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 06:21, 20 April 2009 [1].

Mini Moke[edit]

Review commentary[edit]

Notified: WP Automobiles, SteveBaker.

Author's opinion:

This article has changed hardly at all since it was on the front page two years ago - it was a great article then - and it's a great article still. After the usual excruciatingly detailed review - it passed with flying colors. If it is no longer considered adequately referenced then this is a solid case of standards creep - which I strongly oppose. The article references LITERALLY every single book that has ever been written about the Moke (I know - I worked with experts on the car - I tracked down and purchased every single book). One of those books is a summary of every single magazine article about the car assembled by enthusiasts. It is simply not possible to refer to more material because in a very real sense - there is no more material. If this article is seriously considered to be underreferenced then an article about this car cannot be allowed to exist. You are arguing for article deletion - not merely de-listing - and that's ridiculous.

The popular culture section has 'crept' a bit since the original FA. If you feel it's too much then you REALLY should simply fix the article rather than trying to get it de-listed. It really pisses me off when editors would rather contribute by destroying than by improving.

I don't understand this perpetual witch-hunt against past featured articles. It's not helpful - and it's exceedingly demoralising to authors.

I don't believe the standards of March 2007 were inadequate - passing it into FA was a good decision - it's still a good decision.

SteveBaker (talk) 04:50, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry you feel this way but standards are standards. FA articles must be kept in-line with new standards. Unlike what you are saying, I do not believe this article should be deleted because of unsourced claims. No article should. That who mean deleting 90% + of all WP content. However, articles with more than three small unreferenced claims need to be re-evaluated if at FA status. Let me give you some examples:
  • "Early promotional material made much of the lightness of the vehicle, showing four soldiers riding in the Moke off-road, then picking it up by its tubular bumpers and carrying it when (inevitably) its low ground clearance proved inadequate to the task.", This information must have come from somewhere. If you own every single book on the Moke, it should be in one of them if it is true. I know it is a tedious task, but I have had to do it before. You would probably have some idea of where it may be, so look there first.
  • "Mokes continued to be made in Britain until 1968." Ditto, however, the lead does say, "14,500 Mokes were produced in the UK between 1964 and 1968, 26,000 in Australia between 1966 and 1981, and 10,000 in Portugal between 1980 and 1993 when production of the Moke ended.[4]" I would steer clear of using references in the lead. The lead should be nothing but a summary of what the article body says.
  • "As Australian Moke production wound down, manufacturing was transferred to British Leyland's subsidiary in Portugal, which made 8,500 of the 'Californian' Mokes in their Vendas Novas plant between 1980 and 1990. Initially these Mokes were identical to late model Australian Mokes; very soon, however, they were altered to use then-current British production Mini saloon components, including the standard-length Mini rear trailing arms and the 12 in wheels with modern low-profile tyres, which the sedan had acquired during the Moke's absence from Europe." This one explains itself really.
  • "The Moke gained much popularity as a beach buggy and was often rented to tourists in tropical island resorts such as Mauritius and Barbados." Popularity. Who says so? A source is needed.
  • "Mini Mokes can still be seen zooming around the town of Victoria, Seychelles as it is still a popular mode of transport for tourists and can seat 4 people in relative comfort from island point to island point." If the article has hardly changed in two years this may no longer be true. If you can find a source from e.g. 2004, say, "As of 2004, Mini Mokes are still in use around the town of Victoria, Seychelles...". "Zooming around" is probably not the best choice of words either.
These are just some of the unsourced statements at the end of each paragraph. This does not account for the many more probable hidden unreferenced statements within paragraphs with a single citation at the end.
"I don't understand this perpetual witch-hunt against past featured articles. It's not helpful - and it's exceedingly demoralising to authors." I am sorry, but if you manage to get and article to FA status, you must keep it current standards. The FA Holden VE Commodore article that mainly User:VectorD and myself managed to get to FA has changed immensely since April 2007. Compare it to then and now. Had this article not been revamped since, I would not even rate it GA, so it shows really how much standards change.
"I don't believe the standards of March 2007 were inadequate - passing it into FA was a good decision - it's still a good decision." Without trying to be rude, please read Wikipedia:Featured article criteria.
"If you feel it's too much then you REALLY should simply fix the article rather than trying to get it de-listed. It really pisses me off when editors would rather contribute by destroying than by improving." No, if you would like to retain the article's status, I am sorry that is a burden on you. OSX (talk • contributions) 05:06, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Image problem?

What's going on with File:Unmutual moke3.jpg? There seems to be some dispute over the validity of the license and there's no source given. DrKiernan (talk) 09:11, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The guy who donated the photo was under the misapprehension that it could not subsequently be edited to remove the advertising watermark he'd put on there. SteveBaker (talk) 02:23, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's one dead link [2] which you may wish to replace with a reliable source. DrKiernan (talk) 12:42, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary[edit]

Suggested FA criteria concerns are citations (currently books do not give page numbers for facts, un-RS/dead sources), images, undue weight (popular culture). YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 02:22, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
More