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 04:25, 5 July 2010 [1].

---

John Vanbrugh[edit]

Review commentary[edit]

John Vanbrugh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured article candidates/John Vanbrugh

• Featured article review/John Vanbrugh/archive1

Toolbox
Analysis Citation bot External links

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cheshire, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Visual arts, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Theatre, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject England, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Architecture, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography/Arts and entertainment, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography [ie all of the projects listed on Talk:John Vanbrugh]. Original nominator has retired.

Per the FAR instructions, have the top contributors been notified? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:50, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, no. Not formally, nor on a level with important stuff like WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology. Other users have kindly informed us, though. Giano and I are the main contributors, as I would have hoped was easy to see via for instance the edit counter Sandy links to, or by clicking on one of the three links straight to the article's FAC at the top of the talkpage.[2]. At that time, by the way, the nominators of featured articles were usually not contributors to the article, and the nominator User:ALoan had, in fact, little to do with it. Though not quite as little as those WikiProjects... In my opinion, it's time to stop referring to all those more or less far-fetched projects on FAR; the mechanical reference to the mass of them surely tends to obscure the actual contributors (if, indeed, such contributors are mentioned at all). I don't write this to complain of Ed17, but to suggest that the FAR customs w r t such matters are bad, and have slipped away, as per Sandy, from the actual FAR instructions. Can we have more handiwork and less mechanics in the notifications, please? Bishonen | talk 17:56, 26 April 2010 (UTC).[reply]

My sincere apologies to you and Giano; I didn't think to look for the top contributors, just the FAC nominator. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 18:13, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I found this article through WP:URFA. Article easily fails 1c. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 06:12, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Only 5 notes, but otherwise seems a fine article. Johnbod (talk) 13:23, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree with the_ed17 (talk · contribs), blatant referencing deficiencies include lack of citations for direct quotations of material. -- Cirt (talk) 13:30, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where in fact? The Boswell is cited to a diary entry date, which is fine. I hope you're not one of those people who want OED page numbers? Johnbod (talk) 13:41, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It might be easier to illustrate where there could be improvements and more specific citations in certain key places such as after direct quotations of material by adding helpful templates like ((fact)) tags. Unfortunately, however, I will refrain from doing that, in this particular case. -- Cirt (talk) 14:06, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• It doesn't easily fail 1c - it is thorough and representative of the critical literature, and is verifiable against appropriate sources. The only question is whether or not the low number of inline citations meets or fails to meet the "where appropriate" criteria. I don't see anything in the article that is "likely to be challenged." DionysosProteus (talk) 17:10, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current FA standards mean that virtually everything in the article needs to be cited. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 18:27, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • • I am not aware of that requirement; will reviewers please focus here on exactly which text they believe needs citation? Thank you, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:45, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I assessed the article using Wikipedia:Featured article criteria. Are you working from a different set of criteria? Where are they? DionysosProteus (talk) 18:37, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • You think the article would successfully gain support at WP:FAC and be promoted to WP:FA with the current standards at FAC, in the article's present state? -- Cirt (talk) 19:21, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have no idea. The issue that you raised, however, is whether or not it fulfils the criteria. If those that I linked to are the ones in question, then the article fulfils them, as far as I can see. I assume from your response that those are the correct criteria? If the present practice is to pursue a different set of criteria, then the policy document needs to be adjusted to reflect that practice. As I understand it, the purpose of this assessment is to examine whether or not the article fulfils the FA criteria detailed in that policy. DionysosProteus (talk) 20:30, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Not sure whether or not those are rhetorical questions - as the account DionysosProteus (talk · contribs) has been active on English Wikipedia for quite some time now... Nevertheless, it is quite clear that this article would not pass WP:FAC muster at current standards. -- Cirt (talk) 20:49, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • No, there is nothing rhetorical about them, they are genuine questions. Either the criteria given are the ones against which this article ought to be assessed, or else we should have access to a different set of approved criteria. The criteria are there to provide an easily accessible description of the standards to which all articles are to be held, as determined by consensus. I understand that you are arguing that that consensus has changed. If that is the case, then the criteria need to be ammended. Having done that, we may then have an opportunity to assess this particular article in light of those new criteria. Whether the policy and practice are not longer in synch or not, this article's assessment is not the appropriate place to debate that. The only relevant criteria for this assessment are those given in the policy statement. I tend to confine my comments to articles that fall under my areas of expertise. I'm not sure what you are implying with your description of the length of time with which I have been involved with Wikipedia--perhaps you could state it more explicitly? DionysosProteus (talk) 21:32, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • The FA criteria are not the be all and end all of FA standards, rather, the standards of what is of FA quality are determined by the community at WP:FAC as informed by the FA criteria, and I highly doubt this article would pass muster at this point in time. According to its contributions, the account DionysosProteus (talk · contribs) has been editing since 2007. -- Cirt (talk) 21:35, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                • Correct. And your point in making that observation is what, precisely? If, as you argue, the standards to be applied in this assessment are not those of the featured article criteria, then the Featured article review needs to state that and to give explicit guidance about what further considerations ought to be made. As far as I can see, it does not. A fair assessment may only be made according to criteria that have been agreed upon and are explicitly stated in a policy document. The subjective preferences of particular editors is not an appropriate consideration, whether they participate in WP:FAC or not. DionysosProteus (talk) 21:58, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Determination of FA quality status is based on the criteria, and the standards as informed both by the criteria and by WP:CONSENSUS at WP:FAC. Hope that clarifies it a bit. -- Cirt (talk) 22:43, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                • If you wish to alter the critera according to which the assessment is made, then you need to seek consensus for that alteration and make the change to the policy documents mentioned above. Your assertion that other considerations are relevant remains an assertion in lieu of those changes. And the reason you mentioned how long I have been involved with Wikipedia was what, exactly? DionysosProteus (talk) 02:59, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Merely pointing out that this article would not be likely to pass WP:FAC at current standards for present WP:FA expectations. And DionysosProteus (talk · contribs) posed questions above that seemed confusing for an account active since 2007, but perhaps it has simply not yet been active at FAR and thus this may have been the cause of its protested confusion about FA standards. -- Cirt (talk) 03:08, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is certainly short of "consistently formatted inline citations" (2c is it?) by current standards. Johnbod (talk) 03:02, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Indeed it is 2C, and boy, does this fail miserably. Inline citations are indeed needed. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 00:05, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, it doesn't fail 2c at all. Close inspection of the criterion reveals that it demands consistency "where required by 1c". The citations are not in any way inconsistent. The only question concerns 1c. And the discussion above concerned the appropriate criteria for making this assessment, which are given in Wikipedia:Featured article criteria. Those are the only FA standards relevant in this case, as detailed in Wikipedia:Featured article review. DionysosProteus (talk) 03:10, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to continue arguing your interpretation of the FA criteria all you want, but if significant work isn't done, consensus will be vastly in favor of a stricter 1c/2c application and the delisting of this article. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 15:16, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's no argument--the criteria are explicit and unambiguious. If you wish to alter the criteria, by all means seek a consensus for that and have it implemented. Until doing so, the appropriate criteria for this assessment remains those given in the policy, not what other editors imagine it to be. DionysosProteus (talk) 15:24, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again: consensus here will determine that this article does not meet the current criteria. If you wish to loosen them, feel free to start a conversation on WT:FA?—but the burden is on you and the minority viewpoint. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 15:27, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The burden is on reviewers to demonstrate precisely what text they believe is uncited and requires citation. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:32, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not propose to "loosen" the current criteria. The terms in which objections have been made above are clearly applying criteria not given in the published policy. Whether other criteria are applied when assessing new featured article candidates is irrelevant to this assessment. Those that govern this assessment are unambigious and hardly subject to a "strict" or "loose" interpretation: Inline citations are necessary "where required by 1c" (a direct quotation from the criteria); claims in the article are verifiable via citations "where appropriate" (again a direct quotation), linking to Wikipedia:When to cite, which gives anything that is likely to be challenged. Those are the exact criteria that I have applied. DionysosProteus (talk) 15:43, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now that this is established, can reviewers please focus on the task at hand, to minimize the length of this FAR? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:48, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It looks to me like the article still meets the requirements established at WP:FACR. Although I think a case could be made for more stringent requirements for citation formatting, I find it inappropriate to coatrack such a discussion onto a single article review. I'd strongly suggest having the debate at WT:FACR, or a similar high-visibility venue, where more editors are likely to contribute to a consensus. --RexxS (talk) 17:36, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment There are uncited quotations scattered throughout the article. Please add citations to them. We can move on to other items that might need citations after that. Awadewit (talk) 05:43, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not altogether well, so perhaps people could wait for the citations, or else defeature the article. Bishonen | talk 22:18, 2 May 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Comment unless there are significantly more citations added, 5 is probably a reasonable number if this was a C (or at best a B) grade article, not an FA. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:15, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some citation needed tags to the top of the article, where I feel they are appropriate. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:23, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that the count of the number of citations is not a Featured Article criterion. 17 references are given, in addition to the 5 specific citations – the FACR is "Claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate". For example much of the Early life and background section is supported by Downes (although the article does leave it to the reader to verify that if they chose). I have some sympathy with the argument that it would be easier for the verifier if specific page numbers were given in places, but that does not alter the quality of the article, merely the ease of verification.

Secondly, you appear to misunderstand the purpose of the lead section. It is a summary of the rest of the article and relies upon that for its verification in almost all cases. Have a look at other featured articles and you'll find a absence of citations in the lead, since the text there is actually supported by the references in the main body of the text. A simple example is your ((citation needed)) tag following "Sir John Vanbrugh ... was an English architect and dramatist". It is abundantly clear from the rest of the article that he was indeed both an architect and a dramatist (as well as English), so there really is no need for a citation there – similarly for the other valueless tags you placed. I would suggest you revert those additions as they do nothing to help improve this article. --RexxS (talk) 23:05, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WellI accept that the "citation needed" of 'was an English architect and dramatist' may have been a little silly. But I think your description of the rest of them as valueless is slightly odd. I've been to Blenheim Palace fairly often as I live reasonably close by and I hadn't heard of any of those things. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:10, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And to take Sex Pistols which is on the front page right now, and it has a few sources in the lead, though it has another 231 inline references in the rest of the article. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:12, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The lede may remain uncited IFF that exact same information is cited in the body text of the article. In this instance, that was not the case. -- Cirt (talk) 23:13, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, that's not what WP:LEADCITE says. I find this useful: "editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material". In an FA lead, almost all citations are likely to redundant – in fact, I usually consider citations in the lead to be an indicator that new material has been introduced that is not present (and sourced) in the article (with the exception of the definition of the subject, the only part of the lead not a summary of the rest of the article). I would recommend when adding ((cn)) tags either that use is made of the |reason parameter, or that they are made one at a time with a precise edit summary to help editors find exactly what is being challenged. In this case, a Featured Article of considerable age, it is true that much of the work of verification is left to the reader (although the 17 references given are a good starting place). It would be much more helpful to editors wishing to improve the article if the focus were on refining the sources for text in the main body of the article – I'm sure the lead would then become uncontentious. --RexxS (talk) 00:27, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed my citation needed tags from the lead so we can avoid controversy over it. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:22, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary[edit]

Featured article criterion of concern are sourcing YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 01:25, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Per Bishonen's request for extra time to add references, this article will be held for an extra period of time in the FARC section. Reviewers should refrain from making delist declarations until Bishonen has had a chance to work on the references. A request for a time frame on this work is awaiting reply. Dana boomer (talk) 15:22, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't know. As I've mentioned, I don't care to discuss personal matters here. Several people are currently working on the article, and Rexxs is waiting for a library book.[3] Bishonen | talk 13:08, 10 May 2010 (UTC).[reply]

• Of course, and I wouldn't ask you to discuss them. I was thinking more along the lines of two weeks, a month, two months - nothing specific, but it's not a big deal if you can't estimate even that much. As long as progress is moving along on the article, it won't be delisted. Dana boomer (talk) 17:57, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Slowly but surely the number of sources is improving in this article :), there are now 10 inline references, up from 5. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:34, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now 38, but the article is still disfigured with loads of "citation needed" tags, some rather silly, but many valid. Johnbod (talk) 16:30, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are also several sections where no citation needed tags have been added at all, and some points in those probably still need citing.

PS feel free to remove any you feel are particularly silly - I'm sure I went too far in places with adding them. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 11:59, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well I won't for now, in case the referencing fairy passes by. Johnbod (talk) 19:19, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist. Still significant referencing issues throughout, as well as ongoing conflicts, including talk page conflict over poorly sourced and poorly written info removed from the end of the article. Best to submit this for WP:GA at some point, and get a GA review, particularly with regard to whether the page fails WP:WIAGA criteria points (2) and (5). Not up to GA quality at this point in time. -- Cirt (talk) 20:12, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist as above, there has been progress, but sadly not enough. I am intending to go down to the library over the next few days - and they have multiple books on the topic in stock. So if I manage to make a significant progress with the sourcing I'll retract my 'vote' here. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:23, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, in the expectation that any remaining citation needs will be met soon. It's a beautiful article. Tony (talk) 15:05, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: In addition to failing WP:WIAGA criteria (2) and (5), the article also fails WP:WIAFA, criteria (1e). -- Cirt (talk) 15:07, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'm not convinced the article passes (1a) really, the last three paragraphs aren't the only bit that wasn't particularly well written. Of note if the article is delisted I'll request it for good article nomination as quickly as possible. I believe though that if the article continues to improve then it won't be delisted. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:07, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't. Before it had all those little superscripted numbers in it, and was largely gutted of anything readable, it was an informative, well-written article. Perhaps it didn't meet the current criteria for FA, but that says more about the criteria for FA than it does about the article. You've done enough damage to something that was once something that almost anyone could read and learn from, and has now had the very life beaten out of it. Risker (talk) 02:01, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The vast majority of the article was and is well written and therefore the prose hasn't been changed, but just not everything, and the FA criteria are generally applied very tightly these days. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:52, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I've sourced around another 20 points since 8 June but there is still lots left to source - sadly there still looks like plenty - even without 'citation needed' tags. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 13:34, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist. Please. What has happened here is a classic example of what happens when people who don't know anything about the subject try to write about it, and the article is far, far worse from a reader's perspective now than it was when it was first brought to this page. Better that an article be interesting and readable than an article that fulfills arcane criteria but is boring, unreadable due to excessive footnotes, and largely missing the point. Risker (talk) 22:16, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with Risker. I would prefer the article to be delisted. Firstly, it frazzles me to see Eraserhead and Cirt ignoring the request of delegate Dana boomer that "reviewers should refrain from making delist declarations until Bishonen has had a chance to work on the references".[4] And secondly, I've spent most of May and June in hospital, which makes the whole thing look kind of small (from my point of view) and, yes, prevents me from working on the references. It doesn't really matter any longer, but I've also had enough of being told by Eraserhead (who I'm sure has no personal animus in the case) and Cirt (who certainly does) how badly written John Vanbrugh is. ("Not up to GA quality at this point in time".) As Risker says, yeah, now it's badly written. Bishonen | talk 01:51, 20 June 2010 (UTC).[reply]
• Comment as the person whose made a significant percentage of these edits the only content changes I have made have either been minor in response to what a reliable source says - or have been discussed on the talk page first with no constructive responses from anyone until the change was actually made - and in the latter case if I "don't know anything about the subject and try and write about it" then it should be trivial to come up with a sensible argument as to why I'm wrong - and that hasn't happened. The major change I've made is to add footnotes pointing to reliable sources, but every other GA and FA that I've ever seen has at least as many - if not considerably more so I don't really see what the problem with them can possibly be - they are a fundamental part of the project as they are required to show that the page satisfies WP:V.

And Bishonen I'm very sorry you've had an extended stay in hospital. However there are apparently plenty of other people apparently watching the talk page who could have started to add further references and respond to my comments about sections that need improvement in a constructive manner and sadly, with a couple of exceptions, neither have occurred. And those are the reasons Cirt and me have bought up as to why it doesn't satisfy the GA criteria. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:52, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Disgraceful FAR, excuse me, but where was the consensus to change the citation style here? There is no requirement at WP:WIAFA that the footnoted citation method be used, and WP:CITE requires consensus before changing established citation style. Rather than waiting for Bish to have the time to address the issues, the article has deteriorated while she was sick. My suggestion is to close this FAR as a default keep because of the abuse that occurred here, allow Bish three months to restore the article, ask everyone to grow up, and revisit the FAR in three months if there are still citation issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:08, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:When to cite which is linked from WP:WIAFA inline citations are required for quotations as well as Opinions, data and statistics, and statements based on someone's scientific work, both of which were sorely lacking in multiple places from this article before.

And citation style is about whether you use Harvard referencing for your inline citations or the standard templates or some custom form, and whether you us US , Europe or ISO date styling. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 14:19, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah and from the "page in a nutshell" from WP:CITE "This guideline discusses how to format and present citations. The policy on sourcing is Wikipedia:Verifiability, which requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations.". -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 14:23, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you should read the policy you're quoting:

An inline citation is a citation next to the material it supports, rather than at the end of the article. Inline citations are used to directly associate a given claim with a specific source. On Wikipedia, there are several different styles of inline citations. The two most popular are clickable footnotes (<ref> tags) and parenthetical references.

You do know what a parenthetical reference is, I presume? You haven't improved the article, so this FAR should be closed until Bish can repair. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:27, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Parenthetical references are still inline, they are just in brackets rather than with a <ref> tag. Regardless they were still woefully deficient. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 14:33, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless, you (or someone) changed the citation style on this article without consensus. End of story. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:34, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The primary issue was the woeful lack of citations rather than their style, if someone wishes to change the style from <ref> tags to parenthetical references I'm really not bothered in the slightest. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 14:36, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PS if I accidentally changed the referencing style from parenthetical references to <ref> tags I apologise. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 14:40, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Close as Default Keep, allow three months for repair, then initiate a new review if warranted. FAR should not deteriorate into a forum where articles are damaged and policy is flaunted, when the main contributor has asked for time. Wiki won't break if three months is allowed, and this FAR has already been open too long. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:43, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Sandy, I don't believe you have the authority to make FAR closures or are sufficiently neutral on the issue to make a proper determination. IMO, after reviewing the discussion here, the article has a myriad of issues ranging from lack of sourcing to low quality writing. I suggest taking a step back and allowing a fellow reviewer to close this discussion. Sincerely, Blurpeace 22:15, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Clue in and read the page instructions; I don't close FARs, and I am well within my bounds as an editor to enter a declaration here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:17, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• You may wish to inform these two editors: [5], [6]. Thanks for clarifying your intention was to vote – not close. :) Sincerely, Blurpeace 22:23, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for letting me know (and by virtue of this exchange, they're already informed). A FAC or FAR is closed when a delegate moves it from the page to archive. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:27, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I'm changing my vote to "let's shoot the nice editor who came in and tried to improve the article while Bishonen was sick." Sarcasm aside, let's try to be a little less angry with the only one who stepped up and attempted to save the article while it was sitting here and Bishonen was in the hospital? Also, with four delist !votes, this should be closed as delist, and if it is worked on further it can be nominated at FAC. There is no substantial need to keep a substandard FA, no matter what the reason. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 01:20, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm confused by this outcome. I assumed the decision would be to delist, with regret. There are still uncited quotations in the article, which is totally unacceptable. Moreover, no matter what one feels about the high demands for citation at FA, this article does not meet the current consensus for citation. We should not be creating two different standards for FAs - one at FAC and one at FAR. We should also be grateful that someone was willing to add citations - that the styles were altered is insignificant. That can easily be fixed. Adding citations is a time-consuming business - if we want to encourage people to help out with that, we shouldn't complain so much about how they do it. Awadewit (talk) 03:19, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've just been looking through FAR and FAN in order to better fulfill my role as milhist coordinator. Generally, when there are this many delist votes it goes to delist. Hence this table.

Keep	Delist
Keep based on expectation of improved referencing	Based on referencing
Keep by person who said close as default keep (I'm not fully aware of the official role of that comment)	Based on referencing, went to help
	readability
	readability, said above attempts at referencing improvement hurt

I'm not sure what to make of this, but it seemed to be the best way to look at it. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 03:43, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As an addendum I've had some rather serious medical problems of my own, and so I hope I understand, to a certain degree, where Bishonen is coming from. I wouldn't want to have it delisted. On the other hand, I wouldn't want to see rules bent to make room for my debilities to an extent where it could hurt some others. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 03:46, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As one of the delist 'voters' can we give it another 2 weeks and see if the references (and prose in places) improve further? Since everyone got so angry about it I think its worth a little more time now everyone seems to have calmed down. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:47, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that the default action is to keep in situations like this, but I don't think that rule need be applied strictly in all cases. This article clearly has some issues that need to be fixed, and it would be strange to close this FAR in the face of those problems, especially since at least one of the delist !voters has made good-faith attempts to improve the article quality. That said, extending this FAR to allow people to settle down sounds like the most sensible idea. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:39, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: The fundamental problem here is that, because of the very drastic change in FA standards, articles which absolutely met the standards at the time they received their FA status don't meet the current standards. Instead of simply saying "nope, doesn't meet the criteria anymore, time to retire the bronze star", recognising that some articles require a complete reworking to meet current standards, we tear these articles down and, frankly, make them less useful to a reader than they were before. In other words, we take a perfectly lovely square peg, and turn it into an ugly round one, just to fit a new hole. We need to find a way to recognise the difference between "just needs a couple more refs" and "would need a fundamental restructuring to meet current standards." This article would need a fundamental restructuring, as would several others I've seen on FAR/FARC over the past year or so. When this is the situation, it is better to simply delist right up front.

  Featured article status does not equate to being an informative, useful, interesting, encyclopedic article; it just means it meets certain arcane rules. Many editors who formerly participated in the FA process have stepped away as they have watched the emphasis change to footnotes and en-dashes instead of brilliant, well-informed and concise writing. While there are indeed exceptions, and some featured articles from the last few years have indeed been outstanding (or at least interesting), more and more of them in recent years have tended to be formulaic and distinctly uninteresting; all the references in the world aren't going to turn them into much more than a term paper, and it wouldn't surprise me if some of them aren't just that.

  I think we need to seriously consider a "fast delist" process here for articles that everyone acknowledges don't meet the 2010 standards, and allow these articles the dignity of being relatively intact. More and more editors (and readers, too) are realising that it's better to have a well-written article than it is to have a bronze star on it. Risker (talk) 15:07, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I agree with everything noted in the above comment, by Awadewit (talk · contribs). Indeed, it is an unfortunate problem that there are uncited quotations in the article. The concerns raised by Awadewit regarding double standards are also valid and quite aptly put. Also, it appears that Awadewit is correct regarding the unfortunate tendency to discourage others from working on improving the citation standards in the article, rather than providing encouragement for such positive quality improvement. -- Cirt (talk) 19:11, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Risker, not being an expert on the FA process but I'm sure you can comment on the reviews/candidates and suggest that articles make their prose more readable as well as meeting the criteria on referencing and en dashes. Additionally I'm sure you can bring articles up for FAR if they don't meet high standards on prose as well per WP:FACR 1a. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:52, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I have not seen this article prior to before now. I don't think it is too far off, and a much easier task than some other articles needing saving (every time I look at Australia I groan...). My hope is that all the best articles still remain together under the nice pale blue tent rather than being pushed out into the cold after some frayed tempers and pushing and shoving. Will see what I can do. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:52, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Another comment. Yes, I've been checking in at this one occasionally. I do not understand why it is being held to different standards from those applied to other articles here. In particular, the urge to push it off the cliff contrasts with other nominations that languish for months without interest by the article editors. I don't understand it. Tony (talk) 04:54, 22 June 2010 (UTC) Agree with Slim below: that's the practical way to deal with this. Tony (talk) 16:45, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Remove from FAR, relist in three months or so if needed. My understanding has always been that if the main writers of a FAR-ed article reasonably request more time, they're given it. Having this situation continue while the main writer is unwell seems unfair, and no one is harmed by relisting it in a few months. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 05:38, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to go with this if we can be more clear as to what the issues - beyond referencing - are. If we have more of an idea of what needs fixing then there is a higher chance of avoiding a FAR completely, or certainly more than a quick and easy FAR as we can have already cleaned up most of the issues. Additionally that will also reduce the possibility of further WP:DRAMA which sadly this review seems to have generated from the start. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:33, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break[edit]

OK, it would be good to have some idea of what needs improving in the article. Apart from referencing (which we all know leaves something to be desired) what else needs improving in the article to bring it up to FA standards? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:51, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This has been an abuse of the FAR process, and it shows one of the main reasons FAR participation has deteriorated so badly. It's not a matter of a double standard or different standards at FAC and FAR; we have a respected editor who has contributed a lot to the Project who was in hospital, editors who were grossly unaware of FA standards, policy and guidelines working on the article, multiple misstatements of policy and guideline on this very page, editors who honestly seem to believe that FAs are determined by counting the number of subscripts in an article (something we railed against in the past, but no one corrected here), a change in the citation method without consensus, a content dispute, a lack of qualified editors and reviewers affecting all content review processes, and a general waste of everyone's time here. FAR is backlogged with such FARs as this one, taking months to resolve, when the sensible thing to do (and what was ALWAYS done in the past) is to remind over-heated editors that FAR is NOT dispute resolution, do a default close, and tell everyone to come back in a few months if issues aren't resolved. If we can't wait a few months when a valued editor is sick, no wonder we lose valuable editors. I understand the urgent need to delist BLPs or medical articles that may be harming the subjects or our readers, but that is not the case here; in spite of some vociferous protestations, nothing in this article is going to break the Wiki if we allow knowledgeable editors time for repair. The FAR backlog needs to be dealt with sensibly, and there has been a real shortage of that here. Close it as a default, which doesn't mean the current version meets standards-- just says, for gosh sakes, will everyone cool off and come back later if warranted? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:12, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

^^ Can we hat this and move on to discuss the article itself? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:16, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, whether or not this FAR proceeds, there are a few "cite needed" tags around and "page numbers required" - these should be fixed. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:52, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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