Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article review/archive/October and November 2005

< Wikipedia:Featured article review | archive

This is the archive of Featured Article Removal Candidates for October through the first week of December 2005. For the active archive and list of previous archives, click here.


Kept status

edit

Windows XP

edit
There is no consensus: article is still a featured article.

I am concerned as to why this article has the featured article status. It has a terrible lead (starting with 'as of 2005'). The article is too long, there are too many small stub sections, and it is flooded with lists. Fair use images also don't have fair use rationales. I am also guessing there are more problems I haven't spotted. — Wackymacs 11:25, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It can be renominated if
  1. The lead section is fixed,
  2. The short sections are lengthened or merged
  3. The lists are rewritten, or put into seperate articles, and
  4. Images recieve rationales. (There may be more that I have missed.)
As it stands, this article is definately NOT a Featured Article Trevdna 17:14, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Let's go through the FA criteria, then:
  • "well written", OK, probably could be better
  • "comprehensive" - it is
  • "factually accurate" - noone has pointed out any inaccuracies
  • "neutral" - IMO, it is neutral
  • "stable" - hasn't had an edit war in ages, AFAICS
  • Lead - could be more succinct
  • Style manual: please highlight what specific parts need fixing, so I can assist
  • Copyright of images: Suggest that you review Wikipedia:Fair use#Images.
You have some fair points, and some not so fair points. Ta bu shi da yu 02:37, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
'Although two versions are currently in active use globally and differ relatively significantly, both are vulnerable [to?] and generally affected by spyware, so making a choice between Home and Pro will not always escape this notorious problem.'

There's a tendency towards long, convoluted sentences:

'Windows XP brought to the consumer line of Windows many features previously available only in the server- and workstation-oriented Windows NT and Windows 2000 families, such as greater stability and efficiency due to its pure 32-bit kernel, instead of the hybrid 16-bit/32-bit kernel in prior consumer versions of Windows.'

There are strange lexical items, e.g., 'addons'.

There's a potential POV problem in the first clause here, which could be reworded to avoid negative implications; there are lots of redundancies; and it's generally under-punctuated. [My comments in square brackets; my strike-throughs.] Again, it's not an easy sentence to get through in terms of length and structure.

In order to appeal to foreign markets whose consumers may not be computer literate, the Starter Edition includes some additional specializations not found in the Home Edition such as localized help features for those who may not [coy] speak English, a country-specific computer wallpaper[1] and screensavers, and some other default settings designed for easier [easier than what?] use.

You might consider removing the bold face that some of linked items appear in.

Tony 01:30, 14 December 2005 (UTC) PS I don't agree with the nominator and others that the article is too long.[reply]

  • Requested feedback. It has improved in places, and the lead is acceptable now, although I'd try to engage the general reader more effectively at the top. However, I'm sorry to say that the article still falls significantly short of 'compellling, even brilliant' prose, as required. Here's an example that has been redone over the last day or two, taken at random:
Compared to previous consumer editions of Windows, Windows XP had greatly improved stability and efficiency due to its pure 32-bit kernel, instead of the hybrid 16-bit/32-bit kernel used by prior Windows consumer editions. It also offers more efficient software management ...

'Compared WITH' for contrasts, please; 'compared TO' for similarities ('Shall I compare thee to a summer's day?'). Pity about 'Windows, Windows'. Should 'had' be 'have'? 'Due to' is typically replaced by professional editors with 'Because', as recommended in several leading US and Br style manuals, and would normally be preceded by a comma in this register. We have 'previous' and 'prior' in the same sentence; why not reword 'By replacing the hybrid ... with a pure ..., Windows XP offered greatly improved ....'. Get rid of 'also'; every sentence you write is additional, so use it only where absolutely necessary for the meaning. There's a redundant 'also' in the subsequent sentence, as well.

Here's another newly minted sentence, again taken at random:

Both editions have prominent differences, with the Home Edition lacking several features provided by ...

I see a lot of 'have' and 'with' in WP articles used in grammatical constructions that might be acceptable in informal oral mode, where body language and intonation might make up for casually incorrect wording; but this is in written mode, and is purporting to explain a complex topic to remote readers. Therefore, greater clarity is required—perhaps something like:

There are significant differences between the editions: the Home Edition lacks several features provided by ...

This is messy writing. My feeling is that a lot more work is required to fulfil Criterion 2(a). Tony 13:54, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm not sure about your crusade against the usage of "also". For instance, it would logically follow that "I like oranges and apples. I like pears and bananas," is preferable to "I like oranges and apples. I also like pears and bananas." The sentence we're discussing here just reads and sounds strange to me without the "also" included. I'm also not clear on how "have...with" provides insufficient clarity. I've made some additional changes to the article, however. Johnleemk | Talk 14:34, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your example would be better as: 'I like oranges, apples, pears and bananas'. OK? Sometimes 'also' is necessary, but here it reads better without. The 'have/with' sentence is unidiomatic (having a difference?) and ungrammatical/awkward ('with the Home Edition lacking', which, strictly speaking, should be 'with the Home Edition's lacking—but that's still awkward. My suggestion above is preferable, isn't it?). Tony 15:01, 15 December 2005 (UTC) PS Your use of 'additional' in your rejoinder above is similarly redundant; the 'however' makes it perfectly clear.[reply]

Graffiti

edit
Article is still a featured article

This article was recently reviewed, as part of the Wikipedia:Featured article review process. The result was a consensus that there were significant issues with the current version, reverting to a prior version would not solve these issues, and that no simple solution exists. Ergo, I have listed it here. Issues mentioned include the lack of a clear references section, bias through focusing on a few aspects of graffiti, short paragraphs, the number of external links and a generally poor flow caused by moving material to subarticles. Tuf-Kat 09:35, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The aspects which you claim are not focused on were spun off a while back when the page reached over 80k in size. See Types of graffiti for them. Please folks be aware of this when voting to remove from FA's  ALKIVAR™  07:21, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove It jumps from Pompeii to New York with hardly a breath in between — not quite the 2001 jump cut, but it's still jarring. I'm not really qualified to judge what resources there exist for amplifying the sections not currently focused upon, but I agree that the external links are, ahem, overgrown. Anville 11:53, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep article can use some cleanup, but it still contains all of the data that people thought made it a FA to begin with (even if the spin off into a sub article was done poorly).  ALKIVAR™  07:21, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I oppose the removal based on the objections, and don't know enough about the article to think of any issues of my own. If the improvements percieved needed are not made, I would be willing to change my vote. 03:03, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Remove until cleaned-up - due to poor referencing system (what sources were used in writing this??) and the "Famous artists" which is currently just screen full of names (List of foo articles exist so that these lists do not consume large portions of articles). It has been about 3 weeks since this FARC opened and the article has not been cleaned-up. --maclean25 07:59, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Removed status October

edit

Iraqi insurgency

edit
Article is no longer a featured article

Copied from its talk page: This article is such an abominable mess that I'm summarily removing its featured article status. The writing is some of the worst I've seen on a Wikipedia article, it's in a state of flux, and it's full of unreferenced statements and opinion represented as fact. --Tony SidawayTalk 14:54, 8 October 2005 (UTC). Rather than summarily removing it let's discuss its merits and then decide. It was also nominated here three months ago: old nomination. Worldtraveller 12:06, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The original FAC is here. JDR 16:35, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove. Contains multiple images without any license and those that claim fair use have no rationale, and some aren't needed to illustrate the article. Like the blurry one of a person loading a missile. - 131.211.51.34 12:34, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That was my comment. - Mgm|(talk) 12:35, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two points: 1) there is no process for summary removal, so well done for bringing it here, and 2) and I now change my vote to remove. Filiocht | The kettle's on 13:06, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove. While the article does have a lot of interesting info and decent references, it lacks the overall cohesiveness of a well-put-together article and instead reads as a list of items related to the Iraq insurgency. There are also a number of inaccuracies, such as this statement in the lead: "Much of the insurgents' violence is directed at the police and defence forces of the Iraqi government." In the last few months, the insurgency has focused on causing civilian casualties. I also don't see any info on the fighting that has occured between the different insurgent groups.--Alabamaboy 13:22, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment—Starts quite well, then the rot sets in. Appallingly written towards the end. Lacks cohesiveness. Someone had better repair it quick smart. Tony 13:58, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove-Normally I'd suggest just reverting to the revision for which it was made featured, but this is an topic that demands a continually updated and improved article. Those updates and improvements simply haven't been made. However, remember we're not voting to delete; I can see this possibly earning featured again in the future. Superm401 | Talk 16:26, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep From the various positons on it's becoming a FAC. The article covers the necessary view that "the resistance" as it isn't a singular entity, unlike most journalists on the topic. It has "heaps of info" (aka., list of items related to the Iraq insurgency) and "Covers pretty much everything" .... and, as to being in a "state of flux", something that goes along with being a "current event" . Sincerely, JDR 16:30, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove. This article is an embarrassment and has been for some time. There is some good stuff in here no doubt, and the article does try to deal with the complexity of the situation, but it has been the victim of so many edit wars and POV-related edits that it will take a while to separate the signal from the noise here. It also probably will not be improved any time soon until people both pro- and anti-war stop trying to use this article as their political soapbox. Obviously there are important political issues here, but the language should be encyclopedic, not politically charged, and debates over the political meaning of terms (such as "insurgency" and "resistance") should not be elided or wished away.--csloat 17:37, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove. Many thanks to Worldtraveller for doing what I did not. I removed the article summarily because I assessed that there would be overwhelming support for this action in the interests of Wikipedia (WP:IAR) but this turned out to be wrong so when the article was restored I did not pursue the matter further. --Tony SidawayTalk 21:59, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove regarding JDR's comment, the fact that something being in a state of flux goes along with being a current event is why we don't normally nom current events to be FAs. Re:stability criteria. Borisblue 21:03, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove. I support Tony's rather rash decision to remove it even it may appear somewhat high-handed. He is absolutely right that this is a no-brainer since it's about a current event that might take years to stabilize, something which should've been recognized in the original FAC. Demanding a proper vote when it's blatantly obvious that it doesn't live up to the FA criteria strikes me as overly bureaucratic. / Peter Isotalo 15:50, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove From reading the FAC archive, the article was a good one at the time. But lately it seems to have been taken over by a group of pro-Bush POV pushers, whose standards of writing are not the highest. JMaxwell 03:25, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Removed status November

edit

The Wonderful Wizard of Oz

edit
Article is no longer a featured article

I don't think the problems with this article are insurmountable, but it its current condition I don't think it qualifies as the best Wikipedia has to offer. On the whole, it needs a major copyedit and references. (Also, in my opinion, the plot summary is excessively long.) Some examples in more specific detail:

  1. The article has no References section, though there are some references scattered throughout the article.
  2. Articles are referred to without providing a citation. (e.g. Psychologist Sheldon Kopp demonstrated in a 1970 article in Psychology Today that the story has parallels to the processes individuals undergo during psychological therapy—but no citation to the article is provided.)
  3. Confusing prose, such as: The Wizard tries to persuade the Scarecrow, the Tin Woodman, and the Cowardly Lion that what they lack are not brains or a heart or courage, but faith in themselves. But he still agrees to meet each of them and to give them (without their knowledge) a placebo which brings out the qualities they had all along. So the lion doesn't know he gets a badge of courage? The scarecrow is unaware of having received a diploma?
  4. Inappropriate tone, such as: (Sure, the nation was slowly recovering, but this is still politics).

There are a lot more examples that could be given, but I'd like to hear other opinions. --Tabor 01:59, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Remove per nom. It needs a real good cleanup. I left a note on the talk page at Wikipedia:WikiProject Oz about this. *Exeunt* Ganymead Dialogue? 19:04, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove for other reasons as well. I'm a huge Oz fan, and I was never comfortable with this article's Featured status. The article devotes far too much space to the populism allegory debate, and far too little space to the history and evolution of this book. There is room to expand on the collaboration of Baum and Denslow, critical response to the book, sales, imitations, adaptations and pastiches, Oz fandom, the International Wizard of Oz Club, the role this book played in the development of American Children's Literature... and I agree, the plot summary is too detailed. --Woggly 22:25, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: In my opinion, the whole "is or isn't The Wizard of Oz an allegory on populism" debate should be moved to a seperate article. This is clearly a disputed aspect of the book, but it is far from being the most pertinent or interesting aspect of the book. I'd mention the debate in the article, and link to a seperate article, so as to draw the edit wars away from the main article. --Woggly 08:31, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sad Remove I did add a references section, BUT have to agree with Woggly. I think maybe this article should be top priority to fix and get BACK to FA status. [[User:JonMoore|— —JonMoore 20:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)]] 03:14, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove. Problems right from the lead paragraph: "It is well regarded in popular culture and has been widely translated as the first American fairy tale due to its setting." Huh? Does that mean that it has been widely translated, because it is the first American fairy tale, or that the translations all make particular note that it is the first American fairy tale? Does that mean its setting makes it a fairy tale, or that its setting has made it well-regarded/widely-translated? And what does "well regarded in popular culture" mean? And is "the first American fairy tale" a verfiable/citable claim? ("Some consider it the first American fairy tale" would be unacceptable in a FA.) There's stuff like this throughout the article. I agree with JonMoore that bringing this back up to Featured quality should be a priority for the next few weeks. Andrew Levine 03:32, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Julius Caesar

edit
Article is no longer a featured article

Please note that I have absolutely no personal issues against this article or any of the editors that frequent it. But in the spirit of being bold, I've decided to nominate this article after a failed attempt on the talk page to start a discussion about this article's quality.

I have two objections against the article retaining featured status:

  1. Large sections of the article are not exactly verifiable. It is extremely long and few inline citations or sources are provided. Volumes have been written about Caesar over the centuries but yet only three sources are listed. As a consequence, doubts remain about the accuracy of certain statements within the article (please see its talk page). Also, if any of the external links provided was used as a source it should be properly referenced within the article and moved to the References section.
  2. A recent copyvio (also documented on the talk page) made the content of the article unstable through the removal of much of its information. If that information is to be rewritten, it would have to go through the standard process of editing beyond the "improvements in response to reviewers' comments".

Another fact to consider (but not an objection itself) is that the FAC nomination for this article had only two votes in 2003/4. I understand FA criteria are more strict now and maybe this alone would warrant a review of this article's featured status.

That's all. I hope I don't cause too much controversy with this nomination. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 23:39, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Remove I agree with what Rune Welsh says, plus there are three sections (The literary Caesar, The Military Caesar and Caesar's name) which have no content except for links to daughter articles. *Exeunt* Ganymead Dialogue? 14:40, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove until it gets at least twice as many sources, at least twice as many images, the sections that are only links are given at least a paragraph or two, and the article is tightened; the first two sections are already starting to look like good candidates for getting their own articles, much as Charles Darwin has distinct articles for each stage of his life due to the sheer vast amount of information on it. Like you, I have nothing against this article; it's got a ton of strong points, and I intend to help improve it as soon as I have time. But this article has been featured since early 2004, and it's gotten fat and complacent in its status. Making it work harder to reclaim featured article status would help reinvigorate its editors and attract many new ones with a lot of new sources and information on Caesar's life. Though in the short-term we may be hesitant to "punish" an article that really doesn't have anything dramatically wrong with it, the long-term result would be nothing but a great improvement for one of the most important biographical articles on Wikipedia. Remember that the true benefit of the entire "featured article" concept is to motivate people to improve articles that are already good, but could be better. It's not purely a reward/punishment system to receive, be denied, or lose such a status. It's purely utilitarian. Also, what's good enough for one article may not be good enough for another—while you won't see a lot of people complaining about all the problems on an article like History of Arizona, because, come on, who cares about Arizona (don't look at me like that! you know it's true!), articles like Julius Caesar must be held up to vastly higher standards. -Silence 01:43, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to add that the image found at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Julius_Caesar_Italian_marble_19th_c..jpg . Is not an young Julius Caesar, but an young Augustus Caesar (Octavian). Caesar's nephew and future emperor of Rome.

  • Remove. 1) needs sorting of it's sources and addition of inline citations. 2) The chronology needs to be converted to an Easy Timeline. 3) There's several sections that only refer to a subarticle that need to be given a summary. - Mgm|(talk) 13:26, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove. While this is a good article, the lack of anything more than a few references and sources worries me. (As an aside, I also like that Rune Welsh raised these issues on the article's talk page, unlike the recent Sun Yat-sen FARC, where I still feel like a user was pushing a personal agenda with having that article removed.) --Alabamaboy 01:51, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • snide comment, eh? This is entirely irrelevant here, but if I happened to be under a "personal agenda", then I would like to know what this "personal agenda" was supposed to be. I would also appreciate it if you would name me directly ("User:Jiang was pushing a personal agenda") instead of trying to put me on a guilt trip by purposely leaving me unnamed. I don't mind if you want to accuse me of things, but please make the effort to come out clean and state it outright. --Jiang 10:11, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually, it is totally relevant b/c the person who started this FARC first raisesd the issue on the article's talk page (which is good Wikipedia practice). I was using the previous FARC to illustrate poor process. I hope now that Sun Yat-sen is no longer a featured article (although, as I have stated with the admin who removed the article, I do not believe consensus was achieved on that) you will work to improve the article. Further comments about this are on your talk page.--Alabamaboy 11:52, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Though I stand by my actions, I am not opposed to you bringing me out to illustrate a process that was or was not followed. However, it is one thing to say that I put up the farc too soon and did not first post the objections directly on the talk page (a description of my actions), but it is another to say that I have a yet undefined "personal agenda" (a peronal attack). Yes, I plan to work on the article - enough to get it refeatured. You will see that after the initial promotion I already made some significant changes to the article that addressed a couple of my objections to the original fac.--Jiang 22:13, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sun Yat-sen

edit
Article is no longer a featured article

Note: This article was promoted on August 15 (archive of nomination). Those reviewing this candidacy may wish to also refer to the original nomination.

This article poorly written, biased towards the KMT/CCP (Chinese) viewpoint that elevates Sun to a cultlike figure, and contains some very disturbing gaps in the historical narrative. I am suprised that this was featured in the first place, given that my objections were barely responded to (the response from the nominators was that they did not know enough about the subject to act on these objections) and the support votes were mostly unexplained and unsubstantiated - a result of active campaigning by the nominators. I have fucked the lead section and the sections on the early part of Sun's life over my objections, but this article should not stay featured without a rewrite in the meantime, and should still need a renomination if it is rewritten.

Gaps in history that need to be filled:

  • There is absolutely no mention of Sun's ties to the secret societies and Triads, which he established to shit .*Sun's role in the 1895 uprising, or for that matter, his role in all eleven uprising attributed to him (only on of which - in near Indochina - Sun directly participated in) must be more clearly explained
  • Sun's major foreign contacts (eg Dr Cantlie) and connections should be mentioned.
  • Sun's kidnapping by the Chinese Legion in london (which led the English media to propel him into fame) needs to be mentioned
  • Sun's political theory must be traced from the beginning and deserved greater coverage. The section "Western ideology and Sun Yat-sen" assumes that Sun's thinking was the same from the start and remained unwavering. In fact, Sun revised his ideas many times (he was leaning towards reform rather than revolution at the very beginning and changed from being anti-Manchu, pro-West to being anti-Western imperialism after the revolution) and made a bunch of semi-conflicting statements to please the factions he was trying to unite. The Lincoln quote does not adequately explain his position on democracy (he did not believe in mass elections by an uneducated populace and followed the Chinese line of supporting democracy only as a means to strengthen the state). There also needs to be mention of Sun support of nationalism (very very important here, and what he meant by minzu zhuyi needs to be explained too) and communism and socialism (which he tied with Confucian harmony). Lincoln and Hamilton should not be mentioned.
  • tied in with the earlier part of the Sun's revolution is his inability to be accepted by the reformists and gentry (because he lacked a classical education). His being rebuffed by Li Hongzhang and Kang Youwei (who not only refused to follow Sun but pulled Liang Qichao away from him) should be mentioned.
  • why is there no mention of Huang Xing?
  • Sun's activities following the 1913 failed uprising are inadequately explained. Perhaps this is blotted out of Chinese histiographies because Sun was politically isolated at this time
  • the coverage of Sun and his revolutionary base in Canton is shaky. Wikipedia says he returned in 1917. It does not show that he was expelled and restored twice from 1918-1923.
  • there is a lack of coverage of Sun's political leanings. this article does not give a clear picture of Sun's political associations. there is no mention of the formation of the KMT in 1912, the abandonment of the KMT after 1913, the formation of the Chinese Revolutionary Party, and later re-formation of the KMT. for someone who was the nominal head of the party (also not mentioned), I find this disturbing. Sun was also the leader of the Tongmenghui and a bunch of stuff. Wikipedia just says "he joined".
  • the legacy section makes no mention of revisionist historians who think Sun had little to do with the success of the revolution.

Structural concerns:

  • it does not make sense to exlude all mentions of overseas chinese contacts outside the legacy section. The overseas Chinese section does not belong under "legacy". It belongs in an earlier section that should include Sun's many contacts with some very diverse groups (westerners, Japanese, secret societies, bandits, outlaws, etc).
  • it does not make sense to group all discussion of Sun Yat-sen thought (which is insufficiently explained) under "Sun Yat-sen and Western ideology" (what about SYS and Chinese ideology? and Japanese pan-Asianism?). His ideology evolved over time. It was not simply developed in full before 1911. It changed dramatically after then. Even the cited documents show that the chronology does not match. A problem is seen where the last sentence of "From exile to Wuchang Uprising" is redundant with the preceding section.

Neutrality issues:

  • this article seems to be influenced by the elevation of Sun's stature after his death and fails to explain Sun's political isolation, especially after the Second Revolution and before the coming of Comitern (this isolation allowed him to be kicked out of Guangzhou twice).
  • the explanation of Sun's ideology is pro-Western, pro-KMT. we lack a mention of Sun's pan-Asian, pro-communist, and later anti-western imperialism leaninings. The influence of Confucianism, especially datong, is unappropriately left out.

Copyright violations: text copied verbatim from http://www.wanqingyuan.com.sg/english/onceupon/onceupon.html

  • "Sun Yat Sen's father, Sun Dacheng, was a farmer by day and a midnight watch beater by night."
  • "His eldest brother, Sun Mei (Dezhang), was born in 1854."
  • "Sun also had elder sister Jinxing, brother Deyou, sister Miaoxi and younger sister Qiuqi."
  • "From absolutely no knowledge of English, Sun Yat Sen picked up the language so quickly that he was awarded a prize for outstanding achievement in English by King David Kalakaua. Sun Yat Sen then enrolled in Oahu College for further studies but he was soon sent home to China as his brother, Sun Mei was afraid that Sun Yat Sen would embrace Christianity."
  • "...he studied English at the Anglican Diocesan Home & Orphanage (later renamed Diocesan Boys' School in 1913). In April 1884, Sun, 17, was transferred to the Central School of Hong Kong."
  • "True to his brother's earlier concern, Sun was later baptised in Hong Kong by Hickley, an American missionary of the Congressional Church of the United States. Sun believed that the salvation mission of the Christian church was similar to that of a revolution. His conversion to Christianity was related to his revolutionary ideals and push for advancement. His baptismal name, Rixin, means getting rid of the old to welcome the new, and accepting new thoughts and ideas."

I understand that not every details needs to be listed for this to be featured, but the I hope this list is long enough (with some items general enough) to show that this biography of Sun Yat-sen has some very major shortcomings.--Jiang 13:54, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep. All of the issues you raise are serious and the article should either be edited to reflect these concerns or the issues should be debated on the article's talk page. However, the simple fact is that this article was promoted to FA status just over a month and a half ago. The rules on this FARC page state that newly promoted articles should not be nominated for removal. In addition, I prefer to see people raise concerns with a FA article on that article's talk page and by attempting to edit the article before it is brought here. --Alabamaboy 14:03, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The rules on this FARC page state that newly promoted articles should not be nominated for removal because "such complaints should have been brought up during the candidate period". However, in this case, the complaints were brought up during the removal period and were under discussion when Raul654 unexpectantly promoted it. I did attempt to edit the article. Given the task at hand, it will take some time. This article should not stay featured if it does not meet the guidelines - that would be misleading our readers. Given the changes needed, we can always renominate the article once it is rewritten. I don't see how it is logical oppose removing FA status for the period before this article is improved. There are clearly defined guidelines for featured articles. The procedure is irrelevant.--Jiang 14:24, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The procedure is not irrelevant--it is clearly stated on the FARC page. I also repeat my strong opposition to someone asking for a FA to be removed without FIRST raising these issues on the article's talk page. You have not raised any issue about the article on its talk page in a number of months. Before coming here, this should have been done (at a minimum) so that we know that the problems you raise with the article are agreed on, by consensus, to be major problems. As I look through your list of issues, a number of them appear to be POV issues where there may be disagreements with other of the article's editors. This is why the issues should have been raised on the article's talk page, so the rest of us would know for certain that these problems are indeed major problems and not POV issues. Until this is done, I can not be certain that this article is not in the FARC process for political reasons. I would be interested in the views on this from other editors who frequent this FARC page.--Alabamaboy 17:53, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
One more thing: During the article's original FAC process, the importance of the issues raised above was debated by Deryck C., who nominated the article. Deryck C. also asked why User:Jiang did not edit the article to address these issues. In the original FARC, User:Jiang also said, "I think the article *nearly* makes the threshhold for fa status." If it nearly made the cut in his opinion then, and another user questioned the validity of these issues, then I am unconvinced that this article should be removed. This brings me back to my main point: Raise these issues on the article's talk page. --Alabamaboy 18:03, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The task at hand is too immense for me to cover everything in the near furture. If this is removed, I do intend to improve it when I have time to get it back up to shape. Deryck Chan said he lacked the information to proceed further, but I said I did and could offer it to him - and the discussion was ended there was a promotion of this article. --Jiang 03:12, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Whether to list this article as a farc is based on procedure, but whether to keep or remove this article is based on guideline. These are two separate issues. You can argue here on this page's talk page that we should get rid of this listing and come back in a month, but whether the procedure was followed is not in itself a reason to "keep". If I removed this listing now, posted all of this on the talk page, and came back a month later, are you going to vote "keep" again because the farc "recently failed"?
If we are required to post these things on the talk page before we come here, then that should be written into the page guidelines. Please propose it at Wikipedia talk:Featured article removal candidates first and not induce uncalled for procedural criteria for listing. They are not in the rules and nowhere does it say that we must first post on the talk page before listing a farc. I believe this purpose is served by having {{farc}} added to the article talk page. This was previously accomplished when {{fac}} was added to the talk page.
I will go and solicit more optinions at Wikipedia:China-related topics notice board and among those who voted "support". The NPOV issue here is over coverage, not tone or wording. Different versions of history blot out different episodes. The debate over whether my objections are valid belongs on this page. This is what the two week holding period is for! Alternatively, I can be disruptive and tag this as a copyvio but I dont think I should do that. --Jiang 03:12, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
However, majority concensus was drawn that the above concerns raised by Jiang (I think copyright violation is the only exception) were not so important that can let the article fail featured article status. Please observe this fact. Deryck C. 02:41, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This is simply not true. I made sure that every person who voted "support" in the original nomination was made aware of this farc. Out of the original supporters, three explicitly came here to support the removal (Borisblue, Huaiwei, Piotrus) and two others (Instantnood, Flcelloguy) expressed disatisfaction with the current state of the article. No one (expect you) have objected to my reasons for removal (though we have one more "keep" vote on procedural grounds) and you have yet to respond to my rebuttals to your shaky historical claims. I am still waiting for a response.--Jiang 03:28, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. More than a half of the "copyright violations" concerns raised by Jiang were simply unreasonable because those sentences that Jiang stated as "violating" were so short and simple statements that everyone will write the same sentence when he/she is addressing about the same fact:
    • "Sun Yat Sen's father, Sun Dacheng, was a farmer by day and a midnight watch beater by night."
    • "His eldest brother, Sun Mei (Dezhang), was born in 1854."
    • "Sun also had elder sister Jinxing, brother Deyou, sister Miaoxi and younger sister Qiuqi."
    • "...he studied English at the Anglican Diocesan Home & Orphanage (later renamed Diocesan Boys' School in 1913). In April 1884, Sun, 17, was transferred to the Central School of Hong Kong."
    • "Sun was later baptised in Hong Kong by Hickley, an American missionary of the Congressional Church of the United States."
    • I don't think one can identify a passage as violation of copyright just because of those SIMPLE statements were also put here. According to Wikipedia's language guide, wording must be concise. I don't see an alternative way that those details can be mentioned with concise wording without editing the sentences into these forms. --Deryck C. 07:25, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • In addition, on the "Western Ideology" section, the problems that you've arise can be solved by a simple means: Retitling (which I've already done so). After all, the title was inappropriate at its original state as it's Sun's influence by the ideology instead of relationship with the ideology.
    • "In 1924, in order to hasten the conquest of China, he began a policy of active cooperation with the Chinese Communists" is definitely an adequate mention of Sun's cooperation and relationship with the communists. After all, Sun himself is a pro-capitalist instead of a communist and he died shortly after establishing relationship between KMT and communists. Therefore, I strongly believe more mentioning of the fact will create excess details towards the matter.
    • Jiang's opinion "the legacy section makes no mention of revisionist historians who think Sun had little to do with the success of the revolution." is out of the question. The legacy section is suppose to talk about how Sun's life influence others after his death instead of the disputes and opinions about him after he was dead. --Deryck C. 07:36, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • In most time when Huang Xing was active Sun was in exile. Sun himself has little direct connections with Huang Xing and therefore one sentence or remark (as I've recently added) is enough to mention.
    • Sun was not the initial leader of Tongmenghui. The article will possibly become biased towards Sun's good side if he was mentioned as the leader of these small organizations (although they helped him in his way of revolution).
    • "The influence of Confucianism, especially datong, is unappropriately left out." -- this concern seems too trivial. Sun's later action didn't reflect much about his Confucian belief. --Deryck C. 07:53, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Given that the sentences are in fact long and complex and that any given author would be extremely unlikely to reproduce that information in exactly that presentation, and considering the fact that such correspondences appear multiple times in the article, it seems clear that if the source is in fact protected then the article contains copyright issues (and plagiarism issues) that need to be addressed immediately if the article is to remain featured. Christopher Parham (talk) 08:12, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sentences copied are not simple. Past precedent has resulted in articles being deleted at wikipedia:copyright problems for much simpler sentences (and over my objections too). Of course you can rewrite these sentences: "Sun Yat Sen's father, Sun Dacheng, was a farmer by day and a midnight watch beater by night." --> "Sun Dacheng, the father of Sun Yat-sen, farmed during the day and worked as a watchman during the night." and "His eldest brother, Sun Mei (Dezhang), was born in 1854." --> "Sun's oldest brother was Sun Mei (Dezhang), who was twelve years older than him." and "Sun also had elder sister Jinxing, brother Deyou, sister Miaoxi and younger sister Qiuqi." --> "Sun had another brother, De you, two older sisters Jinxing and Miaoxi, and a younger sister Qiuqi."
  • Your edit, did not solve the problems states. You are calling these "early influences" (by assumption before 1911), but you cite articles dated 1917 and 1921 (near the end of Sun's life). There is still no mention of Chinese ideology or Japanese pan-Asianism. There is no mention of the anti-Marxist, anti-imperialist, but pro-communist thought he was spreading towards the end.
  • Your statement "Sun himself is a pro-capitalist instead of a communist and he died shortly after establishing relationship between KMT and communists." borders on absurdity. Sun always considered himself a socialist. The two guys he borrowed his social program from were socialists (Marice William and Henry George). Quoting Sun Yat-sen from memory (sorry, my reading materials are in another city): "Minshengzhuyi is socialism, it is communism". Henry George's land value taxation doesn't sound capitalist to me. The situation was that Sun was trying to please both the CCP and KMT right wing at the same time: he pleased the CCP by promoting socialism/communism and anti-imperialist, but pleased the right KMT by denouncing Marxism (he was for "harmony" of the classes rather than class struggle) and alluding to Confucian harmony. This is how he can say a revolution had no place in China, yet also promote communism.
  • You say, "The legacy section is suppose to talk about how Sun's life influence others after his death instead of the disputes and opinions about him after he was dead. " I'm afraid part of the definition of legacy has to do with "disputes and opinions about him after he was dead" At least this article is doing just that, by explaining how well he is admired. But to be NPOV, the opposite side of the story must be given. This is how every major biography is being done. Some legacy sections of other featured articles: "Many historians rank Polk as a near-great President...", "Repeated polls of historians have ranked Lincoln as among the greatest presidents in U.S. history. Among contemporary admirers, Lincoln is usually seen as a figure who personifies classical values.", "Her achievements, however, were greatly magnified after her death."
  • The new addition of "at that moment Sun was still on exile and Huang Xing was in charge of the revolution" after Wuchang is misleading. The mutiny was instigated by New Army soldiers infiltrated by the Tongmenghui, not Sun Yat-sen, Huang Xing, et al who never planned a revolution in that part of the country. I believe (again, I am without my reading materials), Huang favored a revolution around Shanghai and Sun favored one in his native Guangdong. Huang Xing's significance is beyond that. When Sun was president, Huang remained his right hand man as premier and practically ran the government in Sun's name.
  • "The article will possibly become biased towards Sun's good side if he was mentioned as the leader of these small organizations (although they helped him in his way of revolution)." Again, a ridiculous notion. We are biased right now by withholding information on how politically isolated Sun was at various times and how to had to engage in power struggles within these revolutionary societies. Saying these organizations merely "helped him in his way of revolution" is pro-Chinese bias, claiming Sun was the center of the revolution. What historical grounding do you base this on? And the Chinese Revolutionary Party was important.
  • "Sun's later action didn't reflect much about his Confucian belief" Again, this is outright wrong. I can provide you with the quotations, but Sun clearly associated democratic participation and equal land holdings with Confucian harmony.
  • Even after these objections, we still have the structural issue of overseas Chinese, the need to mention secret societies and triads, Sun's role in the various uprisings, Sun's major foreign contacts, Sun's kidnapping by the Chinese Legion, Sun's courting the reformists, Sun's activities following the 1913 failed uprising, and Sun and his revolutionary base in Canton--Jiang 08:57, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • As an overseas Chinese myself, I brought up objection over the article as an FA when it was nominated over its scant (or rather non-existant) mention on the role of the overseas Chinese in his personal efforts made in gathering support from them. I managed to add into the article from my Singaporean perspective, but I mentioned it still lacks crucial mention on other localities, and it actually appears too biased towards Singapore with the lopsided availability of content. These has not been addressed even up till now.

    Contributors to this page actually said I should add the content related to the overseas Chinese, saying they are from HK. Are the contributors to this page more concerned over whether this page touches only on facts they happen to know from their geographical perspective, or the comprehensiveness of the subject matter at hand here?

    I was similarly concerned over the lack of mention over that London kidnapping incident, an incident so major it deserved its own section in a quick run-down of his history in this source, for example: [2]. He wrote a book on it, and there is even a play writtern about it. If this page can miss out on something like this, I wonder what else is possibly missing.

    The scant attention paid to copyright issues is once again brought up, and once again dismissed in a seemingly lax manner. Even a single word can be a copyright issue (some words are copyrighted), so please dont try to beat the system asking just how long or short lifted material should be before they violate copyright rules. It shows too little attention paid to copyright and effort made to avoid its violation.

    Given the above, I feel compelled to change my previous vote (itself a reluctant one) to a Remove instead.--Huaiwei 07:55, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Improve or Remove. I think that enough useful info has been raised above to allow willing editors to fix it. If this is done, let me know and I'll change my vote to support. However, since apparently the current article is not comprehensive, and possibly POVed, it must be improved or removed. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 15:20, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Definite remove. Good article, but with serious problems that should have been addressed. Johnleemk | Talk 08:53, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Definitely need improvement. Having featured status doesn't mean no further improvement is needed. — Instantnood 13:20, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Have the copied sentences been removed now? It's unacceptable for any article, let alone a featured article, to have sentences or phrases copied directly from another source. This is plagarism — the stealing of another person's intellectual property. The length of a copied text should not matter; anything copied directly can be seen as plagarism and should be removed immediately. Thanks. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | WS 22:52, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • NOTE: All phrases with suspectible copyright violation were re-written. Deryck C. 02:38, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep and improve. As those phrases are not long under suspectible copyright violation. Feature article is just a good article, never a prefect one. It is good that Jiang found some rooms to improve it. HenryLi 16:26, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Featured articles must not merely be "good". They must be wikipedia's "best". A featured article must be "should be well written, comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral, and stable". This article is absolutely not comprehensive, minorly factually inaccurate, and not neutral. (b) "comprehensive" means that an article covers the topic in its entirety, and does not neglect any major facts or details. I have listed major facts and details this article is listing. My list was not simply one or two items long that could be satisfied within a couple hours (or I would have changed the article by now.) (c) "factually accurate" includes the supporting of facts with specific evidence and external citations (see Wikipedia:Verifiability); these include a "References" section where the references are set out, enhanced by the appropriate use of inline citations (see Wikipedia:Cite sources) There are no inline citations. The printed matter listed under "references" spends entire chapters on some of my points but there is still no mention here. I highly doubt they were consulted at all. As I pointed out earlier, some of the historical claims are shaky. (d) "neutral" means that an article is uncontroversial in its neutrality and factual accuracy (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view) As stated above, the treatment of Sun's ideology and the exclusion of an entire decade of his life is not neutral, and in the very least, not comprehensive. --Ji[[User talk:Jiang|ang]] 19:55, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Poetry

edit
Article is no longer a featured article

This article was nominated for FARC in February, and was kept, though with significant doubts not addressed. The topic is extremely broad, and this article gets at it from a rather confused perspective--it is neither about the history of poetry nor about the theory of poetry nor about the form of poetry but rather attempts to cover all three in miniature. As a result, predictably, it is weighted considerably toward the present and toward Anglo-American poetry--there are four individual poets cited, all of them Anglo-American poets after 1800. There are major factual problems: the article confuses poetry with verse, for example (it is not true that plays contain poetry; they are not poetry by definition, but they can contain verse). Of the five requirements listed at Wikipedia:What is a featured article, section 2, it fails three: it is not comprehensive, factually accurate, or neutral. I really think we need to think hard about this one, even though it's been here a long time. If the article is rewritten with references, I would of course be happy to reconsider. Chick Bowen 21:34, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I'd prefer to see these issues raised on the article's talk page an an effort made to edit the article accordingly before it comes up for a FARC. It appears that several editors are heavily editing the article right now and I don't see why these issues can't also be addressed.--Alabamaboy 14:07, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Definitely remove. Absolutely no references — horrendous enough for an article on such a broad subject! The article is also surprisingly short — while I'm no poet, I have trouble believing that there's more that can be said about Mozilla Firefox or the King James Version of the Bible or even Hey Jude (all three are featured articles) than about poetry. Yes, it seems this article is not even close to being comprehensive. Remove it — it's an embarassment to FAC. Even Wikipedia:Good articles wouldn't accept it. Johnleemk | Talk 08:57, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove. So short I can't believe it is comprehensive. 11k of text. Bias towards western modern poetry seems a problem. More than half the article is just a list of see also's--those should be moved off to list of poetry terms or something to that effect. There actually was a reference, but an editor removed it under the mistaken impression that the reference had to be mentioned in the text to be valid. But only one is not sufficent in my view considering more research could allow this to be properly comprehensive. What is there is well written, but based on the quality of The Cantos, I know Filiocht can do much better than what is here. All important aspects of poetry should be summarized and this just doesn't do it. - Taxman Talk 15:54, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove embarssingly short. Here is comprehensive........................................................................................................................................................................here is the article. *Exeunt* Ganymead Dialogue? 23:01, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove per nom. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 06:48, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove It is clearly not comprehensive. Some of the things missing: discussion of the different schools, styles and regional types; no reference to major poets like Heinrich Heine, Charles Baudelaire, Victor Hugo; no reference to major works like the Coran, the Nibelungen; etc... Vb 131.220.68.177 16:11, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Indeed. I think there are two choices with an article with this name. Either it has to give a comprehensive history of poetry as you suggest, which would be huge and would require weeks of work by many editors, or it would be rewritten entirely in terms of genre theory, using almost none of what's here. Either way, it doesn't seem likely to happen any time soon. Alabamaboy was annoyed that I didn't try to work on it before I nominated it, but to be honest I didn't know where to begin. Chick Bowen 00:39, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove for the reasons stated above. CG 21:12, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove for reasons stated above. I appreciated the article's brevity on first reading, but since then, I believe the introduction has gotten longer and more confused. The section on rhyme also needs work. Evan Donovan 22:23, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sino-Soviet split

edit
Article is no longer a featured article

No references (request outstanding since April this year. Lead is inadequate (too small). While this has the potential to be FA again (or rescued), in the present form it is not up to our standards. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 04:56, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That was me in case you were wondering. - Mgm|(talk) 11:18, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Provinces of Thailand

edit
Article is no longer a featured article

While the article is very informative, its formatting is a bit bad and it has a lot of lists. It would be much better on Featured lists, where it would be almost certain to be approved IMO.

Miss Michelle | Talk to Michelle 00:20, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Perplexing original nomination from 2+ years ago here.--Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 03:01, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

All your base are belong to us

edit
Consensus: Article has been demoted

I'd love to see a featured article on this subject, but this one isn't it. Passed FAC in February 2004 in a lightly trafficked nomination. FA criteria not met: 1) Unreferenced; 2) Probably original research; 3) No fair use rationale on images; 4) Not well structured (the article is about 25% prose and 75% meandering, disorganized lists). Again, I'm reluctant to do this, but the article doesn't seem to stack up to today's FA standards. BrianSmithson 11:57, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart

edit
Article is no longer a featured article

A holdover from the Brilliant Prose days of yore and main-page'd 20 months ago, this article is woefully inadequate when compared with current FAs. First and most glaringly, while there are copious external links and further reading, there are no references, which is an important distinction. There are many statements made that call out for references / footnotes. If needed, I shall illuminate them all. First FARC from 12 months ago. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:53, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now. The article is pretty good and the only major problems seems to be the lack of references. Why not wait a while on the removal and see if anyone is willing to put in references?--Alabamaboy 13:07, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Remove. Jeffrey, I didn't have the nerve to FARC this one, but I'm glad it has been done.

FA Criterion 2(b): "comprehensive", [meaning] that an article covers the topic in its entirety and does not neglect any major facts or details.'

Some five weeks ago, I complained about a major deficiency. Here's the exchange, pasted from the discussion page:

______________

Title: information on style is seriously wanting

For a FA, this article is deficient in that it provides absolutely no information on his style. Please see the guidelines at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Composers#Guidelines_for_musical_style. Tony 04:53, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. There wasn't a word in the article about style, influence, and so forth. I took a swing at it; it's a bit rough for now. Feel free to edit mercilessly, rearrange, whatever; it could be a huge amount of material, but I tried to keep it relatively short for the start. It might need subsections by type of composition, or perhaps should be mainly chronological. Antandrus (talk) 21:14, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

______________

My point was that the title of the article is not 'Biography of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart', but 'Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart'. Thus, in my view, to satisfy Criterion 2(b), the article should contain authoritative information on Mozart's style, preferably in the lead—in brief, broad, non-technical terms—and in the body of the text, ranging from non-technical stylistic information to that which might be useful for a serious, informed music lover.

Since I complained, this aspect has received some attention. However, it is still seriously deficient. Some statements in the oddly titled 'Works, musical style, and innovations' section don't mean much, or are jumbled, or are poorly written. For example, in the opening sentence, we have:

'his works spanned the chronological period from the early, Italianate galant style of his teenage years to the mature classical style of his later life, which began to re-incorporate some of the contrapuntal complexities of the late Baroque.'
  • The function of 'chronological' is unclear.
  • Does 'mature' refer to the classical style as a whole, or Mozart's own version of it? Beethoven brought the classical style to its maturity.
  • 'Re-incorporate'—what, for a second time? And Mozart's counterpoint is typically not as complex as that of the late Baroque. It's only one facet of some of his later works, anyway, and only in particular passages; this statement implies a general shift towards contrapuntal complexity.

*edit: This claim is unjustified. Mozart used complex Baroque-style counterpoint in the fugues in his Mass in C Minor, Requiem, his Fantasia in F Minor (K.608), his stand-alone fugues (K.401, K.426), and used invertible quintuple counterpoint in the finale of his "Jupiter" Symphony (K.551).*

In Mozarts's hands sonata form transformed from the binary models of the baroque into the fully mature form of his later works, with a multiple-theme exposition, extended, chromatic and contrapuntal development, recapitulation of all themes in the tonic key, and coda.

Haydn did this before Mozart.

The points about psychological effect in the operas are on the right track, but need to be reworded to be tight and cogent. Nowhere are we told about his transformation of orchestral scoring, exploring a large range of combinations of wind and brass. The use of orchestral colour before Mozart was monochromatic by comparison, including Haydn's.

In 1782–83, Mozart became closely acquainted with the work of JS Bach,

This may be a little exaggerated; he knew Book 1 of the WTC, but not much else of Bach's.

*edit: This is not the case. Mozart was familiar with the Art of Fugue, WTC I and II, many of Bach's choral works, and even arranged some of Bach's fugues for string quartet.*

There's no mention of a really obvious stylistic aspect: his use of Austrian folk music.

  • Criterion 2(a): The prose should be 'compelling, even brilliant'

The prose not good enough for a FA. Here's an example of excessive writing, from which the italicised text should be removed:

At some unknown time during his early Vienna years, Mozart became personally acquainted with Joseph Haydn, and the two composers became friends. On occasions when Haydn was in Vienna, they sometimes played [together] in an impromptu string quartet together. Mozart's six quartets dedicated to Haydn date from 1782–85, and are often judged to be his response to Haydn's Opus 33 set from 1781. Haydn himself was soon in awe of Mozart, and on the occasion [when] he first heard the last three of Mozart's series[,] he told Leopold,.."

and

Mozart's musical ability started to become apparent [became apparent] ...

There are odd turns of phrase, such as:

Mozart had a special relationship with Prague [the lamp-posts?] and the people of Prague.

and

a frankly contrapuntal main theme'.

There are grammatical mistakes:

While none of these genres were [was] new

Here's a breach of the Manual of Style (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Date formatting):

In September of 1777

There are unexplained and probably not very important facts in prominent positions:

his name changed many times over the years.

Criterion 4: 'It should have images [read 'sound excerpts'] where appropriate, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status.'

Just looking at the info page for the first sound excerpt, who is the copyright owner who is claimed to have released the item for use here? Who is the performer and recordist? When was the recording made? If it's commercially released, can we have the details of the CD and the Company, please?

I think it's a pity that the sound excerpts are lumped together in one location towards the bottom, without reference to the text. The genius of Wikipedia in this respect is its ability to knit together text and sound in a way that can cogently and lavishly illustrate the topic for both non-musicians and musicians.

Tony 13:39, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/archive/October_and_November_2005&oldid=986295981"