatest Cities in the World You Should Visit" book, since it was a poor choice for an FA and anyways was not used in the article! Thanks Cirt, for taking the time to add {{cn}} tags; editors close to the subject often are unable to judge what facts may be non-obvious. As I said above, I'll try to work on the article this weekend, and reviewers' input would be help us focus on the aspects that need work. Abecedare (talk) 20:27, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abecedare (talk · contribs), I must thank you for being so polite and gracious during this process. Hopefully other reviewers will also add input. I will reevaluate after you've worked on the article over the weekend. Cirt (talk) 20:31, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find any source not satisfying recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. All References are the best for the facts they source.

For example, Information about archaelogical details like Pleistocene sediments are sourced from Ghosh, Amalananda (1990). An Encyclopaedia of Indian Archaeology. Brill., which can be considered the highest quality reliable source for the claim. Even Gazeeteers used are written by experts. KensplanetTC 06:46, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Student's Britannica can be considered reliable for details on Culture etc, though not for rainfall. KensplanetTC 07:08, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist, although I see that the article is being improved, and if it is improved sufficiently I may change my mind.
  • The writing falls short of what would be expected at FAC and what is required to meet 1a of the good article criteria:
  • "Mumbai (Marathi: मुंबई, Mumbaī, IPA:Mumbai_pronunciation.ogg [ˈmʊm.bəi] (help·info))—formerly Bombay, is the capital of the Indian state of Maharashtra." Punctuation?
  • "The present day city was originally an archipelago of seven islands ...". No it wasn't, it was built on an archipelago of seven islands.
  • "Pleistocene sediments found near Kandivali in northern Mumbai by British archaeologist Todd in 1939 posit the theory ...". It's not the sediments that do the "positing".
  • "... the The Royal Indian Navy Mutiny called by the Indian sailors on 18 February 1946, being its most rubric events." This is at best unidiomatic and at worst meaningless. What is "rubric" meant to suggest here?
  • "209 people were killed and over 700 injured in the when seven bombs exploded on commuter trains in 2006." Sentences ought not to start with a number.
  • Much of the article seems like a collection of only loosely related facts, with no effort made to ties them together into a cohesive narrative. The last paragraph of History is a good example, in which the 1996 renaming to Mumbai is repeated after having been explained earlier in Etymology.
  • In 1996, the city was renamed Mumbai after the Koli Goddess Mumbadevi by the Government of Maharashtra, in keeping with their policy of renaming colonial institutions after historic local names and also was the demand of the local population." Doesn't make sense.
  • The study of place names is known as toponomy, not etymology. so the Etymology section ought to be renamed.
  • These are just a few examples from the first few sections. This article needs some serious attention from a good copyeditor to meet the FA criteria.
--Malleus Fatuorum 12:08, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment- Please note that rather than just voting to delist this article b/c of small errors above, you can also help improve it by fixing the errors you have pointed out. Thanks. Nikkul (talk) 05:57, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed by Joelr31 14:49, 24 May 2009 [28].

Căile Ferate Române

edit

FAR commentary

edit
Wikiprojects and nom notified.

FAils 1c. Very few citations. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 02:48, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Images

FARC commentary

edit
Suggested FA criteria concern is citations, copyright. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 01:30, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed by YellowAssessmentMonkey 08:35, 21 May 2009 [30].

Canadian Pacific Railway

edit

FAR commentary

edit
Notified JYolkowski, WikiProject Canada, WikiProject Companies, WikiProject Trains

Promoted in 2005, this article seems to no longer meet the FA criteria. Almost the entire article lacks inline citations (failing criterion 1c). The prose is not professional, as it, for instance, contains several one-sentence paragraphs (failing criterion 1a). The roster of locomotives should be converted to a table, and there are clean-up tages in the article. There are also numerous non-compliances with the Manual of Style. Arsenikk (talk) 13:44, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

edit
Suggested FA criteria concern is citations, copyright. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed by YellowAssessmentMonkey 08:35, 21 May 2009 [31].

Prostitution in China

edit

Review commentary

edit
Prodego and China-related topics notice board notified
  • Criteria issues: 1a, 2b, 2c

This is an important topic but the article has numerous problems. The citation style is a mess, there are many references that I wouldn't be able to find in the real world if I wanted to because I simply can't tell what the footnote means; I am slowly working on cleaning up the footnotes to use a consistent format, but there are still a lot that I can't deal with. Furthermore, many areas of the article are poorly written (for example, until I changed it just now, there was a bit that read "one source from 2005 says...." rather than naming the source...I can dig up more problem sentences if needed, although generally I just fix them as I come across them), and I feel no one has been watching it in years so all kinds of junk has slipped in (out of the 7 editors who have made more than 5 non-minor edits to the article, I am the only one who has edited it more recently than 2007). The article structure doesn't make much sense; I've left comments at the talk page, but here is a copy of the important part: "The article structure itself is also not that great. The Foreign prostitutes in China is just sort of sitting out there, not well-integrated into anything. The Legal responses, Policing, and The question of legalisation sections are each in 2nd-level headers, but appear to be about more or less the same thing, so it's not clear what they're doing as separate sections."

It would be great if this article could be cleaned up to get it back to FA standard. I personally don't have the knowledge or resources to do it all, though. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 23:31, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Image

File:Beijing Office for Women's Production and Education.jpg: no information on first publication. DrKiernan (talk) 08:20, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

edit
Suggested FA criteria concern is citations, prose, structure. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 03:27, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist per FA criteria concerns. Cirt (talk) 07:03, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment another thing I just realized (not sure how I never noticed it before) is that the intro doesn't comply with WP:LEDE; for example, it doesn't even say whether prostitution is officially legal or not (I only just noticed that now because an IP added it) and certainly doesn't really provide a good summary of the article. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 12:33, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist, Page move needed... What simply screams to be done is a page-move from Prostitution in China to Prostitution in the People's Republic of China. If it weren't in FARC I'd do it now... The entire article is misnamed from the start... both politically and historically (if it's prostitution in China, then where's the "History of" section...? Why on earth did SchmuckytheCat pagemove it in February? Not right at all!) and then, it is poorly organized.. it creates a false impression of being in-depth & up-to-date.. just in general, it needs a lot of work. Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 01:09, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed by YellowAssessmentMonkey 08:35, 21 May 2009 [32].

Ran (film)

edit

Review commentary

edit

As much as I love this film, the article has some problems. The article is missing citations om some major sections such as "Acting Style". There is only one citation in Casting as well. Several sections I think could use some more inline citations.

According to WP:FILMPLOT the film's plot should be shorter (between 400 and 700 words), where here it is over 900 words (I've taken out reference texts as well.) The film here also cites imdb five times which is not a reliable source and shouldn't be seen on a Featured Article. It also doesn't feature much in ways of Wikipedia:Featured article criteria. The lead should be expanded more as it doesn't go into scale of the production, themes, etc.

Notified: User talk:Palm dogg, User talk:Alkivar, User talk:Kathimcgraw, User talk:Doctor Sunshine, User talk:Epbr123, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Films, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films/Japanese cinema task force, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Shakespeare. Andrzejbanas (talk) 22:25, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of work was put into this article, but Ran could use some work here to be improved upon.Andrzejbanas (talk) 00:11, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notification request Could you please notify the main editors and projects and post those notifications at the top of this FAR? Thanks! --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 01:35, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've notified all the communities. Is there an easy way to note this to continued editors? I don't know how to find who contributed the most to this article. Sorry, this if my first FAR. Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:51, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(Replied on your talk page. --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 17:39, 21 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Done. Andrzejbanas (talk) 22:25, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your note. You're right, this article could be improved a great deal, but as I'm in the middle of a deployment to Iraq, I'm unfortunately busy. I suggest as a first step you look at the Article when it was promoted to Featured Article to see what kind of changes have been made. Good luck. Palm_Dogg (talk) 16:02, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FilmReference.com provides a list of resources, including books and articles, here. Considering the age of the film, it is likely that we will find the best resources in print and not online, so heavier research may be necessary. This is another good list, too. —Erik (talk • contrib) 16:28, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

edit
Suggested FA criteria concern is citations, balance and lead. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 03:26, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed by YellowAssessmentMonkey 08:35, 21 May 2009 [33].

William Monahan

edit

Review commentary

edit
Notified relevant parties and WikiProjects.

Article not stable - ongoing vandalism (or "ALTERNATE VERSIONS" if you prefer) from persistent sockpuppets, referencing issues (3 cite needed tags), plus some issues on talk page including unaddressed merge proposal. -- OlEnglish (Talk) 21:03, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • preliminary comments
  1. this article was the target of a fan of WM's,who went to great pains inserting absurdly detailed descriptions of exceedingly minor works, and trying to list every trivial miscellaneous publication. WM is known, in actuality, a very small body of work: a small number of short stories, some prize-winning, one moderately successful novel Light House, and three filmscripts: the unsuccessful original filmscript, Kingdom of Heaven, the moderately successful adaption of another writer's novel, Body of Lies, and the extraordinarily successful The Departed, adapted by WM from an earlier extremely successful Chinese film. WM won an Oscar for Best Adapted Screenplay in 2006.
  2. It does not offer a NPOV view of WM's career. It is unclear--The discussion of the writing of his most important work, 'The Departed, starts off very confusingly: "While Monahan was on the set of The Departed his wife gave birth to a daughter. No discussion of the undoubtedly interesting negotiations involved in his being hired for the role, or the length of time, the successive revisions, and the manner in which he rewrote it,--which are never simple matters if a major film is involved. Particularly, since this is an adaptation of an already very successful film in which he modified a English translation of the Chinese script in transferring the action from Hong Kong to Boston, the originality of his contribution should be discussed,--it must have been commented on, given the awards. There is nowhere in Wikipedia a comparison of the two films.
  3. It is an unresolved question to what extent a writer should have every minor work listed, and whether it should be in the main article or a separate one. I think it depends on the importance of the writer, and the importance of the minor works in his career. WM is a moderately important writer only, and the minor works are by and large extremely minor. His importance is not from his journalism. If even his book reviews are to be mentioned, they should be listed, but their publication need not be described in detail
  4. This should never have been a featured article. It needs cutting, and the key sections need rewriting. I do not even consider it of GA level. DGG (talk) 22:01, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I largely agree with DGG. As for Newsgoal (talk · contribs) he is without question another sock of banned User:Manhattan Samurai. Here he is editing in the first person one of Manhattan Samurai's "wiki letters to journalists" which he left on a variety of talk pages of articles of interest to him.[34] Never mind. Sock blocked. Bali ultimate (talk) 23:59, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide links to the notifications. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:20, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean the parties I notified? -- OlEnglish (Talk) 22:55, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

edit
Suggested FA criteria concern is NPOV. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 02:42, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why are the authors written in firstname lastname? YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 00:32, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure. 3 reference tags are not IMO a reason strong enough to delist a densely cited article. Are there any concerns about the verifiability of the current sources? I am also not fully convinced that there are POV issues. And the merge tag is about discussing a merge proposal, why should this entail de-featuring?--Yannismarou (talk) 10:47, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The primary concern brought up was the article's instability: Ongoing changes by persistent sockpuppets. -- OlEnglish (Talk) 11:02, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Instability doesn't apply to vandalism or illegal edits (banned users). The main reason about it being kept open is because of DGG's comments, although he hasn't returned YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 23:36, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Mea culpa. Is that a quote from any official FAR criteria page? Because I didn't see that particular reasoning at Wikipedia:Featured article criteria 1.(e), which had only one 'exception' that I think doesn't apply in this case. -- OlEnglish (Talk) 01:52, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure if it is in an semi-official FAQ, but banned users = vandals, and vandalism doesn't count as a legitimate content dispute/edit war YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 03:19, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist I'm less concerened about the stability of the article then the fact that it shouldn't have been FA in the first place, and isn't of that quality now. Some of the prose is very clunky in patches and much of it is written in the tone of a newspaper article (for instance about what monahan "will do" at some unspecified point in the future). The "writing process" section is just, in my opinion, godawful when it comes to quality of writing and relevance.Bali ultimate (talk) 13:11, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed by Joelr31 01:48, 18 May 2009 [35].

Defense of Sihang Warehouse

edit

FAR commentary

edit
Wikiprojects notified. Author is inactive


  • Fails on citation criteria. Many unsourced paragraphs
  • Fails NPOV criteria. Citations 2,3,4,5,9 are all memoirs of Chinese officers who commanded units in the battle, and are not reliable or third party or neutral at all. These account for the bulk of the article.

YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 07:03, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, when you have statements like "The Japanese commander Matsui Iwane also agreed and promised to let the defenders retreat, but later reneged on the deal." which are only backed up by the recollections of Chinese commanders who have obvious vested interests in making the enemy commander look bad...I think it's perfectly reasonable to ask for more neutral sources. For important historic events like these, there are plenty of neutral sources written historians, who would rely not on just memoirs of combatants (of both sides) but on other evidence.
  • I also wonder about passages like "To Chiang, the battle was already won as most of the Chinese forces in Shanghai had successfully been redeployed to defend more favourable positions, and the defense of the warehouse now had the attention of the western world, so he gave the go-ahead for the regiment to retreat on 31 October." This sounds like it was written to excuse Chiang's order to retreat, making it seem less like a cowardly action. I think it'd be good for this kind of commentary to be sourced, again, to neutral sources.
  • There is an obvious POV slant to the whole article which is not so evident on a first glance, but on a second one, seems fairly clear. The whole article is written in the tone of "heroic Chinese defenders against nasty Japanese". For example, "A private, traumatized by the battle, jumped off the building while strapped with grenades and took out some twenty Japanese soldiers in exchange for his own life." This seems a fairly unimportant detail, and I spy no mention of similar heroic actions by Japanese soldiers. Presumably there were some, unless one takes the view that only the Chinese defenders were capable of such battlefield heroics.
  • Ultimately, all these issues are merely a reflection of the fact that most of the article is actually not sourced. Many seemingly factual passages have no sources, e.g. "The Japanese 3rd Division (one of the most elite IJA divisions at the time) had suffered heavy losses at the hands of the Chinese 88th Division, whom they called the "Hated Enemy of Zhabei". However, their organization, officer corps and command structure were mostly intact, and Japanese forces enjoyed air and naval superiority, as well as access to armoured vehicles, likely Type 94 Te-Ke tankettes, and also Type 89 grenade dischargers. Japanese infantry used the Arisaka Type 38 Rifle." and "Official communications referred to the defenders as the 524th Regiment to mislead the Japanese as to their actual strength, even though only the 1st Battalion took part in this battle, and other elements of the regiment continued to be active well into 1939. Eventually the 1st Battalion came to be equated with the 524th Regiment, even within official documents of the period." These are important passages. Where did they come from? --C S (talk) 05:37, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Images

FARC commentary

edit
Suggested FA criteria concern is citations, image copyrights and NPOV. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 00:57, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed by YellowAssessmentMonkey 00:30, 12 May 2009 [36].

Sheikh Mujibur Rahman

edit

FAR commentary

edit

Notified WikiProject Bangladesh, WikiProject Biography, and Ragib, who seems to be the only top contributor active.

I believe the article fails primarily on 1(c). There's far too large of a reliance on tertiary sources, and the article is lacking in its use of scholarly sources. In addition, there are paragraphs that are entirely unsourced.

A few comments about references:

Refs 1 and 3 are originally sourced to: “POET OF POLITICS, FATHER OF THE NATION BANGABANDHU SHEIKH MUJIBUR RAHMAN Published by Father of the Nation Bangabandhu sheikh Mujibur Rahman Memorial Trust, Bangabandhu Bhaban, Road-32, Dhanmondi R/A, Dhaka-1205, Bangladesh.” Um, perhaps not the most reliable source, considering their close association with the subject of this article.

Ref. 9 relies on a primary source – the telegram sent by Archer Blood detailing the atrocities he had witnessed in Bangladesh. This ref is used to source the following text: “The Pakistani army's campaign to restore order soon degenerated into a rampage of terror and bloodshed.” I have issue with the usage of a primary source to reference a potentially inflammatory statement. Instead, it should be cited to a few independent scholarly works.

Refs 16, 18 and 23 are broken – could not find the original source during a quick Google search. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 22:51, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The process of replacing and adding sources have began. Aditya(talk • contribs) 15:00, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Request Can you, please, {{fact}} tag the parts that need an inline cite? I may be too blind to locate them on my own. Aditya(talk • contribs) 17:38, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Will do. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 18:22, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fact tags added. Please be mindful of the necessity for high-quality sources to satisfy criterion 1c. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 20:13, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Images

FARC commentary

edit
Suggested FA criteria concern is citations, copyright. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 00:28, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed by YellowAssessmentMonkey 00:30, 12 May 2009 [37].

Calvin and Hobbes

edit

FAR commentary

edit

This article was promoted in 2004 and last reviewed in 2005. That's a long time ago. I feel this article no longer meets the Featured Article criteria. Over half of the article ("Recurring Subject Matter") is mostly trivia. Additionally, much of the sourcing is poorly done, and there are many parts that need referenced in the first place. For those reasons I'm opening this review. Grsz11 22:45, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Images
  • Eleven fair-use images is too many. They should be used to illustrate the characterisation of the main protagonists or how the drawing-style of the artist developed, i.e. the actual artwork, rather than be decorative. I suggest removing two out of the three covers, the two small pictures of Calvin and Hobbes (instead use "Calvin (left) and Hobbes (right)" for the main image), and one of the pictures of Rosalyn (it is only necessary to depict the character once). DrKiernan (talk) 14:56, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm willing to put in work that's felt needed. Hiding T 17:18, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I imagine it might be possible to get one fair use image that includes many of the main characters, if the numbers are a problem.--Patrick «» 01:01, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not numbers that are the problem; I suppose someone might object to 20 fair use images since we're supposed to be a free encyclopedia, but if they all fly by WP:NFCC it's technically fine. But all the images right now are used solely for identification and illustration, which doesn't jive with image policy. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 03:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just ran into this FAR as well. Please feel free to tag issues in the article, or give me a to-do list here, and I'll see what I can do. I have access to a couple of repositories with which statements can be sourced, as well as two of the commentary-bearing works (tenth and complete). Jclemens (talk) 22:02, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

edit
Suggested FA criteria concern is citations, trivia, image copyrights. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 00:30, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist as current. If there were just image issues I'd just deal with it, but there's mounds of trivia that need to be trimmed, minutiae that detract from the article if someone is not familiar with the subject, and an over-reliance on primary sources. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 03:00, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • YellowMonkey's referring to the change in criteria which requires high-quality sources, not images. Basically all the images save File:Calvin and Hobbes Original.png fail to meet WP:NFCC. There's issues with original research, for example describing bonus content in the treasuries as easter eggs, and entirely unreferenced sections on the minutiae of the strip (basically the running gags). I would say a good rule is if you can't find a secondary source for a bit of the in-universe content, scrap the section (I started with the blatant ones, but plenty of trimming could continue.) Finally, there's an over-reliance on simply citing the strip, which smacks of original research and synthesis as well. Some of the other sources (for example, [38] is patently a bad source.) I'm also concerned about a lack of out-of-universe depth; are you really telling me there's no sort of academic commentary of the subject? --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 12:15, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed by YellowAssessmentMonkey 00:30, 12 May 2009 [39].

Prostate cancer

edit

FAR commetnary

edit

This article has a number of issues.

  • There is a lack of images.
  • The prose dose not flow very well ( "and other symptoms" "South and East Asia detecting less frequently than in Europe")
  • Lack of depth of some section ( no discussion of numerical comparison of rates of occurrence and mortality world wide in the epidemiology section )
  • Ref need a lot of work ( no PMID for 145, 146, 148, 149 and others )
  • Issues with formatting of numbers (eg almost 9 years )
  • There is an article on Prostate cancer screening but the main article still describes studies in detail. Not encyclopedic as does not summarize.
  • Does this belong in the epidemiology section? "Many factors, including genetics and diet, have been implicated in the development of prostate cancer. The Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial found that finasteride reduces the incidence of prostate cancer rate by 30%. There had been a controversy about this also increasing the risk of more aggressive cancers, but more recent research showed this was not the case.[143][45]"
The significance of this is questionable: Uptodate says:

There was a 25 percent decrease in the incidence of prostate cancer in men assigned to finasteride (803 of 4368 [18.4 percent] versus 1147 of 4692 [24.4 percent] with placebo). The magnitude of the risk reduction did not differ according to PSA level, age, race/ethnicity, or family history of prostate cancer.

Despite the overall decrease in cases of prostate cancer among those receiving finasteride, both the absolute number and proportion of more aggressive prostate cancers (ie, Gleason score ≥7) were significantly higher in the finasteride group (280 of 757 [37 percent] versus 237 of the 1068 [22 percent] in the placebo group). However, 98 percent of tumors were T1 or T2 in both groups, and only five men in each group died of prostate cancer.

Treatment was well tolerated. Finasteride increased sexual dysfunction only slightly by six months after randomization compared to placebo, and its impact diminished over time [12]. Urinary symptoms were less common in the finasteride group (frequency or urgency, 12.9 versus 15.6 percent with placebo, urinary retention, 4.2 versus 6.3 percent, need for transurethral resection of the prostate, 1.0 versus 1.9 percent) [11].

  • This article needs more than just cosmetic fixes.

--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:48, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some use of primary sources (see WP:MEDRS), sentence fragments, short stubby sections, needs better organization to conform to WP:MEDMOS, but the article looks salvageable. If some of the doctors get involved on the medical information, I'll help with cleanup. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:07, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll give you hand cleaning this up over the next few days. Recommend cross-posting to WT:MED if you haven't already done so. If we can get some discussing going about which sources are particularly dubious, I'll set about going through PubMed for some alternatives. --—Cyclonenim | Chat  22:11, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

edit
Suggested FA criteria concern is citations, prose, structure, stubby sections/1-line paragraphs. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 00:35, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed by YellowAssessmentMonkey 00:30, 12 May 2009 [40].

Enigma machine

edit

FAR commentary

edit

FA from 2004, referencing/1c issues, lede doesn't adequately summarize article, there is some WP:OR, and could use an overall reassessment for copyediting/flow. Cirt (talk) 07:42, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notified: User talk:Johnleemk, User talk:Matt Crypto, User talk:Ww, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Germany, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cryptography, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history. Cirt (talk) 07:47, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My current evaluation of the article is that it has accumulated a good bit of cruft, mostly grammar infelicities, such as verb tense conflicts. I've made a preliminary edit pass over the first sections of the article which should help with 'flow'. The rest of the article will need a similar pass, at minimum.
Well, on looking again, it seems that the edit was committed to some other Wikipedia in the sky. So I've re-edited those sections, and checked and this time WP has acknowledged them. Sigh...
As for OR, I don't think there's much of an issue here. Cryptography, certainly government crypto, is shrouded in secrecy, and so enthusiastic (and crypto innocent) fact and citation taggers can have a veritable field day. Most such articles will necessarily have a higher reasonable inference proportion than other articles, and nothing can be done about that. I think making clear what is sourced and what is fair inference is adequate warning for our Gentle Readers and for anyone vetting WP for 'reliability'. What exactly is 'fair inference' might become the subject of some discussion, of course. In the instant case, fortunately, there is a vast amount of information available (at least in comparison to the usual government crypto articles) and so this article can be, and is, much better sourced and referenced. I think adequately. This issue should not affect the FAR.
I will attempt to finish my editing pass in the next few days. Others should feel free to jump in. ww (talk) 09:10, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I noticed something. The further reading section has many books, even some by authors used elsewhere (Ulbricht, Heinz is one), which maybe should be used to source the large swaths of unreferenced content? The Wurdalak (talk) 03:48, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Images

FARC commentary

edit
Suggested FA criteria concern is citations, image copyrights. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 00:58, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed by YellowAssessmentMonkey 00:30, 12 May 2009 [41].

Ben Gurion International Airport

edit

Review commentary

edit
Notified: WP Tel Aviv, WP Aviation, WP Israel, Flymeoutofhere, Cccc3333

This article obviously has many issues which have developed since it first got FA status. There are huge unsourced chunks of the article, baffling sentences such as "Grade 2 is shared by such countries as India and Thailand (Wrong Information: India and Thailand both share Grade 1 [6]).[citation needed]" and sections that should be prose rather than lists. My main concerns are the references and these factual oddities. I don't think the article would even scrape in as a GA. This article needs serious attention to stay a featured article. MvjsTalking 10:56, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi can you post the FAR notifications at the top please? Thanks YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 04:59, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will help. The Wurdulak (talk) 20:34, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Grades are for the aviation safety. There has to be something about its avaiation safety going down. Can't we say more about avaiation safety and grades? The Wurdalak (talk) 15:36, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd say "safety rating" because I read "The FAA cited "severe security shortcomings in Israel's Civil Aviation Authority" and a range of security defects at Ben Gurion International Airport as its reason for the downgrade of the safety rating. Aviation experts have warned that the FAA's lowering of Israel's security ranking would adversely affect the image of Israel-based airlines in the US and Europe, as well as their profitability." The Wurdalak (talk) 15:55, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    A survey by UK airline airport rating company Skytrax listed Ben Gurion as the best airport in the Middle East, ahead of airports in Bahrain and Doha. The survey looked at the quality and range of services, however, it did not address issues relating to flight and airport safety. Ben Gurion Airport has faced withering criticism of late over its safety record. A Knesset committee approved a series of measures to improve safety at the airport, chief of which is the building of a new control tower. The Wurdalak (talk) 16:04, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    To put in context in Time magazine in 2001 it says "Ben Gurion Airport, near Tel Aviv, Israel's only international airport, has an enviable record." The Wurdalak (talk) 16:06, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The AP's said "The directors, representing airports from California to Florida, inspected at the security arrangements at Ben Gurion International Airport near Tel Aviv, where safety concerns affect the design of everything from windows to trash bins. No successful hijacking has occurred on a plane leaving the airport, and no attack has taken place inside the terminal since the 1970s, although Israel and planes entering and leaving the country are prime targets for Islamic extremists." The Wurdalak (talk) 16:08, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    One article in the Jerusalem Post is all about Ben Gurion airport. "Stereotyping security" has a lot about people feeling harassed by the measures taken for Ben Gurion's aviation safety. The Wurdalak (talk) 16:12, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    So I think Security should be explored in more detail. One of the most important aspects of the airport is its exceptional security. The fact that there have been some recent problems needs to have a context. In the 1970s it had problems too. The Wurdalak (talk) 23:09, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    In 1975 a bomb plot at Ben Gurion Int'l airport was foiled. Read "Bomb plot foiled at Ben Gurion airport" by Moshe Brilliant, The Times, Saturday, July 19, 1975.The Wurdalak (talk) 00:07, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Images

FARC commentary

edit
Suggested FA criteria concern is citations and coverage. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 02:41, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist, per FA criteria concerns, referencing issues, and image issues as noted above. Cirt (talk) 08:20, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist This needs a lot of work. Most problematic are the many bits without citations, especially the 'Scheduled Route Development and Changes' section (which is proseline, too) and the 'Airlines and destinations' section, which needs to meet WP:NOTDIR. There are also MOS/layout problems, including: extremely repetitive wikilinks (El Al is linked 12 times); date formatting errors (inconsistent style); redundant See also links (all but 1 are already linked in the article); and citation formatting errors (publications should be in italics). Maralia (talk) 02:34, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist per nom. Not to mention WP:CRYSTAL for Scheduled Route Development and Changes which has no references. I have no idea on the area, so unless somebody wants to work on it, I'll have to agree with the Delist arguments --Arnzy (talk · contribs) 10:41, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed by YellowAssessmentMonkey 01:34, 4 May 2009 [42].

Knights of Columbus

edit

Review commentary

edit
FAC nominator notified but is on wikibreak. WikiProjects Catholicism and Secret Societies notified.

Reliability/neutrality issues raised at Talk:Knights of Columbus#Currently lacks sources and Featured articles/Cleanup listing. DrKiernan (talk) 08:34, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I am directly CoI'd from editing the article, but I can provide any primary sources needed or verification on any items that need to be cited. Anyone interested in improving the page can drop me a message or send me an email with specific requests. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:21, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove - The criticism section needs to be more developed. In particular, I am aware from extensive reading of primary sources that the Knights of Columbus experienced intense criticism from Protestants in the early 1900s. There is nothing mentioned in this article about it or the issues they incurred it over. If this can be fixed with a source, I will drop my criticism.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 21:36, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This sound more like a reason for you to personally edit the article and add a valid source for what you personally think needs added, not a reason to remove an article for FA. Marauder40 (talk) 19:33, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't read much about the Knights of Columbus in secondary or tertiary sources, only some in primary sources. Therefore I can't add pre-1950 criticisms myself. It doesn't make sense for an institution that has existed since 1882 to only have criticism of it since 1950. Given what I've seen in primary sources, I find it hard to believe it isn't in any secondary source. For example, in the early 1900s there was a bill put onto the floor of the house that would have banned certian Protestant religious publications from the USPS (like with pornography in that day). I believe the KoC were supporters of this bill. I am not asking for any specific thing, but given the amount of controversy between Catholics and Protestants in America at the time, there had to be a role that the KoC played in it somewhere.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 22:47, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Images
I fixed the first issue. As for the fair-use rationale for the third issue, I assume the person that put up the picture was assuming fair use due to the following statement on the page above the link supplied "Clip art can be downloaded and used in newsletters, on Web sites and on program and event promotions." Technically Wiki is a website and fits within the policy but it is unclear whether KoC meant their own web sites or any web-site. Marauder40 (talk) 16:02, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

edit
Suggested FA criteria concern is citations and NPOV. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 02:43, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist, per FA criteria concerns, referencing issues, and image issues as noted above. Cirt (talk) 08:21, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Not enough "problems" to remove from FA. On the claim of unreferenced entries there are only two unreferenced entries in the entire article. Both of which are "criticisms" that needed to be backed up or removed. They can easily be removed, but the benefit of the doubt was given to the person that put the info up to either back up their claim or the info would be removed (and they have now been removed.) On the issue of a large number of references coming from one book, that happens. There haven't been too many books written about this particular organization from secondary sources and using to many from primary sources would violate other policies. As for the image issues there are only two, one requires input from the person that posted it, the other is questionable about whether it can be used or not based on the claim on the originating site. Worst case it can easily be deleted. Marauder40 (talk) 13:46, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist, on the basis of what YellowMonkey noted and on the lack of pre-1950 criticism (specifically, during the era controversy between a generally anti-Catholic Protestantism and a pre-Vatican II Catholicism).--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 22:58, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed by YellowAssessmentMonkey 01:34, 4 May 2009 [43].

The Boondock Saints

edit

Review commentary

edit
Notified: WP:FILMS, Wiki alf, KnowledgeOfSelf

An overly-long plot comprises most of the article, and is convoluted and hard to follow. 1b/c concerns: the article relies exclusively on web sites, some with questionable reliability, and has a rather poor development and release sections. MoS quibbles include over-reliance on blocked quotes stacked on each other. --Der Wohltempierte Fuchs (talk) 20:59, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I saw you post this FAR. I haven't really looked at the page, beyond that horribly, ridiculously long plot. What I did was, I went back to the original FA and copied the plot that was there and pasted that into the current page. I cannot vouch for the writing of that plot beyond the fact that it is considerably shorter.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:16, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bignole's revert to the plot at the time of the original Featured Article nomination is a good start. Also, since the sequel is in post-production, I imagine a separate article could be created to separate what amounts to a pretty ugly "Sequel" section from the main topic. "Cast" section could do without the wikitable since it's simpler to do a simple list for information in just two columns. (Frees it up for any real-world context that could be added about each actor and their role, too!) Production, release, and reception sections also leave a lot to be desired in terms of style and content... definitely below Good Article standards. As far as Featured Articles go, this is pretty embarrassing. I'll check film databases to see if there are any usable references in print that reflects the need to rework content in a big way. —Erik (talk • contrib) 21:42, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have access to LexisNexis, so can also check if someone is willing to use the sources found. I've pulled eight reliable sources so far, some on the sequel (more than enough RS to split, I think), some production stuff, reviews of overnight, review of the film, and one academic paper discussing the film's themes. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:05, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd saw the article also suffers from a serious excess of broken out quotes. Goes against the general article guidelines, and makes for really distracting reading. The lead doesn't appear to really summarize the article, from its length, content, and excessive number of citations. I don't see how the DVD cover meets WP:NONFREE as it does not significantly increase one's understanding of the topic, nor is the cover discussed at all. Agree that the Rotten Tomatoes ratings should be removed, and the reception section should be easily fleshed out with critical commentary. I'd saw drop the Cast section all together, since its already incorporated into the plot. Per WP:MOSFILM, if its in the plot and no actual casting information is available, doesn't need it. Also second sequel either being split to its own article, or seriously trimmed. A lot of what is there is pretty irrelevant trivia. IMDB changing its status can't even be sourced to an RS, the posting of various YouTube videos doesn't require a paragraph, and it is organized almost like a timeline. I also see a few unsourced statements that need axing or sourcing throughout. All that said, I suspect that with some dedicated work, this could retain FA before the FAR period is up.-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:44, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hello, I worked on the article a little bit today. I created the sequel's article Boondock Saints II: All Saints Day and exported the "Sequel" section's content there. I rendered the "Cast" section into a simple list and cleaned up the link farm in the "External links" section. I uploaded a new version of the poster for a better file name and to have the white border trimmed. Film infobox was replaced by a cleaner version, and I applied best practices in filling out the new one (such as XML coding). I also provided some development background to "Production", though I passed over a lot of details about Duffy himself. If anyone wants to work on his article, the first few citations are pretty biographical (since it was a big deal for someone like him to be contracted despite no experience). I feel like I have only begun to scratch the surface, though... it seems clear at this point that no serious research was done with this article. There is likely more information locked up in newspapers and magazine articles. If various editors want to collaborate to rescue this Featured Article, I'd be happy to participate. Otherwise, though, I am not too eager to work on this topic on my own and would rather pursue demotion if no group work will take place. —Erik (talk • contrib) 15:43, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This one isn't ready for the main page. I may help out if I can. It's been a while since I watched this movie. I'm initially reluctant to see this as a main page article but I see that there are lots of weird ones on the main page already. The Wurdulak (talk) 16:40, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Featured Articles do not necessarily have to appear on the main page. Because an article is a Featured Article, it can qualify to appear on the main page, but it may not happen. See the requests page... I think that if someone requested it for the main page, it would not find much support at all. —Erik (talk • contrib) 16:51, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) Featured Articles are not necessarily written to be displayed on the main page, though I am sure that is a primary goal in writing them. Articles with this status are identified as such throughout Wikipedia and within the related WikiProjects, and they have gold stars to show readers that the article is at the highest quality. Here, we're reviewing to see if this Featured Article is still (or has ever been) at this quality. It does not seem to be the case right now, but if major improvements are made within the time frame of the review, the article can maintain its status and possibly be placed on the main page. I'm just not sure how much interest there is to rescue this article. —Erik (talk • contrib) 19:55, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speculation is addressed by R.J:

Yet Smith and Montana also try to finger Harvey Weinstein as the agent of Duffy's destruction, pulling in Washington Post reporter Sharon Waxman to theorize that Duffy's soured relationship with the Miramax honcho scared distributors away from The Boondock Saints. That's a plausible theory, but Smith and Montana never acknowledge the equally plausible explanation given by Duffy on the DVD, that the Columbine High School massacre, which took place three weeks before the Cannes festival, created a backlash against hyperviolent action movies. Most baffling of all is an incident recorded at the Palm Springs International Film Festival: standing outside a restaurant, Duffy is nearly hit by a car that has jumped the curb, and an intertitle reports, "Troy fled his apartment and armed himself." Weinstein may have a long history of personal vendettas, but surely he has better things to do than dispatch an assassin to Palm Springs to finish off a two-bit director. As this movie proves, Duffy is more than capable of finishing himself off.

http://www.chicagoreader.com/movies/archives/2004/1104/041119.html

When I saw the documentary Overnight I thought it was hard to believe that the Weinstein brothers were out to get Duffy. The Wurdalak (talk) 23:22, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

edit
Suggested FA criteria concern is citation quality and MOS. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 02:40, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/archive/May_2009&oldid=765745222"