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.
Alerted main contributor (Adam Bishop) and four WikiProjects listed on article talk page.
Nominating due to criterion 1c, no inline cites. --RelHistBuff 15:10, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if the above nomination was ever progressed. Renominating for the same reason. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 13:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I did nominate the article, but at the time there was an overload of articles in the FAR process so I withdrew it temporarily. Since it has been renominated, I will give more details about the 1c criterion problem. The prose contain certain passive constructions such as
It was generally understood
It was argued that
It is notable
These should reworded and/or cited. Also the quote should have a cite. There are clearly elements of a historian's analysis such as
The Crusaders seem to have felt
perhaps, he felt he had lost
It may have been written
The treaty appears to be
the proceedings must have been
he may have also wanted
These should be cited to give credit to the historian that did the analysis. Otherwise it looks like original research. --RelHistBuff 13:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are the notifications listed at the top old or new; has anyone notified? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I withdrew it before I notified anyone so I assume that OpenToppedBus made the notifications. --RelHistBuff 15:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Aside from citations, the article needs a significant ce, and a more substantial lead. But there is work going on. Ceoil 21:01, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Suggested FA criteria concerns are citations (1c) and prose (1a).Marskell 09:04, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the good work! Marskell 09:08, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! We try!--Yannismarou 16:13, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Good save! It’s a completely different article now. I see some minor issues, but not enough to defeature. --RelHistBuff 16:36, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if MOS is followed WRT end-periods of non-sentence captions, and en dashes for page ranges. Tony(talk) 11:07, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.
To me, this article fails 1a, 2a, and possibly 3. I opposed the article's FA candidacy, but for some reason my opinion was overlooked and the article was promoted. Just looking at the lead, writing problems are everywhere:
"J.R.R. Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings is a 1978 animated fantasy film directed by Ralph Bakshi. It is an adaptation of the first half of J. R. R. Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings. Set in Middle-earth, the film follows a group of Hobbits, Elves, Men, Dwarves and Wizards who form a Fellowship and embark on a quest to destroy the One Ring made by the Dark Lord Sauron, and with it, ensure his destruction. The screenplay was written by Peter S. Beagle. An earlier draft was written by Chris Conkling, but not used.[2] The film features the voice work of, among others, William Squire, John Hurt, Michael Graham Cox and Anthony Daniels."
I know they're incredibly popular, but a quick explanation of what Tolkien's work is would be nice.
Is "with it" in the third sentence necessary?
The fifth sentence feels like it's just dropped in there for no reason.
"Among others"? Is that necessary?
2nd paragraph: "Director Ralph Bakshi first encountered Tolkien's writing in the early days in his career, and made several attempts to produce The Lord of the Rings as an animated film before successfully gaining funding from producer Saul Zaentz and distributor United Artists.[3] The film was produced mostly utilizing rotoscoping, wherein many scenes were shot in live-action first and then traced onto animation cels.[3] The film is notable for featuring some of the most extensive use of the technique. Although the film received a mixed reaction from critics, and was deemed to be a flop by the original distributors, who refused to fund a sequel that would have covered the remainder of the story, the film was a success,[4][5] and sparked new interest in Tolkien's writing, inspiring the production of several further adaptations of the story."
"first encountered"-don't need first
"early days in his career" of his career
"mostly utilizing rotoscoping"-how about just using rotoscoping?
The final sentence goes on way too long.
And that's just the lead. The Plot section, also badly written, feels more like the back cover of a book than an encyclopedia covering a synopsis of the film. Example:"In the early years of the Second Age of Middle-earth, the Elven-smiths forged nineteen Rings of Power for mortal Men, the Dwarf-lords, and the tall Elf-kings. Eventually the Dark Lord Sauron made the One Ring to rule them all. As the Last Alliance of Men and Elves fell beneath his power, the Ring fell into the hands of Prince Isildur of the mighty kings from across the sea."
Differences from the Book is just a ton of stubby paragraphs loosely jumbled together, instead of tight paragraphs describing major differences. Some of them don't even seem that noteworthy: "The hobbits' first encounter with a Ringwraith is treated differently: in the novel, Frodo hides separately from the other hobbits;[9] in the film, together with them."Cast section is just a list of blue links that mostly go nowhere. Why does (voice) have to go after every single entry? Can't it just be said, "The film featured the voice talents of..."Pre-production and Production have some text, but they're about half taken directly from quotes. I can understand using quotes to strongly emphasize an important point, but they should not tell the whole story and be used as much as they are here, that's Wikipedia's job. Reception feels a little small, although I can understand if there aren't many sources for this film. But using Rotten Tomatoes's percentage for an old film like this doesn't say much.
Images: The two in Pre-Production don't look like they add much, and of the dual images in Legacy, the bottom one is kinda dark to really tell anything from it.
I feel strongly that more work has to be done (and I'd be glad to help) to make this article of featured quality.--Dark Kubrick 19:20, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please follow the instructions at the top of WP:FAR and use ((subst:FARMessage|The Lord of the Rings (1978 film))) to notify the other top contributors, Uthanc and Josiah Rowe. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:35, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about not notifying those two others, they are now aware.--Dark Kubrick 21:01, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Dark Kubrick that more work needs to be done and it needs to be done ASAP. GregJonesII 03:28, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — I reverted the page to an earlier version and made a few tweaks. (Ibaranoff24 16:55, 4 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Comment — I expanded the article a bit and I really think it's better than when it was passed as a featured article. It's not as detailed about the process of making the film as I would like it to be, but it's not like I have a whole lot of resources I can access regarding this film. With Fritz the Cat and Coonskin, I was able to find quite a lot detailing the production of these two films, but it's not the case with Lord of the Rings. I still think it's better than before, and I hope it'll still be featured. It can only get better. The "differences from the book" section is still pesky, but that will get fixed during the copyediting process. (Ibaranoff24 18:30, 4 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]
I'd like to say that you and Uthanc are doing a good job; the article has certainly improved already, and you've got plenty of time to make more improvements. I'm not too worried about detail of the production of the film; I sympthasize with you on how hard it is to find good and reliable sources for old films like this one. I'm more concerned about the presentation of the material you have in the article now, which is very good anyway. But could the Pre-production and Production sections be merged? And while the quotes don't stand out from the text anymore, there are still many of them throughout the sections. Sometimes they tell the story for the article, sometimes they add unnecessary detail (ex. the last quote in Pre-production). But regardless, keep up the good work.--Dark Kubrick 21:06, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If there are any more issues left, this FAR won't go to FARC. GregJonesII 02:28, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you mean, Greg Jones...if there are any more issues left, it should go to FARC...Anyway, unfortunately the article seems to be failing criterion 1c now:
On ref #5, the link no longer goes to the article's title, but just a main index for current films.
On ref #19, IMDB trivia is used twice. IMDB's trivia is not a reliable source.
Ref #20 is supposed to be referencing this statement: "Much of the film used live-action footage which was then rotoscoped to produce an animated look", but the ref is just pictures of the live-action shoot. How does this prove it was rotoscoped?
Ref #21 is referencing this sentence: "while Sharon Baird served as the performance model for Frodo Baggins." but the ref is just a picture of Bakshi and Baird grinning for a picture. How does that verify anything!?!?
Ref #25 is a link to Google Video. I'm guessing that there was a video of the reference, but apparently it's been removed. Regardless, I believe the video shouldn't be used, but I'm not sure.
Refs #27-29 use an interview posted on a website forum. This is unreliable as well, no matter who conducted the interview.
Apparently, more work is required than I thought.--Dark Kubrick 01:40, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — The official Ralph Bakshi website is a more than acceptable source. Information from the director himself is reliable. (Ibaranoff24 15:21, 8 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]
I assume you're referring to information from refs #27-29. Yes, information from the director is certainly the most reliable information, but the fact that it was conducted by and posted on a message board makes it unreliable.--Dark Kubrick 18:48, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's the director's official website. I haven't had any objections to using it as a reference before. (Ibaranoff24 20:50, 9 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]
It's the forum on the director's official website. Information from that board is not official, as anyone can make up or alter anything there. Could someone else chime in on this discussion?--Dark Kubrick 21:03, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The website was put together by Bakshi's daughter. The interview was conducted by someone who works for the Bakshis, and is an administer on the forum, not some random fanboy. While it is true that on a message board, anyone can make up things, it is 100% unlikely that the Bakshis would allow false information or fake interviews to be passed off as legit. Things are a little more in control there than you think. (Ibaranoff24 14:21, 10 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]
I think forums are ok if it's the actual person, like how Roberto Orci chimed in on the Transformers message boards. Alientraveller 10:58, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To weigh in, I'm not confident that forum references meet the reliable source criteria. First of all, the information isn't published (as it is a message on a forum) anywhere that would make the verifiability absolute, such as coverage by The New York Times. It's not immediately verifiable that the information on the forum is appropriate; there's no telling what kind of editorial oversight exists to maintain the quality of information. I would suggest replacing the references with something that would be indisputable. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 11:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I agree that this article has some issues that need to be addressed. Both "Omissions" and "Modifications" do not seem to have any real-world context established; like Dark Kubrick mentioned above, what is the encyclopedic value of noting that Frodo hid with the other Hobbits in one medium, but not the other? In adaptations of the source materials, there will usually be a shopping list of changes, ranging from minor to major; the most relevant ones are the ones that have been pointed out independently, instead by the editors themselves. Also, the Reception section seems severely lacking -- there is no detailed critical reaction, positive or negative, to the film. What did the critics like about it, what did they dislike about it? The section should be expanded. This is just a preliminary glance, and these items seem major enough to need addressing. There may be more, like what Dark Kubrick has pointed out, so this is just a start. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:48, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: When this was a Featured Article Candidate, I expressed major concerns about the following claim, which is still included in the lead: "The film...was deemed to be a flop by the original distributors, who refused to fund a sequel that would have covered the remainder of the story. However, the film was a success..." This still makes absolutely no sense to me. Why would United Artists "deem" the film a flop if it was a success? Is there a reliable source or reference that notes distributor representatives proclaiming the film to be a failure despite the fact that it turned a profit? If the film made money for them, wouldn't they naturally finance sequels instead of "refusing" to do so? The way this has been written raises many more questions than it answers. Also, the two references which claim the film was in fact a success appear questionable to me. According to the book's index, Maltin's Of Mice and Magic mentions Bakshi and Lord of the Rings only once, on page 342, and the text on that particular page says nothing about whether the film made money or not. Also the referenced New York Times article [1] simply notes, regarding Wizards and LOR, that "a fair sum of money poured in at the box office." Neither one of these references really seem to note definitively that the film was a box office success. I think the claim that the film was both a flop and a success needs to be rethought/rephrased, with adequate sources provided. There may be other issues with this article, as the editors above have noted, but I haven't read beyond the lead paragraphs yet. However, I do agree with Erik that the "Reception" section seems to be amazingly skimpy.-Hal Raglan 01:38, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I rewrote it to simply state that United Artists did not provide funding for a sequel. I remember Bakshi saying that the studio told him he flopped. I'm not sure what interview this was in. If someone can find a good source for the earlier statement, put the original sentence back in. I've only skimmed through Maltin's book in a store, and I don't actually own a copy, because there were only a couple of things that I found significant, so I chose to memorize those two facts rather than buy the book, but it's in there. It's at the end of the section on Bakshi. He says that Fritz the Cat and Lord of the Rings were the only two works in Bakshi's filmography in the 1970s that were significantly successful. (Ibaranoff24 06:19, 14 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]
I took the liberty of removing the part about the distributor "deeming the film a flop" as this was directly contradicted by the remark that the film was a success.-Hal Raglan 15:38, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comments, completely unformatted blue-linked URL citations, and incomplete refs (for example, without a date for the New York Times article, how can it be found in a library?) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:18, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I corrected the unformatted citations. I am not aware of an undated New York Times citation. (Ibaranoff24 03:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]
I've found the citation you were referring to and I have corrected it. (Ibaranoff24 03:52, 22 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Comment- doesn't have that many references now. The sunder king 20:19, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So...while substantial work has been done, the article still has a ways to go, and it's been more than two weeks. Move to FARC?--Dark Kubrick 16:26, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Suggested FA criteria concerns are prose (1a), LEAD (2a), and images (3).Marskell 19:55, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Article has been significantly improved since the FAR started. (Ibaranoff24 13:39, 23 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Remove-Yes, while the article has definitely improved a lot, and I'm grateful to all those who helped, it's still not FA material. What about the unreliable references used in Bakshi's message board forum, or the writing in the plot section (not to mention other parts of the article), and several unnecessary or unhelpful images, like the comparison image in Legacy where it's too dark in the bottom image to tell anything? If you don't agree with my objections, then post a reason for your disagreement, don't just ignore them!--Dark Kubrick 14:12, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — The citations of Bakshi's website are not unreliable. And the images look fine to me. Perhaps your monitor is at a low brightness level. Reset it to the default levels. It should look fine. (Ibaranoff24 01:34, 24 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]
The citations to Bakshi's website's forum are unreliable as discussed above. And my monitor is not at a low brightness level; the picture itself is just too dark and murky to tell anything from in comparison to the above picture, even when you click on it.--Dark Kubrick 10:39, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Remove unless further work is done. The changes have been patchy. A comprehensive review was required. Here are random examples from the first section of what needs fixing:
MOS breach—hyphen as interruptor (em dash required). Then we see a spaced em dash, which MOS does not prefer.
"From the start, they are pursued by the Ringwraiths. Narrowly escaping them, they eventually come to Bree, where they meet"—"They" and "them" could render a multitude of meanings. Same here: "At Rivendell, Frodo is healed by its lord, Elrond. He meets ...". Needs an audit for fuzzy pronouns.
"and he gets sicker"—it's not wrong, but "gets" sure does bring out the ugly side of English.
"Frodo sets forth from Rivendell with eight companions: Gandalf; Aragorn and Boromir, son of the Steward of the land of Gondor; Legolas the Elf; ...". Sets out, surely. The second item is two people or one?
In a continuous narrative, avoid "then". Weed it out.
Caption period: MOS breach.
Cast: quadruple dots are ugly. Use spaced en dashes.
Avoid square brackets around ellipsis dots.
"Cartoony"?
Worth fixing. Tony 13:03, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — The article's currently at Requests for proofreading. Much of the problems regarding writing and grammer should be corrected. I'm just curious, though, why do you consider the use of the word "cartoony" to be a problem if it's in a quote from someone involved with the production of the film? (Ibaranoff24 17:55, 25 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Remove until "Differences from the book" is removed or revised to have an encyclopedic bearing -- entries like the different colors of clothing are rather insipid. There needs to be more focus on why there were specific changes, which reduces the wide scope of differences generated by the adaptation of any source material into differences that have been covered by reliable sourcing. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:01, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Hi, I made some changes to help improve the article. You might want to take a look at them. (66.82.9.58 20:40, 1 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Comments "Bakshi is quoted as saying that he had "mixed feeling" about Jackson's adaptations, and he had not seen the films." Is that supposed to be mixed feelings? Also, instead of using the awkward passive voice there, why not just "Bakshi had mixed feelings..."? "And" doesn't seem to be the best conjunction there. Shouldn't it be "although" (since if he hadn't yet seen the films)? Finally, "Not has anyone sent me a bottle of wine..." <-- should that be "Nor"? Or if it's a direct citation and seems to be a typo, use "[Nor]" or "Not (sic)". 69.202.63.165 20:08, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — Fixed. (Ibaranoff24 00:04, 4 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Keep. Most of Tony's items are trivial; they could, and should, have been fixed with much less effort than bringing them here. I see no objections to the substance; and the writing is no worse than, say, the recently promoted Augustus. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson 15:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Work needed, samples only. Undefined term in the lead: what is an "animation cel"? It needs to be defined or linked. No punctuation on sentence fragments in image captions, see WP:MOS. What makes http://www.tolkienlibrary.com/about.htm a reliable source? Why are solo years (1950s) and common terms known to most English speakers (like Spain, United States and English) linked (see WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSLINK)? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:47, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — Done. (Ibaranoff24 06:18, 21 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Fixes needed - the lead needs work "Set in Middle-earth, the film follows a group of hobbits, elves, men, dwarves and wizards who form a Fellowship. They embark on a quest to destroy the One Ring made by the Dark Lord Sauron, and ensure his destruction." - needs to be reworded. Also, I'd put much of Screenwriting and development in past tense, not present and it could be expanded I'd have thought. eg noting that the Jackson film also removed Bombadil - putting it in context (if possible). Prose improves further on in article. I have to get off the keyboard now but might try to chip in later if time permits. cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 11:48, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe sufficient work was done for a keep here and we've gotten to the microissues stage. The question we've always asked: does it have sufficient focus on the out-universe aspects. This does as near as I can tell. Marskell 10:27, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.
3rd FAR - 1st can be found here, 2nd can be found here.
Top of article lists issues with NPOV, factual accuracy, WP:SYN, confusing prose, and citation issues. I have no significant opinion on the article, and am not watchlisting this debate. I merely bring it here to let others have their say. GiggyTalk 01:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've notified the relevant WikiProjects: [2][3][4] and top two editors of the article (since 3rd highest was an IP): [5][6]. GiggyTalk 01:52, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Giggy, if you nominate an article for FAR, you're supposed to take an interest in the process. You should watchlist it. Tony 06:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Watchlisted. GiggyTalk 23:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So, how do you feel that affects the review? --Zeraeph 14:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't; it's just a reminder that we don't need to ping him/her for further input. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:01, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The issues with this article are daunting, and it has squeaked by FAR twice in bad shape. But, the timing of this FAR is most unfortunate, which the nominator could have realized by reading the talk page (maybe we should institute that suggestion that nominators must first raise issues on talk before nominating—I would have asked the nominator to give it a week to see how things proceed). Work has just begun, although it's not clear yet if the article will be stable or if reverts of attempts to address the deficiencies will continue. If work gets underway without edit warring, this review may need extended time (six weeks). If edit warring continues, then I suggest moving in a timely fashion to FARC. We now have the peer-reviewed literature necessary to rewrite the article, and several editors are helping, but the timing for me is terrible, as I'll be off-Wiki a lot over the next month. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:55, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delist after FAR. Article has too many tags to be FA. I'd like to offer some suggestions to improve it, especially since my degree is in Psych, but I'm unfamiliar with the disputes. In the meantime, I think SandyGeorgia's idea is feasible. MrPrada 03:13, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Standard disclaimer, pls read the instructions at WP:FAR. Keep or Remove are not declared during review.SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:17, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The dispute is that the entire article needs to be written to be neutral, comprehensive, and factually accurate. We're almost halfway through, working from the bottom up (so the top and the lead are still most in need of work). Your ideas are welcome, as long as they are based on the highest-quality reliable sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:20, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Could someone tell me why I see tags saying, "cite this quote" when there's a citation right next to the sentence? Am I just stupid or something?--Rmky87 22:57, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because those sources don't appear to verify the text they are attached to; that is an issue throughout the article. If someone has the full-text of the journal reports, we need the quotes that supposedly verifies the text. Having seen a lot of journal reports on AS in the last week, I'm fairly certain most of that text can't be cited and overextends the results of the studies/reports. A lot of the text was developed as original research, with later attempts to retrofit citations to the text. There's a lot of synthesis (mostly in the lead), POV and OR (particularly in favor of successful, scientific adults while overlooking children struggling to become successful creative adults). We're going through section by section, verifying the text and rewriting to be certain the text is true to the sources. Once the text is rewritten, we will attempt consensus to 1) write a correct WP:LEAD that summarizes the entire article (it doesn't now) and 2) remove the POV, synthesis and OR from the lead. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:07, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I have access to two full texts that look useful. The abstracts can be found here and here. Funny story: both of them say that Aspergians suck when it comes to visuospatial analysis. The full text of the first one looks much more useful, since it says that while verbal IQ is superior to performance IQ in Aspergians, high functioning autistics are the opposite. Whoever stuck that in this article (the Wikipedia one, that is) must be awfully confused. As you can see, the abstract says nothing of the sort, so citing it may be a bad idea. Would you like me to copy and paste it's references onto the Talk page?--Rmky87 being lazy
Actually, the one that discusses the visuospatial abilities of HFAs relative to Aspergians is the second one. We don't have to cite the first one at all. I don't know what the hell I was thinking. And I happen to know that it's "its" and not "it's".--165.173.136.127 15:44, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The sections that still need to be completely rewritten, neutralized, and reviewed for reliability are:
Causes
Characteristics
Epidemiology struck, rewritten
Classification
And last, but most critical, the Lead
I wouldn't count on anything in those sections being true to reliable sources yet. We've rewritten to reliable sources so far:
History
Comorbidities
Treatment (still in my sandbox)
Diagnosis
Prognosis
Cultural aspects
We could use any/all help in sources to verify content for the sections that need to be rewritten, and later we need to smooth out all the text. We need images. There is ample discussion on the article talk page. Confining comments to the article talk page at this point would be helpful. There's no need to fill up the FAR page with detail, as there are many editors at work on the article talk page. Of particular concern is replacing the overreliance on Attwood (a 10-year-old book not subject to peer review) with PubMed or other peer-reviewed sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:34, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, it may not be efficient or productive to go point-by-point looking to verify pieces of text, since so much of it is inaccurate. I've got four journal reviews that I'm using to completely rewrite, mostly from scratch, saving what I can verify from the original text. It's a matter of using peer-reviewed secondary sources to verify that info included is relevant and up to date and correctly reported vis-a-vis subsequent and other work. The Characteristics section, for example, may not be salvageable at all; it seems to have developed in bits and pieces by people adding their idea of what AS is, and then later trying to retrofit citations to the text. If you can verify anything sourced to Attwood to a PubMed source, or locate any images, that would be helpful. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to suggest during this FAR that care be taken to comprehensively represent the full state of knowledge on this topic; Asperger's is not fully described by medical manuals as these sources by definition have interest only in pathology. There is persistent mention of special abilities in Asperger's among the world's leading subject matter authorities. In order to avoid accusation of POV, I think care should be taken not to dismiss nor to marginalize these claims, nor to engage in OR disputations of them. The two centers of research in the english speaking world may be taken to be the Autism Research Centre at the University of Cambridge, UK, headed by Simon Baron Cohen and The Yale Child Study Center in the USA under the
direction of Volksmar.
quoth baron cohen, "We have grown familiar with the idea that autism is a 'psychiatric condition', a 'disorder', a 'disability' or a 'handicap' ... autism might be better characterised as a different cognitive style" http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/7138/lobby/disability.htm
baron cohen writes in subsequent studies that mathematical ability is linked to autism. In fact, of the very most talented mathematicians he studied, he found a *majority* satisfied the DSM for Asperger's. He has also argued for the existence of a genetic correlation between mathematical ability and the AS spectrum. These materials are easy to google.
Volksmar says, as children, "these are kids who talk before they can walk".
Given that these researchers are THE authoritative researchers in the field, i would suggest that central characterization of what Asperger's IS come as much from these researchers as the DSM, etc. CeilingCrash 00:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply. Please put forward any reliable sources which are not included in the article on the article talk page.
Any reliably sourced info can be included, subject to due weight. That's not to say undue weight will be given in the lead. Please read WP:LEAD; the lead is a summary of the entire article, not a place to debate only controversial aspects.
Geocities is a personal website and a copyright violation of a journal article: that journal report is used and cited in the article, a link to geocities website is not.
The Baron-Cohen report you mention is used in the article, correctly.
I'm not aware of anyone disputing Volkmar's stature in the autism community .
The Volkmar media statement that "These are kids who talk before they walk" was not in the article before work began; it was used in a footnote, sourcing a statement about "fulfilling careers in math and science" for which so far not a single source has emerged or been verified. "Talking before they can walk" is not "fulfilling careers in math and sciences". In fact, not a single piece of that sentence has been verified accurate:
I've been reading these sources and journal articles for over a week now, and nowhere has there appeared a souce saying anything close to "fulfilling careers in math and science", nor do any of the citations listed verify that text. What Baron-Cohen did say is now accurately reflected in the article.
Baron-Cohen reports a link between AS and high-achieving mathematicians, physicists and computer scientists that shows that the condition need not be an obstacle to achievement.[2] The symptoms of AS can at some point "fade to normal" and people with AS can become valued workers as adults because of the "intensity of interest and volume of knowledge" that they may bring to idiosyncratic subjects,[5] but they may lose employment if impaired understanding of social norms leads to poor judgment in work site behavior.[6]
Getting from "not an obstacle to achievement" to "fulfilling careers in math, engineering, etc." is synthesis and original research. If you have a source for fulfilling careers, pls provide. Attwood's book does mention indulging children's interest in gardening so they can become gardeners, if you'd like to include that.
If you have sources to verify any of the previously uncited and unverified text, please provide them and discuss them on the article talk page. Numerous editors are engaged in rewriting the article to be factual, neutral, and an accurate representation of reliable sources; if there is something that has not been included, you should raise it on talk. Since it appears that you helped develop much of the text that is being rewritten, your reliable sources to cite the text would be helpful. Debating on the FAR page when numerous editors are engaged on the article talk page won't help improve the article. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:05, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't describe anyone at the Yale Child Study Center—including Volkmar—as having an "interest only in pathology"; it's unfortunate you view the same experts you quote in that light, but that's not been my experience with Yale. The problem with the article was that it presented a point of view that was synthesis, original research, and which misquoted and extensively misrepresented the sources, or didn't cite sources at all. There's no need to stretch the facts; there's no problem with accurately reporting what Baron-Cohen, Volkmar or any other reliable source says, accounting for due weight. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:25, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the anecdote published in a media report that "these are children who talk before they walk"; what would you like to do with that anecdote? I've now read dozens of sources that mention the gait, posture, balance, clumsiness, motor control and proprioception problems (not atypical to AS, although not mentioned in the DSM). Most articles dedicate more space to discussing atypical language and speech and motor skills issues in people with AS than they do discussing the diagnostic criteria. In what context should we use the statement "talk before they walk" in children with documented issues affecting walking, and how would you propose to do that without getting into original research? We can't; because it was a news report, we have no context—we have a cute anecdote that is certainly true but no context for how to use it in the article. If it's added, it's hanging, unexplained, in the context of the issues affecting walking in toddlers with AS. What we can't do is use it to support superior math and science skills or fulfilling careers. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:49, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply Perhaps you misunderstand, I am advocating Volksmar, Baron-Cohen, and Asperger himself be given authoritative weight in terms of the characterization, in their own words. Statements by these authorities should be considered without editorial commentary. For example, the supplied reference to Asperger says, in his words, "to our suprise, we have found autistics, so long as they are intellectually intact, almost always achieve professional success, often in ..." These references are already there. When someone like Baron Cohen writes a paper, "Mathematical Talent is linked to Autism", https://doi.org/10.1007%2Fs12110-007-9014-0, that is encylopedic prima face. We should keep in mind medical sources will choose a different balance, because talent is largely irrelevant to their raison d'etre.
I think a reasonable consensus as to the weight and content of this aspect should be resolved prior to this article being listed as Featured. These are not 3rd or 4th section issues, we have Baron Cohen himself openly questioning whether this is a disorder at all. This is paragraph one; a survey of the world's most recognized sources reveal a mixed consensus as to what Asperger's IS. Let the sources speak for themselves and let the mixed message emerge. Updated CeilingCrash 18:05, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article is already a featured article; its deterioration in featured status is handled via review, with the goal of retaining the featured status it already has—a goal shared by numerous editors. Even if you succeed in having it defeatured, as you advocated last May when I raised concerns on the article talk page,[7] that will not exempt the article from upholding Wiki policies and guidelines. Featured or not, the article must comply with NPOV, NOR, and RS, so causing it to lose featured status will not generate the result you advocate. The article is now within striking distance of restored status again, and I see no reason it won't be able to retain status.
The issue of diagnostic confusion and controversy is addressed in the article, and will likely be contained in the lead, and doesn't and won't depend only upon Baron-Cohen. That does not mean the entire lead should be Baron-Cohen's opinions and controversial apsects of the diagnosis. The lead is a stand-alone summary of the entire article with due weight given to controversies. I've been asking since May; have you read WP:LEAD yet? The prior lead had two pararaphs of controversy, one sentence that turned out to be completely uncitable, and no summary of the rest of the article.
Almost two weeks after work started and citations were requested, you've now provided a cite for this math link info; that's progress. Please understand the difference (as already explained to you on the talk page) between
a. A non-controlled, unscientific survey indicating that an unexpected number of people who chose math as a field of study say they have an autism diagnosis (the article is about Asperger's, not autism, by the way), and
b. A controlled, scientific study comparing a broad population of "normal" controls to people with Aspergers documenting a higher than expected rate of math talent among people with AS.
The second would document a link; the first suggests an area for further study but proves nothing. It may only show that people with autism in England choose math as a career, not that people with AS are across the board more talented in math than "normal" controls or can have fulfilling careers in math science fields. The Baron-Cohen hypothesis is already mentioned in the article; the only thing that can be sourced is what has been sourced (he suggests a link, etc.), and I've not encountered anything else in the literature to substantiate any further extension of the concept. You have provided no study documenting that people with AS are more talented at math than "normal" controls, or likely to have "fulfilling careers in math", but we have plenty of real studies documenting neuropsych differences which lead to learning difficulties. No one is trying to keep positive information out but first, present reliable sources for your edits on the talk page when asked, not two weeks later on the FAR page; and second, please understand the difference between the weight given to controlled studies vs. informal unscientific surveys in any article, particularly a medical one, please present your sources when requested, and please stop misrepresenting the strength of the results or what the sources actually say.
Others can't read your mind: the supplied reference to Asperger says, in his words, "to our suprise ... What supplied reference? We've been asking you for your sources for almost two weeks. Please provide them on the article talk page, where many editors are trying to source the article and where due weight to unscientific surveys are being discussed. I don't think you're being intentionally obtuse, but these issues have already been explained to you on the article talk page and you seem determined not to accept consensus and explanations from many editors. Responding to you on the FAR takes time that could be invested into restoring the article to status. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
reply I've given you all this. You simply don't read it. Baron Cohen's 1st paper had was a sample size of 1,000 people with a control group of 840. You launched into a similarly bizarre lecture that a control group was necessary as well as a large sample. You didn't read it. Cohen's more recent paper was placed in the Talk page two weeks ago. The quote due to Asperger was in the reference to his primary paper, which was reference #4 for months, since removed. Your objections to the content of these studies is part OR and part misreading; They do use large control groups, etc. - you are right it would be better to randomly find AS in the general population in and test those ppl for math ability, but your objection to Cohen's using mathematics students and then testing them is OR. If you want to attack a study's methods, find another RS that does it.
Our job is not to vette this research. It is to guage the prominence of the sources, report and balance it. There are more sources, indicating more accurate memories among those with AS, but every source i introduce, rather than being judged for credibility - gets lost in OR objections to what the researcher should have done.::
In short, WP:V says "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." When a luminary in the field announces a finding, we are left only to consider its weight. Even if we happen to be subject matter experts, our role here in wiki is not in an expert capacity.
I and other editors - the consensus who left a couple of weeks ago - are not likely to provide new sources when research such as this (the A you refer to) is dismissed http://www.autismresearchcentre.com/docs/papers/2001_BCetal_AQ.pdf, with a lecture on statistical theory that even a cursory reading of the source would indicate is not necessary.
The encylopedic - and efficient - way to proceed is to guage the credibility and reliability of the source, not the finding, and let the source speak for themselves via direct citation. World-recognized authorities, publishing in peer-reviewed journals, documenting their statistical methods is RS. If you disagree with their sampling methods or their conclusions and thus declare the finding "unscientific" that is an OR rejection. Updated CeilingCrash 21:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Three or four editors tried to explain the problem with 1) the source and 2) your interpretation of the source. The information has been accurately included. You are again referring to sources without specifying them, so there's not much else can be done here. If you don't recognize the need to stick to strong medical consensus and the most reliable sources when reporting on medical conditions, perhaps PMID12455663 will help you understand the problem that can occur by including speculation about things linked to AS absent conclusive evidence. The case of Jeffrey Dahmer: sexual serial homicide from a neuropsychiatric developmental perspective. "We propose that his homicidal behavior was intrinsically associated with autistic spectrum psychopathology, specifically Asperger's disorder." If you want to open the door to inclusion of the type of reports you're mentioning, that door can swing both ways. If you want to include positive speculation, you open the door to negative speculation as well: do you want the article to say that Jeffrey Dahmer's sexual serial homicidal behavior was specifically associated with Asperger's disorder? That's where your logic leads. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:24, 29 August 2007 (UTC) Others agree with the connection between violence and AS: shall we add this and any other speculative info about what is linked to AS, or shall we stick to the higher-quality journal reviews that reflect widespread, peer-reviewed medical consensus that are now being employed in the article? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:48, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll write the sentence for you; not only do you want to use non-reviewed unproven inconclusive speculation, you want it in the lead, so let's just add the following to the lead, keeping it balanced:
Some researchers report a link between AS and mathematical ability that can lead to fulfilling careers in math, physics and sciences; other researchers report a link between violence and sexual serial homicidal behavior, indicating that Jeffrey Dahmer's specific psychopathy was related to AS.
That's where your editing pattern leads; happy now? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:58, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am rather afraid that, having dug the Dahmer article up, you had probably better include it to maintain NPOV. It's a formal, peer reviewed study. You can't "spin" the article by exclusion any more than inclusion. Oh well, at least he was a competant, and prolific serial killer, that might offset the popular image of "Aspie as useless and ineffectual" a little?Zeraeph 03:05, August 29, 2007 (UTC)
You might have read it more carefully than I did, so pls quote from the sources if I'm wrong, but I didn't see that it was a formal study or a formal diagnosis; it seems to be someone's opinion and speculation. Also, there's a broader point here. We don't rely exclusively on primary sources on Wikipedia. The reason we use the journal reviews is that we rely on secondary source commentary to interpret controversial and confusing results for us and assign due weight to statements like these, rather than relying on the primary source, individual report. The parallel between these two cases is that no important secondary source has mentioned either Dahmer or the math connection; they are both no more than speculation by individuals that got published, haven't been mentioned in any important medical journal, and don't rise to the level of importance of being mentioned in any secondary source review. Neither of these meet WP:RS and WP:ATT guidelines; the math issue has two sentences in the article now only because CeilingCrash has insisted, not because there is any worthy mention of this issue in any important literature. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:06, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's Ferrari, Silva and Leoung (very reputable names and familiar WP:RS from other psych articles), from the Journal of Forensic Sciences. PMID15171195 is one review of it on PUBmed, it is cited here [8] - I'm sure there are more, but I'm in a hurry here. I cannot imagine what else it would need to fit WP:RS. You really had better include it to avoid POV. --Zeraeph 12:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I linked to the full text of that Letter to the Editor above. It's only a letter to the editor; in other words, someone's opinion that got published. Journals have different policies on what they will publish as a Letter to the Editor. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:49, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The source under discussion is this http://www.autismresearchcentre.com/docs/papers/2001_BCetal_AQ.pdf . My allegation has been such sources - and this is one of many - primary and secondary sources, have been dismissed without so much as reading them. Your response was
"either Dahmer or the math connection; they are both no more than speculation by individuals that got published."
Quod erat demonstrandumCeilingCrash 20:07, 29 August 2007 (UTC) Out[reply]
As stated before: the conclusions of that paper are already included in the article, and you are overextending the results. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:44, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see that Image:Hans Aspergersmall.jpg is really of any use to the article. The caption is replicated in the text of the article, showing the image can be replaced in purpose by text. Showing a very grainy photo depicting Hans standing with a child doesn't improve the article. I think this image clearly violates fair use considerations. Also, Image:Asperger kl2.jpg is a marginal case of fair use inclusion. I don't see that it's necessary to the article to depict Hans here. --Durin 14:02, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (copied on talk page) I am very concerned that the article has developed a really alarming POV creep. Not sure why or how that is happening. But I am sure that I honestly do not have time to have every word I say, and source I suggest, dismissed out of hand for, often spurious, reasons, as has happened to other editors here. I stopped editing to avoid the stress of the constant arguments here, honestly believing the article was in safe hands, so what the heck? I pop back to look and find that there are illustrations giving WP:UNDUE to one, unproven neurological theory of Autism (not even AS) and an anti-psychotic that is occasionally prescribed, and quoteboxes [9] that highlight ONLY the most negative and disparaging quotes about AS, completely distorting the impression given to any casual reader of the nature of the condition and those who have it. The Tourette syndrome article, for example, has never had similar quoteboxes. --Zeraeph 07:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No need to have the same discussion in two different places; here's my response to you on the article talk page. Basically, TS already has sufficient images, while we're seeking images for AS, and I didn't expect you to think that "One of the most striking features of individuals with AS is their passionate pursuit of specific areas of interest" was "negative and disparaging". I'm still not sure why you think the brain image of areas implicated in AS *and* autism is undue weight, but we can all explore that on the talk page. Very little is "proven" wrt neurological conditions, but we can still reflect strong consensus. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:42, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here is my full response to you. The subliminal message created by the quoteboxes and images, in sequence [10], indicates cold blooded, single minded people without verbal skills or grace who are brain damaged and need medication. That is POV.
Risperidone is not of any particular significance or relevance to AS, and the suggested neurological features of Autism (not AS) are not relevant at all (unless you are now prepared to accept sources that reference Autism without specific reference to AS in the article as well?) so it becomes misleading to use them.
On the talk page you imply that you must find more images for FA status. I think it is a very good idea to raise that issue here, because any attitude of "images for the sake of images", particularly semi-relevant or irrelevant images, as a qualifier for FA, is unreasonable. If there are no relevant images available, then there are not. --Zeraeph 12:40, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(outdent) I've been involved in the copy-editing of part of this nomination. It's not an easy job to revamp, but I'm satisfied that it's going in the right direction, particularly Sandy's efforts to present the rather fragmented literature in as scientifically and socially balanced way as possible, while providing as much cohesion as possible. Tony 01:47, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, having have time to sit and read the article fully I am forced to regretfully concede that it has developed an overall negative bias so serious that I have been left with no option but to delink it from several websites where I trusted the article to provide a consistently objective dynamic overview for years (something that I felt was more objective and balanced than providing a static overview). The sources seem fine, but the information cited to them is confined to the negatives (though an equal amount of positives do exist in the sources, and remain unmentioned), and much of the text seems to have a further negative bias.
Equally, the current nature of the text makes it totally inaccessible to anyone with less than third level comprehension (though, in it's current, biased, state, perhaps I should be thankful for small mercies?)
This is a particularly significant article globally in terms of influencing attitude and opinion. Because of the specific nature of AS, those affected are more likely to seek information on the internet. During the years of it's existance this article has built a solid reputation, even in print, as a balanced and neutral source. The RL damage done by this negative POV shift will be considerable. Up to this point, the editors involved honestly seem more interested in justifying what they have done and "winning", than in whether the article is actually fair, balanced, objective and accessible, as it should be.
My evaluation of this situation is as detached and impartial as it needs to be, but as someone who has to directly deal with the RL fallout I do not feel I can continue to maintain impartiality in my comments for much longer, so I am taking a Wikibreak rather than start "saying what I REALLY think" and incurring sanction. --Zeraeph 10:47, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Suggested FA criteria concerns are citations (1c), prose (1a), organization (4), and stability (1e).Marskell 13:53, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Substantive points in review commentary have been addressed by a substantial rewrite by SandyGeorgia, myself, and others. Citations are now high quality and support the claims made. Prose is of a professional standard; I won't claim "brilliant". Organization now conforms to WP:MEDMOS. Since we finished major editing today I can't claim the article is stable. The article, like every article about the autism spectrum, remains controversial, but it is now high-quality. Eubulides 22:17, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep now. If it can't stay with this amount of work then...argh! I think teh prose is crisp and the stability seems to have reached a middle ground (I hope..) cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 00:00, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Remove I have considered this long and hard. During this review, as during the last, serious issues of WP:OWN have arisen, where a single editor has dedicated between 60 and 80 hours a week, whenever necessary, to effectively preventing anyone else from editing this article for FAR in any substantial way unless they are prepared to embrace a subordinate role to an editor who's main area of knowledge is more likely to be featured article reviews than Asperger syndrome. This is not the place to discuss that issue as a whole, and I do not intend to do so, but after due consideration I feel certain aspects of that are relevent to FA status.
I do not feel that under those circumstances an article can be considered "stable". 11 months after the last FAR the article was largely unrecogniseable [11]. Not because old editors had come back and reverted, but because new editors had found the contents unsatisfactory. An annual, overhaul for FAR that does not remain by consensus is not a stable article.
I also feel that, as the exclusion of editors, and the contribution of editors, who refused to subordinate themselves has taken clear priority over the quality of the article, I do not see how it could possibly be an example of the best that Wikipedia can produce. To the contrary, it is an example of the antithesis of everything Wikipedia stands for.
Lastly, without the without the autonomous input of a variety of editors there is no way to avoid POV creep, no matter how subtle, and no matter how subtle, POV creep does not add up to a featured article. --Zeraeph 11:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Remove and improve per Zaraeph. In its present form the article is open to credible accusations of POV, in that it does not reflect the dual nature (disability versus gift) articulated by the leading centers of research in this field, particularly the U Cambridge Centre for Autism Research (Baron-Cohen), the Montreal/U Wisconsin group, and the Yale Center for Child Studies (Volksmar). It is more important to me that further work is done to balance the article than that a star appears next to it. updated CeilingCrash 17:33, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep because each contentious section now leads to a main or child article where emotionality and cutting edge, but not yet strongly enough peer reviewed and replicated can be effectively presented. This is the type of article that attracts emotionally charged readers, for these are THEIR children and diagnoses that have impacted too close to deal with an unemotional NPOV article. The daughter articles (linked at the TOP of each section) allows those who need more, who need more sources of optimism and hope, who need more positive spin. This gives them those platforms that will keep a well-written encyclopedic quality article from being destroyed again by quotes, research results and "facts" that cannot be verified by those who have been struggling with the rewrite.
And some who want things to stay as they already are have often not offered anything in exchange and that makes me irritated as I want to see them add reworded things or help fix the citation errors or add new things that can pass the Wiki encyclopedia test. For me, it seems critics can be taken more seriously when the critic is a participant in the process. There have been very active and productive participants as well as being vocal critics (should point out some persons are on vacations and have not been available).
To those persons with strong objections, perhaps some strong importing of deleted material and significant editing begun on these sister or child articles would be a compromise. And perhaps it is now time to contact those editors who did a lot of work on the 2006 edition, but who haven't dropped by in this past month so they can look this over. My opinions and thoughts, for what they are worth Kiwi 01:49, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
removed comment that was not part of what I posted in rewrite Kiwi 18:17, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Replacing explaination that first comment was replaced as per agreement with Kiwi[12],[13]--Zeraeph 18:31, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment
In terms of Wikipedia, "sources of optimism and hope" and "more positive spin" would constitute clear WP:POV, and should definitely disqualify an article from featured article status. - Zeraeph 02:22, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Comment I follow the further point of your argument, and if that were what happened here I would agree with you, but, in truth, no editor was allowed to contribute without the permission of one editor who seems to have near unlimited time to revert and tie them up with, largely spurious, arguments on Talk. To my mind, every aspect of WP:OWN and WP:GAME were flouted openly here. There is no point in making contributions that you know are only going to be reverted anyway based on endless, convoluted, rationales that nobody has the time to follow let alone challenge. To my mind, that is all very clever in terms of "strategy", and suggests a considerable potential for playing chess, but it does NOT lead to a fair and balanced article created by consensus.--Zeraeph 06:56, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(outdent) Comment I ceased participating - and i don't think I'm alone in this - due to a persistent failure to observe WP in the consideration of sources. I would introduce a peer-reviewed, large-sample, conclusive study published by a luminary in the field only to be confronted with nearly delirious nay-saying. "It must be peer reviewed." "It is." "But we need a large sample." "There's 1000 data points." "I don't see where in this study it says ..." "Let me paste it for you." "This study does not prove causation." "It doesn't claim causation." "Well, given all this controversy, I'm not sure ..." And so on. A startling failure to make coherent progress. I had 20 or so sources. I walked away at 2. The Archives make manifest the failure, so far, to dispassionately adhere to policy while surveying the broad, conflicting and evolving body of knowledge w.r.t. Asperger's - with an apostrophe - the preferred american spelling. CeilingCrash 04:10, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Agree with Eubulides/Casliber's assessment. Colin°Talk 13:12, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Remove. I'm extremely pressed for time at the moment (late for a wedding) so can't say as much as I'd like, but this is my first involvement in a FAR, and I have to admit to being caught by surprise by the stability requirement. As should be apparent to anyone reviewing the talk pages and discussion above, there are still a lot of disagreements about what this page should be like, and I can't imagine the article being stable unless someone succeeds in asserting permanent ownership of it, which should not happen. I hope that the conflicts in perspective can be worked out eventually, but doubt that it will happen soon. Rather, I expect that substantial changes will continue for some time to come. Poindexter Propellerhead 01:50, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment I can't say "keep" since I already have, but wish to point out that one of the biggest problems in attempting to bring this article to FAR status was to weed out huge amounts of material about various evolving theories of everything from causation to treatment to whether or not AS has anything in the world to do with the autistic spectrum of disorders. Most of this material (and even much of the retained text) was totally unsourced or miscited to have little or not relationship to text it was attached to... As has been said, the objectives were to trim the size and to describe AS alone, as best as it is universally understood, while addressing the fact that there is much contention and variant thought. I think this has been well dealt with by the enhanced creation of child articles (prominently noted/linked at the BEGINNING of each relevant sub-topic). Only in such child topics can these issues be fully and realistically addressed with the vast quantities of studies available. Within the existing article, to reduce such scope to a sentence or two would be demeaning and dismissive of these very important issues. I feel that this compromise can lead to a very enriched presentation of the Asperger Syndrome without anyone who reads the central article being led to think that there is no more to be said, explained or understood about AS. -end of comment. Thank you for listening- Kiwi 04:36, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Remove I had a hard time deciding this but I finally had to vote Remove. There are several reasons:
(1)I think the current article is too POV and does not reflect a balance between the "medical condition" and "alternate cognitive type".
(2)I also think it is obvious that there are strong opinions on both sides that have not been worked out - and there is no rush. It is not worth risking the quality of the article by rushing it to just "get a star next to it" as someone said. As a person diagnosed with "mild" Asperger's and with a son who has been diagnosed with a far more serious case I am committed that this article be an authoritative and accurate NPOV source of information for the circle of people around myself and my son.
(3) I am concerned that - upon reviewing the histories- that it does seem that some valid studies have been suppressed or removed because some editors were aggressively maintaining their point of view. I don't want the Dahlmer article quoted but I also don't want POV suppression.
So remove on my part! Alex Jackl 17:29, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Suggested FA criteria concerns are citations (1c), prose (1a), organization (4), and stability (1e)
Further comment The Reject reponses have all cycled round issues that properly belong on and have been extensively discussed on the Talk Page for the AS topic.
first of all, this is a medical article, not a social issues article, not a "what to hope for your AS child" or how some adult AS see themselves and are seeking more public understanding and acceptance.
second of all, if this medical article were to be considered NPOV because of the fact that it IS a medical article, then the bipolar article or breast cancer article or innumerable articles, if seen the same way, would fail the medical article test and changed to show a plethora of POVs.
third of all, allowing room for adequate presentation of each desired alternative interpretation of AS would easily double or more the length of the article, while still leaving the topics less than thoroughly covered.
I hold that the "main articles" (or daughter-hild-whatever they have been called) are seen for what they are, not POV non-Wiki compliant topics, but, over time, as with all Wiki articles, will come to attract the quality of editors who can teach and guide newcomers to properly present and cite the basis for properly presented facts.
I summarize by pointing out that this Article Review forum is not the place to argue issues that were already argued out on the talk page. In each case, it was attempted to explain that what was desired was to include non-medical, non-peer reviewed demonstrably replicated research. In other cases, it was begged and begged that the original quotes be presented to support material that had gradually devolved into what seemed OR or hopeful opinion. No one was able or willing to do so over the past 6 weeks.
No one, including Sandy or Eupi, are trying to say that the newest of theories, hypotheses and early research studies should be ignored, but are simply saying they cannot be legitimately covered, at length without proper medical-worthy citation, in a a medical article.
However, in articles that deal with theories and tests of treatments and cures, social movements afoot, the history of the AS, covering the evolution of how AS has been understood and interpreted over time, even going into depth about recent neuropsychiatric research involving MRI scans of LFA, HFA and AS subjects, seeking for brain similarities and differences to clarify diagnositic issues. I believe that all these topics need thorough coverage in their own topic pages. I think the present acknowledgements and links to the main topic pages is the ultimate solution to keeping this medical article a medical article.
Comment I am in complete agreement with the creation of "daughter articles". Prior to this FA I actually printed off a synopsis (not the whole) of the existing article at that time, to accompany a presentation, and was shocked to find it came to 8 pages. That told me, there and then, that the subject needed daughter articles...and it got bigger since, before it got smaller.
However, that being said and done, the main article needs to summarise all aspects and POV on Asperger syndrome even more than before. Articles such as Diagnosis of Asperger syndrome are the medical articles (just as History of Asperger syndrome is nothing of the kind. With the breakdown into other articles I believe that Asperger syndrome should be less of a strictly medical article than ever before. (BTW now you have expressed a clear, objective opinion, would you mind terribly if we archived all the other stuff, and my responses, to avoid senseless clutter?)--Zeraeph 19:40, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment in form of responses to Zeraeph
Hi, Zeraeph, first to address your last issue, I don't think any of this FARC should be removed, save for the "senseless clutter". If you know how to make it disappear or be archived on its own, I give an unqualified YES.
Next, I happen to know that you are an excellent editor and a more than good writer, and I would like to kindly ask you if you would please create that first draft of such a separate paragraph that would indeed summarize all POV and contentious areas. Your long and close familiarity with AS gives you an edge over those of us who are definitely in the learner stage. Put it on the Talk Page. And your sandbox, too? It would have to be concise and precise to each and all. Someone needs to do this. It would have the ability to pull all the random mentions into one locale. Kiwi 20:19, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Now I have decluttered as I see it Wikipedia:Featured article review/Asperger syndrome/special archive, but if you disagree, move stuff back. I left your "strong keep" with it's original timeline, I think you reiterated all the objective points since (and very well too)?
I will take a stab at what you suggest tomorrow, but to be very honest with you, I am "painting too close to the wall" whenever I try. I feel others, like PP and CC, always wind up expressinbg it all far better than I could. So don't hold your breath.--Zeraeph 20:57, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Gee, Z - didn't expect you to use a meat cleaver. :o))Yeah, I'd like to see the good stuff put back in, even if I've said it better since. Makes my "strong keep" now look like a rather shallow knee-jerk opinion without any basis. So I presume I have to do this myself????? You're the expert, not me. Please?
So go ahead and paint close to the wall! If you start if off, then PP & CC will be forced to step into your sandbox, then you can bring the result into the Talk page for comments and critique, to clean it up, smooth the presentation, make sure all the links to other pages are properly in place. All that good stuff all gathered together rather than scattered here and there. It will be good to see how it works. Kiwi 21:15, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, I think your later, objective, commentary, if anything made your point more strongly, I don't agree (in this specific case), but that doesn't mean the point is not well made. Actually, I doubt if we have any fundamental disagreement at all that could not be ironed out in the way you suggest.
The problem is that this article was not recreated in the way you suggest at all, nor discussed with the open minded respect you offer. --Zeraeph 21:31, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We have never had to refactor a FARC page before; I've restored the text removed by Zeraeph.[14] Zeraeph, please refrain from removing commentary. Please, both of you, read WP:TALK, confine your commentary to issues related to WP:WIAFA, and if you must tit-for-tat like this, then please use the talk page associated with this page, at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/Asperger syndrome/archive3. Please don't disrupt this page further; if you want the page refactored, pls discuss it at WT:FAR. Please don't create other archives that remove FARC commentary to a strange page; if you must comment elsewhere, use the talk page associated with this page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:34, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have returned the page to the state in which I am only prepared to defer to User:A Kiwi's choices. It is not for you to dictate and micro manage every page you edit over the wishes of other editors. My wishes, and those of User:A Kiwi have the same weight as yours, and, in combination, override them. --Zeraeph 21:48, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Will you two please work this out on the associated talk page? I've put a record of the refactoring there. Zeraeph, you can't remove someone's Strong Keep commentary, and A Kiwi indicated displesure with "the meat cleaver". Please take it to talk; this is disrupting the FAR. Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/Asperger syndrome/archive3SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:55, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We have already worked it out, without your input. I have archived the discussion on the amiable understanding that User:A Kiwi will restore anything she feels is missing. I cannot really understand why you would wish to challenge that civilised resolution? It seems to me that the only person disrupting the FAR at this point is you? --Zeraeph 21:58, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'll offer no judgement on who is disrupting here, and only say: almost always, you cannot remove anyone's comments. You can remove a post full of cussing etc., that says nothing applicable to the topic, but you can't remove comments that you (merely) disagree with. Repeatedly doing so is blockable. So don't. Marskell 22:23, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Marskell, it is not about "comments I disagree with", User:A Kiwi has eloquently reiterated plenty of those with my blessing, it is simply about the removal of irrelevant personal speculation about me that User:A Kiwi was unaware was inappropriate, and was only too willing to see archived, for the sake of simplicity, subject to her approval. Now, in the event that you feel I am sufficiently notable for my personal details to merit an article, feel free to open one, and any who wish may contribute. I raised the question of archival on WP:AN/I several hours ago and not one single person (including User:SandyGeorgia raised any objection. --Zeraeph 22:34, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you two will please use the talk page here, we can all mutally work out a way to refactor the page to everyone's satisfaction. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:02, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - FWIW, the original flagger, Giggy, is back editing as Dihydrogen Monoxide. I dropped him a note. cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 23:38, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in support of the article maintaining featured status, based on its current state. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 00:04, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Yeah, this should remain. In doing a little copy-editing on this article, I've been struck by how it is indeed among our best work: not only is it well written, it knits together cogently the most important research out there from a field that is not easy to make sense of, and crosses both researchers and practitioners, with their different vantage points. The referencing is excellent, as it needs to be in such a field. This article is a good service indeed to the Internet. Tony(talk) 12:49, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I follow the further point of your argument, and if that were what happened here I would agree with you, but, in truth, no editor was allowed to contribute without the permission of one editor who seems to have near unlimited time to revert and tie them up with, largely spurious, arguments on Talk. To my mind, every aspect of WP:OWN and WP:GAME were flouted openly here. There is no point in making contributions that you know are only going to be reverted anyway based on endless, convoluted, rationales that nobody has the time to follow let alone challenge. To my mind, that is all very clever in terms of "strategy", and suggests a considerable potential for playing chess, but it does NOT lead to a fair and balanced article created by consensus.--Zeraeph 06:56, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Comment in reply. Since many people (like me) look at the bottom of the page to catch up on what has been said since their last visit, I took the liberty (hope that's okay) to copy your comment up high in the Comments section in order to respond to it.
Your comments follow your arguments of last year regarding the review of the same article - that only one editor, the same one as last summer, dictated to the point of refusing to allow any POV but hers to be retained. This particular editor is particularly expert in bringing articles to FAR status and the reason is that she is very knowledgeable in what it takes for an article to achieve that status. To someone understanding the standards governing a medical article, what had to repeatedly explained were not "convoluted rationales" and to suggest that they were could be ignored since "nobody has the time to follow let alone challenge" is ludicrous in the extreme. To reduce the hard justifiable work on this terribly degraded article to a supposed exercise in "cleverness" and "strategy", a game of chess, shows me a great deal of disregard for a talented skillful effort built on years of intelligent hard work. Kiwi 14:49, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (sorry to be patchy but my connection is WEIRD today) Firstly, the priority on Wikipedia is the actual quality of the article, NOT whether it can be "finnessed" through FA status, by FA regulars. That is like learning how to pass driving tests instead of learning to drive. Secondly, if you look back (through archives is best) you will find that the "convoluted rationales" I referred had little or nothing to do with unbderstanding of the standards governing a medical article at all and a lot to do with disputing which way a bean grows up a stalk for the sake of it. --Zeraeph 15:42, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sandy & Eubi both availed themselves of the kinds of research reviews that are acceptable to a medical article. Those who most objected presented nothing but dismay that conjecture and OR was being removed, but few were able or willing to spend the past weeks gathering anything, available through a variety of sources. I have learned that you can often email an author for a full abstract and he will insteaad delightedly send you the entire article. It can be that easy.
'Comment Not when every piece of research thus obtained is summarily dismissed (often unread) on spurious grounds then buried under verbiage of questionable relevancy. --Zeraeph 15:42, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Criticism of those who lead is easy. Taking the effort to become an authoritative contributor takes a bit of effort, but is open to all. Better to be a student and take the time to read those rationales than to dismiss them as meaningless. It is easy to sit on the sidelines and jeer, much harder to become an educated contributor - but it is worth it. Kiwi 14:49, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment On Wikipedia, as in life, he who imposes leadership without consent, or respect, simply dictates. We are not here on Wikipedia to be "leaders and educators" (see WP:OWN), we are here to produce and edit valid information by consensus. In fact the "kinds of research" availed of were usually of no greater or lesser quality than those dismissed under an avalanche of superfluous verbiage on talk...
You would be surprised how many people, worldwide, behave exactly the same way this year as they did last...it is called "consistency". --Zeraeph 15:27, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I believe that in order to make progress certain of us need to drop their presumption of authority, and dispassionately apply WP to high quality sources - balancing their relative weight. I think we also need to drop our preconceptions as to what kind of article this is, and let the sources themselves characterize Asperger's - warts and all : Asperger, Wing, Baron-Cohen, Attwood, Volksmar, and so on. I agree with Z's suggestion of mediation, not as a means for one group to bring another 'to justice', but because a referee will bring the many points of contention to speedy conclusion or compromise in compliance with WP.
I would further suggest this : perhaps we can reach agreement over the sources first, come up with a list of the world's most recognized sources - primary and secondary - and then balance what it is they say, irrespective of personal beliefs as to their statements. In short - let's not write an article about what Asperger's is; let's write an article on what the prevailing experts say it is. CeilingCrash 16:48, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good idea actually, particularly with all the spin off articles now. This may be a bit "cutting edge" but I wonder if it would be possible to set up a mediated "AS and Autism Project" to agree these things? I think the alternative is to have the same sordid scrummage annually, even if with different players, to get a "token AS article" long enough to fast track FA. That isn't representative of either AS or Wikipedia.--Zeraeph 18:23, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - a directed response Zeraeph, this quote of yours, "On Wikipedia, as in life, he who imposes leadership without consent, or respect, simply dictates. We are not here on Wikipedia to be "leaders and educators" (see WP:OWN, we are here to produce and edit valid information by consensus."
Indeed, elder editors are repeatedly urged to educate those less experienced and to lead in topic development by leading by example as well as explaining why something doesn't hit the mark, no matter how well intended.
As to you suggesting WP:OWN has any relevancy on AS, it holds not a drop of water as the editor you are targeting had not taken so much as a peek at the topic since last July. Her role is helping bring suggested topics to FAR status or to help them regain FA status. She has not, in any manner whatsoever, exerted any sense of ownership at all. She spends a few weeks, then moves on.
As to valid information, total agreement on medically peer reviewed valid. But consensus is seldom or never an outcome, but those who oppose improvement do not, via words and viewpoint, make their lack of consensus have greater weight when WikiPedia policy is still the ultimate goal - to make this venture, in every topic eventually, completely encyclopedia worthy. Kiwi 18:04, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply You really got me there Kiwi...cos if I concede you "elder editor" status you can probably have me under WP:CIVIL. :o)
Of course, like Marriage, WP:OWN applies as much to episodes of ownership as to a lifetime of it. It is about the manner of the presumed ownership, not the duration.
Also, I don't mean this unkindly, but you do have a history of innocence and confusion over what actually constitutes "medically peer reviewed valid" [15] and might not always be the best person to make a final judgement about what that is? Though you are AWESOME on accessible text. --Zeraeph 18:36, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Before this gets any bloodier (or becomes a lifetime vocation for anyone) I suggest the wisest course would be to bring this to WP:MC, and have all the issues here formally mediated once and for all. For myself I am concerned about:
But I am sure others can add to that list. Until this is properly resolved it will just crop up over and over again. --Zeraeph 19:50, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Clear examples of article instability, which I see as the main reason why this needs to be sorted out finally with Medcom:
Suggesting that formal mediation is a waste of time here. This article, in my view, now well and truly satisfies the FA criteria, and is an important contribution to the field. IMO, an excellent job has been done in negotiating NPOV; there may be room for tweaks here and there from time to time, but the article should be retained. I call for this nomination to be settled now as "Keep". I do not believe that it's appropriate to wind FAR/C into a mediation process: bring it to mediation if you must, but outside and after this process, which should not be influenced by this tactic. Before we know it, every second FAC and FAR will end up at mediation. Tony(talk) 08:54, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, and kudos to Eubulides for another fine restoration of a controversial article to featured status. In one month, and with over 30 different editors and 700KB of talk discussion encompassing six talk page archives, and with all editors afforded time to review most proposed text in Sandbox prior to it being added to the article, the article has gone from a poorly and unsourced article containing problematic images and factual inacccuracies, synthesis, POV and original research [16] to a reliably sourced, comprehensive article with free images, reflecting majority and minority viewpoints about the condition. Notably, in spite of on- and off-Wiki canvassing and stealth canvassing (more than meeting the Raul intelligent design test for bringing articles under attack to featured status), the article has enjoyed stable consensual editing for at least a month. Summarizing the opposes raised above:
Stability: there seems to be some confusion about the stability criterion. There were problems prior to the FAR period, but the article has enjoyed remarkable stability during the FAR, with extensive talk page discussions of every edit. Those saying the article is unstable haven't presented any indication of instability. Zeraeph presents diffs showing the article was massively rewritten, which reflects the restoration needed during this FAR due to the inferior version which passed FAR last year and the deterioration in the article during the year.
POV: there seems to a misunderstanding of WP:UNDUE. Majority viewpoints based on the highest quality sources are reflected, while every minority viewpoint raised on talk and that could be attributed to reliable sources has been included, some even in the lead in order to balance positive and impairing aspects of the condition.
Zeraeph's arguments are the same she used in last year's FAR, which were resoundingly rejected in four discussions at the administrators' noticeboards and three mediations. She has never presented a single piece of evidence that the article is POV or unstable; no one has ever presented any reliably sourced point of view that is not already included in the article and accorded due weight. Zeraeph's arguments amount to IDON'TLIKEIT, with no actionable evidence backing up any of her claims about the article or any editors involved in the article.
This is now among Wiki's finest articles, and Eubulides' fine restoration should be rewarded with the star it deserves. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:22, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Closing: I am going to keep this. The general precedent on split reviews is to lean toward keep. (And I'm not really sure how split this really is, when you get past some of the cruft that's been posted.) The specific precedent would be Global warming. In both, daughter articles have been deemed the best way to handle extraneous details. In both, peer reviewed journals have been vigorously demanded. And in both, the article has been good and information rich despite cries to the contrary. The prose is solid here and the page comprehensive.
And no, formal mediation is not within FAR's ambit. Marskell 14:55, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.
A 2004 promotion. It has shockingly five references, far less than I would expect from an FA (1c). Some whole sections are not referenced and some just seem completely off-topic, such as the letter games section. hbdragon88 00:49, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It could certainly do with some more references to come in line with modern FA standards. I'll try and have a look. I don't think the ROT13 word-pairs are particularly off-topic; perhaps a bit of trimming. — Matt Crypto 08:54, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've made a first pass, adding a bunch of extra references, and otherwise tightening up on some of the more crufty bits. — Matt Crypto 11:13, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did a bit of basic MOS cleanup; pls have a look at WP:CITE/ES on formatting of the footnotes. All sources should have a publisher, websources should have last accessdate, and author and publication date should be given when available. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:25, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try and polish them up this coming weekend (anyone else is welcome to do it first, of course.) — Matt Crypto 20:30, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hbdragon88, please notify relevant editors and Projects with ((subst:FARMessage|ROT13)) and leave a message here about notifications, per the instructions at WP:FAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:11, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I notified Fredrik (original nom) and the Crytopgraphy WikiProject about a couple hours before your post. Matt Crypto (who ranks as the #1 editor) seems to have already known. hbdragon88 01:36, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a quite small topic, in both cryptography and the history of the Internet. The frivolous uses made of it in academic papers and word games are, in fact, fair game. WP does not have a dour Calvinist charter to forcibly squeeze the amusement others have made of a subject from any article about it. Their amusement is eligible for notice on WP. Though many editors attempt to enforce such a policy. This article does a good job ov covering its slight subject. Worthy of FA status. ww 09:51, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The citation formatting is all over the place, no consistent style (see WP:CITE/ES. All sources need a publisher, all websources need a last access date, and author and publication date should be listed when available, all in a consistent bibliographic format. Cite templates can be used if editors are unsure how to format citations. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:22, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – unless I'm missing something, the images have no fair-use rationales. AshnardTalkContribs 10:46, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not clear they need it. The first diagram has been dedicated to the public domain, so that does not need a fair-use rationale. The second is a screenshot of a ROT-13 rendering of the Wikipedia homepage. I'm not an expert on these things, but given that all the software and content depicted in the screenshot is freely licensed in some way, that probably doesn't need a fair-use rationale either. — Matt Crypto 15:46, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Suggested FA criteria concerns are citations (1c) and relevance of material (4).Marskell 13:07, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Remove—For such a short article to retain its gold star, I'd want to see better writing, better coverage of ht material, and a deeper overview of the big picture. Here are a few things that caught my eye; there are lots more.
"An additional feature of the cipher is that it is symmetrical"—um ... why not "An additional feature of the cipher is its symmetry". Let's not force our readeres to stumble.
MOS breach: no hyphen after "-ly".
Is there some point to enclosing text in those ugly dotted-line rectangles? Tony 12:50, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Could you clarify what you mean by a deeper overview of the big picture? The dotted rectangles are an artifact of how Mediawiki renders blocks of text in a fixed-width font; the idea is that people can line up corresponding plaintext and ciphertext. No doubt we can get rid of the lines easily enough. (P.S. I hope I don't come across as rude in saying this, but if you find a pesky hyphen that is in breach of the manual of style, I'd encourage you to zap it right then and there, rather than telling other people about it. It's of little benefit to document defects that would take less time to fix than to describe.) — Matt Crypto 17:43, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, reference formatting has still not been fixed, see comment above and WP:CITE/ES. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:50, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I may have erred in asking for a "deeper overview of the big picture". I just feel, as a non-expert, that the lead doesn't prepare me—put me in the picture—smoothly for the rest of the text. Maybe I'm wrong. This statement: "A shift of thirteen was chosen over other values, such as three as in the original Caesar cipher, because thirteen is the value which arranges that encoding and decoding are equivalent, thereby allowing the convenience of a single command for both encoding and decoding.[4]" might be better in "Description" than "Usage". When Sandy's points are addressed, you can disregard my "Remove". Tony 11:56, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's very short and Matt has already done much work, so I'll just format the refs myself. A couple of more sentences can be added to the lead, as well. Marskell 13:44, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Marskell 16:18, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.
I do not believe this article is up to current FA standards, it was promoted two years ago and would be unlikely to be promoted to FA if submitted in its current form today:
It lacks citations, and has several "citation needed" flags to boot (not added by me).
References listed are few and poor.
Article is very short.
The "cultural influence" section is non-prose
There is no exmination of the later impact of his promotion of the sun-god Elagabalus (who later became the official chief deity of the ROman Empire).
Comment - I believe the problems can be fixed within the two week period. First the article is not short by any standard. Although there are only two "citation needed" tags, yes the article is poorly sourced (it is mainly sourced back to other wiki articles) but many, if not all of the external links are improperly added to that section and could be sources for the article. It is not really incorrect and I know at least a few other references that confirm much of the article just off the top of my head (actually I believe I may have listed some on an Ancient Rome Forum I started) Any editor can change the "Cultural influence" section if needed. As for the other statement above, I am not sure it is entirely valid but will look into it.--Amadscientist 12:16, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply. I look at this article and it would be hard-pushed under the current criteria to scrape GA status, let alone FA. THis is a problem with many older FA articles, since the FA standard was far lower back in 2005 when this article made FA. The sourcing is the biggest problem but there are several others, the main ones outlined above. Cheers - PocklingtonDan (talk) 17:01, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've made some improvements over the past three days. While not quite passing FA criteria yet, I think we're at least headed back to Good Article status quality. Where possible, I've provided citations and references, made some rewrites/deletions/expansions and improved images. The cultural references and external links sections were properly sorted. There are still several claims in the text which need sources attributed to them, and I think the cultural references could still benefit from further clean-up. Regards. --Steerpike 21:51, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Suggested FA criteria concerns are referencing (1c), length and comprehensiveness (2b and 4), and prose (11a).Marskell 14:06, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I see this has had some work but I don't know that we're there yet. People can update with their opinions on it. Marskell 14:06, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are still one or two sore points, especially citation flags which badly need some sourcing. I would've just removed the statements altogether but I think they're important to the article, and would prefer if someone made the effort to properly source it instead. Everything else is up to standard I think, but then again I'm the one who improved the page, so I'm not entirely neutral. As it stands, it could certainly pass GA criteria. FA criteria I'm not so sure... --Steerpike 17:14, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Remove unless lotsa work done pronto. For example, at random:
MOS breach at the opening: read up on en dashes for ranges.
Tense tension: past then present then past in the lead.
MOS breach WRT to period in captions.
Disjointed paragraphing: e.g., "son. // The Senators"
Ref. 28: do we get a page number for this direct quote? Ditto other quotes; our readers deserve to be able to locate these sources.
"El-Gabal" four times in quick succession. Tony 13:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Could you be a little less random in your suggestions? What does WRT mean btw? I've already fixed the lead section and reduced the number of "El-Gabal"s. What do you mean by disjointed paragraphs, especially the one you mention? Should I stick them together? As for the references, are you talking about paragraph numbers? --Steerpike 14:15, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Those unsourced statements must go (what does rebuilding a city have to do with cruelty?). I don't like the listy sections either. DrKiernan 17:37, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nearly there - I can see alot of references have been placed and some sprucing up of prose, with a big flurry a few weeks ago and a trickle since. I've gone through and put things in past tense (the commentators are all long dead too), combined a few paras where the seam in the story was pretty minor, and tweaked some grammar. I'd just like to see the lead a little chunkier and is there anything else from early life, if not then something along the lines of "Little is known of his early life...". Also the two cite needed tags need reffing. Id put the stubby modern history bit into the hstoriaography...and then I think we're there....Steerpike still out there? cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 11:33, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your help. Honestly I feel I've been completely alone in reworking this article so far. I was still planning to give the lead an overhaul together with a few other sections (mainly prose). References should be more specific here and there. As far as his early life is concerned, bear in mind that Elagabalus became emperor when he was 14, and died at age 19. His early life is pretty much his entire life :) so I don't think it makes sense to write there isn't much known. --Steerpike 12:48, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(outdent)..yeah, I figured that'd be the case. Keep -good work. cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 20:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Request the evaluation of non-free media included in this article. The article currently contains ten non-free audio samples, which would seem to be excessive per featured article criterion #3 and WP:NFCC#3a. Videmus Omnia Talk 03:34, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please follow the instructions at WP:FAR and notify involved editors and relevant WikiProjects, and post a notice of here of notifications (see other FARs). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I posted notification with the top three editors of the article (User:No-Bullet, User:HK51, and User:Anger22), as well as the talk pages of all WikiProjects listed on the article talk page. Videmus Omnia Talk 03:48, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Notification also left at WP:FUR. Videmus Omnia Talk 13:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's quite strange that the article was at first refused featured article status due to its lack of audio files, and now it's under review because it has too many. I swear, Wikipedia is too paranoid about fair use these days, policies are going up and down like yo-yos but that's a discussion that doesn't belong here. Anyway, if all (or most) of the audio files were removed from the article, would it affect the article's featured status? I don't believe it should, the article would still remain a well-referenced and consistent article. The removal of the audio files will most definitely make the article less useful, but that's something we can't really help.
But anyway, my stance is that if the audio files break policy, we've not really got a choice but to remove them. I think the article will suffer for it though. ĤĶ51→Łalk 14:38, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question Videmus Omnia, may I ask why you chose to initiate a FAR and "post notification" to the WikiProjects and editors and WP:FUR instead of 1) editing the article, and 2) posting a note on the article talk page? Note: Videmus Omnia moved this question to the AC/DC FAR talk page. I'm moving it back without his reply which he is of course welcome to copy here as well. -Susanlesch 14:42, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This question really has nothing to do with the featured article itself. Please limit this type of discussion to the talk page. Videmus Omnia Talk 15:41, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know why he did this for sure, but I do know that it's sometimes hard to get editors of particular FA articles to focus on WP:NFC issues, and bold changes are often reverted with a minimum of discussion. --But|seriously|folks 16:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
User Videmus Omnia added the non free template, but I removed later, because the article passed FA with these audio files. I can't see why there are "too many" now. Please read the FA nomination. No-Bullet (Talk • Contribs) 01:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - since then, the Foundation has published their licensing resolution on non-free media, which has resulted in a new look at how we treat non-free media. Videmus Omnia Talk 01:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question Videmus Omnia, may I ask which AC/DC samples you'd like to see removed? The first place to ask about the use of non-free AC/DC materials to my mind would be the article talk page. Unless you have a specific sample in mind I would like to propose that this FAR be closed for lack of a reason to be open. Thanks for your efforts, though. -Susanlesch 01:47, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I brought the question here so an expert on Featured Articles can make that determination. I don't know what the right number is. Videmus Omnia Talk 02:05, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is no "right number" - per WP:NFCC#3Multiple items are not used if one will suffice; one is used only if necessary. In the case of a band that spanned such a long time frame, and changed musical style a good deal in that time, one item certainly wouldn't suffice. In the case of this article, there is (with one exception) no more then one audio sample per album. Exceptions: samples from You Shook Me All Night Long and Back in Black (song), both from the same album (Back in Black). Remove one of those, and I really don't see any more problems. GiggyTalk 03:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question - Following up on what HK51 (talk·contribs) said, if some of the audio samples were removed (leaving only a few), would the article be up to FA status? Are there any other issues? Or can we get this finished a bit quicker then usual :) GiggyTalk 01:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, if this FAR is to remain open, you're probably safer notifying the next editor down from User:Anger22 as he hasn't been online or edited since February and probably won't be able to take part in this discussion. ĤĶ51→Łalk 10:09, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are we done here or are the concerns still outstanding? Marskell 13:25, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Marskell, thanks for asking. I think we were done before we started. I almost deleted the sample from the album Giggy mentioned except from what little I know that one is kind of an exception and there's no way to choose one or the other. So I guess I propose this FAR be closed for lack of a reason to be open. Best wishes. -Susanlesch 13:33, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see that most everyone commenting feels this review is unneeded. It is possible that a file slipped through FAC that isn't compliant with policy but a talk page thread to discuss would be enough. Marskell 08:50, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.
I strongly question whether this article should be considered well-written and well-referenced. It relies heavily on primary sources, on a subject with abundant reliable secondary sources. This leads to the article being plague with unreferenced claims and original research. Additionally, it treats the ancient sources as accurate and factual, citing claims from them as it cites claims from modern published sources with editorial oversight. Archaic sources are widely studied and commented upon, in relation to their accuracy, authorship and cultural context. Best practice would be depending upon reliable published secondary sources, relying upon modern scholarship to interpret the historical truth (or lack thereof) present in ancient manuscripts. Thoughts? Vassyana 08:22, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The writers did use lots of secondary sources, but prefered to reference with the primary source everyone uses. The secondary sources conclusions were used without explicitly citing them. So the criticism is about the citation style. Wandalstouring 08:55, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If that is indeed the case, then I would likely agree. If it appears the primary sources are used to support the claims, then there's an appearance of original research. In addition to clouding that issue, it causes the verifiability of the article to suffer drastically. Thank you for the clarification. Vassyana 09:13, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yannis, like me, prefers to direct readers to the original source of a statement (i.e. the primary source) in the citations, but this is all thoroughly backed up by secondary sources; I know that he used Paparrigopolous extensively while writing it, and I checked extensively against Kagan and Fine while reviewing. Controversial statements are cited appropriately to secondary sources, but for broadly accepted facts there's no harm in pointing to the primary source, and it actually enriches the article by providing readers with frequent connections to the texts on which all this scholarship is eventually based. --RobthTalk 15:17, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We've gone over this on FAR talk, but I'll reiterate that I don't think this is an article that has original research problems. Certainly for the reader, the most useful citation is to the primary source. Unless specific areas are addressed where the use of primary sources undermines the neutrality of the article, or is contradictory to modern scholarship, I think it should remain an FA. Christopher Parham(talk) 22:45, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Featured articles are supposed to be the absolute best we have to offer. Can someone please explain how in the world an article that (at least) appears to be filled with original research and lacking verifiablecitations from reliable sources is considered an example of best practice?? Are all the primary sources used supported by secondary sources? Are all the primary sources considered reliable and accurate by modern reliable references? If so, why is this not clearly articulated in the article? Vassyana 01:31, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I tend to agree with Vassyana, but if it is true that Yannismarou has backed everything up with secondary sources (and I am sure he has done so), then I would suggest modifying the cites to add in the secondary source info. For example:
6. ^Plutarch, Pericles, III as quoted in Paparrigopolous, History of the Hellenic Nation (Volume Ab), p. 236
That would certainly solve most of my objections. However, I would also say there are cases where obvious conclusions are drawn/analysis is made, and in those cases it should be cited to the reliable source that draws those conclusions to prevent any confusion regarding original research. Vassyana 19:27, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That should take care of objection and the FAR can be closed fairly quickly. --RelHistBuff 08:46, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — Is there any reason why the "Notes" are separate and in a different format than the citation notes? Looks like the "Notes" should be regular notes like in the "Citations" section, which should be renamed "Notes". (Hopefully that's understandable) Cliff smith 18:53, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Usually this is done to separate notes that contain information, in which a general reader may be interested, from notes that are simply citations. It seems fine to me. Christopher Parham(talk) 19:36, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree that the two sections for footnotes and citations isn't a problem. The template used itself specifically states: "Note: Content Notes created using ((hcref)) or ((cref)) and ((cnote)) can co-exist in an article along with Source Notes using the m:Cite/Cite.php system. The two systems do not interefere with each other in any way." Vassyana 20:45, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Robth, as Yannismarou seems to be busy or on a break, could you add the secondary source info to the citations? You mentioned that you have Kagan and Fine. Once that's done, Vassyana can check them out so that his concerns could be dealt with. --RelHistBuff 20:10, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry I cannot work on the article and deal with the nominator's concerns. For the next 15 days I will be traveling, besides some other pending issues keeping me away from Wikipedia for some time now, and having, in general, disturbed my life. And I am so sorry for that ... Now, to the point: Robth's statement covered me, and I have nothing further to add. Yes, I do use primary sources, but all the controversial statements are cited appropriately to secondary sources. A detailed look at each of these 150+ citations, and at the secondary sources of the references prove the accuracy of the above statement. I must also point out that in almost all the sections there are extensive analyses of controversial issues, and exhaustive comparisons of primary and secondary issues. Yes, for some cases where the primary sources are not questioned or disputed I did not provide secondary sources, but these are cases where the secondary sources just confirm issues never questioned or disputed. The easiest thing for would be, If I had time (I regret I haven't), to add secondary sources to these cases, but IMO they would add nothing but the self-evident. I want also to ask the reviewers here to read the two extensive FACs of the article (one unsuccessful and one successful), where there have been extensive and harsh criticisms (even from final backers of the article such as Robth), and where the reviewers went over the article with a fine-tooth comb, before they unanimously promoted it.
Once again, I am so sorry I cannot help at this particular period of time; my regret is bigger because this is the first article I nominated for FA, and I still regard it as the best of all and a masterpiece of Wikipedia (mainly due to a rookie's appetite, Konstable's perseverance, and, first and most important of all, Robth's breathtaking prose capabilities). And this conviction of mine will remain no matter the final outcome of this FAR (that I will unfortunately see probably after I return full-time to Wikipedia). A masterpiece is always a masterpiece! But I must confess that I would like it to remain a masterpiece crowned with a star. Thank you!--Yannismarou 15:07, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to add that the primary sources in the References are currently only external links and they should be expanded and provide the complete bibliographic info to give proper credit to the editor, translator, and publisher. For example:
Plutarch. Lives of Noble Grecians and Romans. Wikisource (original paper publisher not given). ((cite book)): Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
If ever the website goes down, at least the original paper source can be consulted. In my opinion the article is not necessarily a gross violation of WP:PSTS as it says, "Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them." So I would not vote to remove if this went to FARC. The only point is Vassyana's concern about original research. Perhaps Vassyana can point out which items are potential original research items. --RelHistBuff 08:08, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I will collect some examples to better show my concern in specifics. However, much of my problem is the article using ancient sources as factual, accurate and reliable sources. If the article intended to do so, there needs to be at least an assurance from some reliable source that these sources are indeed accurate and reliable. I have some skepticism, though not doubt, in that regard. Even the Gallic War, generally considered a relative pinnacle of linguistic precision and reporting, is also well-known as a masterpiece of propaganda. Reliable sources should really be called upon to verify that the historical works, or the cited portions thereof, are reliably accurate. This preserves the reliability and verifiability of an article. Vassyana 08:24, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By the by, I'd much rather see the article citation improved, than for this otherwise well-written and informative article go to FARC. Vassyana 08:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Any progress? If someone would add the secondary sources to the cites and Vassyana, if you could give some more details to your objections so that they could get treated, then this FAR could just be closed. --RelHistBuff 16:32, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I regret to see that RelHistBuff does not appear to know the standard conventions of citation for classical texts. They should be cited by book, chapter, and section alone (for Plutarch, Life and section); to cite the pages of any particular edition is to place obstacles in the reader's path, by compelling her to find a specific edition before she can check the quotation. Adding any particular one of the literally hundreds of editions of Plutarch to the references would be harmless, if silly; the Loeb seems the obvious choice. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson 16:13, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know that there are specific conventions for various fields. I only speak here of Wikipedia conventions. The reason citations ought to be fully expanded is to satisfy the verifiability policy. It assists the verifier by giving the edition/publisher/page number/ISBN in case the website is down. The references examples I gave above are simply info direct from the website. --RelHistBuff 19:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They should probably be converted into links to Project Perseus; but any link is a mere convenience. The (adequate and expected) citation, perfectly sufficient and verifiable as it stands, is "Plutarch, Pericles, IX". Referring to any specific edition is redundant; doing so by pagenumber would harm verifiability enormously. Consider how unhelpful it would be to cite John 12:35 by pagenumber in a particular printing of the RSV; what you propose is almost as bad. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson 20:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Suggested FA criteria concern is reference quality (1c).Marskell 13:52, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The use of primary sources is of concern, but by itself it is not enough of an issue to defeature, as I mentioned previously. --RelHistBuff 15:24, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep featured. As discussed above, I don't believe there is any conflict between the use of sources here and our original research policy. The article is definitely an example of our best work. Christopher Parham(talk) 23:49, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted to Featured status in early 2005, and, since then, hasn't had a review. It's clear the article fails some immediate featured article criterion:
Many things in the article are not backed up by factually verifiable sources, as only 19 in-line citations are present in the 36 KB article.
An all around thorough copyedit is in order, as I doubt many fresh eyes have done serious editing to the article since promotion.
The Decline of Mainstream Popularity section has been nominated to be checked for neutrality (therefore having two templates on how it may/may not be phrased in the neutral point of view), and has a ((Not verified)) template.
Overall, this article does not currently exemplify Wikipedia's best, and a review is in desperate needed. NSR77TC 16:54, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Been planning to work on this. However, one of the sources I ordered won't arrive in the mail until two weeks from now. WesleyDodds 18:23, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Currently working on improving the article. Given I have to wait for a source in the mail (and I have to renew my library card) I anticipate this taking about a month, but I am absolutely confident we will be able to keep it as a Featured Article after all the work is done. WesleyDodds 05:19, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am also confident you will be able to keep it a Featured Article when you receive the sources. NSR77TC 04:21, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I must also add that I am busy at the moment with work and three of the most active editors in the Alternative music WikiProject are all on some sort of Wikibreak, so please forgive what will be a rather slow pace. WesleyDodds 08:40, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd give Wesley the extra time, especially given the great contribution he gave to heavy metal music. LuciferMorgan 00:17, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Doing some rewriting and gradually adding citations. Luckily past reference work on Nirvana and Pearl Jam-related articles is proving very useful. As I mentioned above, circumstances out of my control have pretty much determined that I will be working on this largely by myself and very slowly, but I appreciate everyone's patience and good will. WesleyDodds 08:58, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the final section needs work. The chronology ends rather abrubtly, and more could be said of grunge's influence on contemporary music. I think there's room to talk about very popular 2000s post-grunge bands--like Creed, Godsmack and Puddle of Mudd--groups who, years later, were derivatiely aping the sound of classic grunge bands (and were critically lamabsted for it). I'm not much use as an article writer, but I may be able to find some references to critics' views of these bands.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 11:27, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I want to address that, but it's hard to find good sources about the decline of grunge and its later influence. The best-covered aspect of that (which isn't addressed at all in the current article) is th advent of Britpop in the UK, which was in part a reaction to grunge. Luckily I have plenty of references for that and will be inserting information sometime soon. WesleyDodds 21:40, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll help out when I can, though happy circumstances mean my editing may be at weekends only for a while. That said, aside from the problematic "Decline of mainstream popularity" section, the article needs a light ce and sourcing only. Ceoil 23:02, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Status: Does this need to go down to FARC or is it OK? Marskell 08:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Progress to date. I agree with Ceoil; sourcing is the highest priority, along with the "Decline of mainsteam popularity". In my opinion it's salvagable. CloudNine 09:17, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Been a bit caught up by other things, but doing further work on it. I should also receive the Hype! DVD (one of the main sources of the article) in the mail within the week. WesleyDodds 21:01, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I got the DVD in the mail today. Huzzah. WesleyDodds 00:48, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Realistically, its not going to be completed within time and should probably be moved down. Ceoil 09:13, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Suggested FA criteria concerns are citations and accuracy (1c), copyediting (1a), and neutrality (1d).Marskell 07:30, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Currently sourcing the bulk of the article. Much has been sourced and/or rewritten already. Hopefully will be done in two weeks. Then the article will need a copyedit (my own prose is kinda crap in some places; just trying to get the general idea down first) and then it should be a keep. WesleyDodds 07:55, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I may also be able to help with sourcing. Reviwers are welcome to place ((fact)) where material may need citing. My main concern with the article is the number of weasel words, although I'm addressing this. CloudNine 16:16, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Update Been distracted by another FAR. Hoping to finish sourcing in a week. WesleyDodds 09:02, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
MOS breach in "dirty". Read "Words as words". Can it be linked or explained, too? Tony 23:55, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another update Sorry about the delays. Now that I'm done with my other FAR, this is my top priority right now. I'll try and finish this as quickly as possible. WesleyDodds 04:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, coming together well. Some more rewritting, a few more citations, and standardization of the references, and we should be done. WesleyDodds 10:50, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have been really tied up elsewhere; will someone pls ping me when work is completed and this is ready for a final look? I won't have time to spend on it, but would like to take a look when it's ready. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:20, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm close to done. Mainly have to rewatch the Hype! documentary DVD and rework three more paragraphs. WesleyDodds 09:37, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All looking good! NSR77TC 15:20, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Now all I have left is to rework/source the glam metal paragraph and then standardize the references, and that should be it. WesleyDodds 11:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Finished with the major work. Now just have to tweak the prose and standardize the references. WesleyDodds 11:16, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Article has been virtually transformed. NSR77TC 21:04, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have difficulty with the "Prominent bands" section. Its more or less a see also; I prefer that the cats look after this. Other than that the article is significantly improved. Ceoil 22:53, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's necessary for the article since some of the major bands (ie. Hole) can't quite be worked into the prose. WesleyDodds 23:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was kept 18:31, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
This article about a fictional foodstuff from Babylon 5 fails as a featured article.
It uses fansites, forums and usenet postings as sources. Many of these are from the creator of the show, and some may regard them as canonical. But is the existing 'backstory' of spoo still valid, or was it just a joke for the forums? How authoritative are forum posts anyway?
An in-universe perspective; no distinction between whimsical 'information' provided by J. Michael Straczynski on forums and stuff taken direct from the show.
The out-of-universe importance of the term 'spoo' is not convincingly demonstrated. Again, forum posts and the like are used. Comes close to neologism usage tracking with stuff like 'first recorded use on Usenet' and 'mentioned in Frank Zappa's biography'.
As the primary author of the article and the one who brought it to FAC and through FARC, I should have been contacted, no? Also, there is no indication of what "FA criterion/criteria that are at issue." I offer a point by point rebuttal nevertheless:
"It uses fansites, forums and usenet postings as sources..." The way you phrased that, you infer that many fan sites are used as references or that fan produced content comprises some of the sources, and this is just not the case - indeed, there is not a single non-archival fan site in any of the provided references. There are many USENET posts and the like, however these posts are not originating from fans, but from noted award-winning writer/producer/director J. Michael Straczynski, the show's creator, executive producer, and primary writer. The pioneering USENET/Internet posts by Straczynski are verifiable and legit, and have had significant impact on the franchise, and on the way the internet is used to market to fans (for more, please read Internet marketing and fan influence on Babylon 5, rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated, J. Michael Straczynski, and The Lurker's Guide to Babylon 5). In addition to simple interaction, Straczynski used his involvement with fans online to chronicle the production of the series, but also to answer questions from fans about story elements, which included everything to trivial backstory, to the post-series fate of major characters, to the whimsical, brilliant, and infamous "Spoo Post" detailing the specifics of the bizarre creature and food product. Upon even a cursory inspection, the authority of the posts is without question, the significance of the references without question. Indeed, because of the unique authority of the messages, quite a bit has been written about this article and the unique (at the time) references since its featuring in 2005.
I don't what you mean by 'non-archival fan site'. The fansite used is the lurker's guide, used to source fan speculation about the supposed volatility of the spoo market. Using flowery terms like 'pioneering' and 'brilliant' does not change the fact that the source of this information is below normal standards for verifiability. It's fairly common for creators of fiction to interact with their fans online, but their posts are seldom used as sources for Wikipedia. If they've got anything important to say, they put on their official site or published supplementary material. Straczynski doesn't do this, so it's dubious as how important or reliable this is. It's the online equivalent of questions answered at a fan convention or a conversation in a bar. You seem to think that because it was 'pioneering' and special, we should lower the bar to accomodate it.--Nydas(Talk) 16:48, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"the lurker's guide" as you put it (actually The Lurker's Guide to Babylon 5) is a website that was acknowledged by Straczynski on the Babylon 5 DVDs for their contributions to Babylon 5 fandom.
"It's fairly common for creators of fiction to interact with their fans online, but their posts are seldom used as sources for Wikipedia." At the time that Straczynski was making his Babylon 5 postings (1991 and on), it was far from common for creators to interact with fans online. Indeed, Straczynski pioneered the practice. But that is neither here nor there. "If they've got anything important to say, they put on their official site or published supplementary material." Straczynski has intentionally chosen to NOT have an official website (the closest being a commercial website for his scripts), instead choosing to interact with fans through other means. That he makes the statements on USENET rather than a personal website is not relevant to the verifiability... he made a statement, there are copious links to those statements, it is a known fact that he made the statements, there is no argument. To say that it does not meet verifiability standards is to say so in ignorance of the facts; its a spurious argument that was soundly rejected the last time (FARC). --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 17:34, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Plenty of Babylon 5 supplementary books have been published, particularly The A-Z Guide to Babylon 5. Why can spoo not be sourced from these?--Nydas(Talk) 18:04, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because Straczynski chose to reveal the information online, in more immediate form than in books, directly to the fans. The A-Z Guides simply gathered information seen in the episodes, with some behind-the-scenes info, while (on the internets) Straczynski gave direct day-by-day behind-the-scenes commentary and direct answers to fans' questions on aspects of specific episodes or arcs or characters or back stories, specific esoterica not covered by the narrowly generalized official guides. It seems irrational to reject verifiable sources because the source himself was ahead of his time by using the internet, and went to the revolutionary and unusual step of directly dealing with the fans. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 12:45, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't this special pleading? If JK Rowling revealed a whimsical backstory about Butterbeer on some fan forum, would it admissable as a source for a featured article? I very much doubt it.--Nydas(Talk) 18:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you were certain that it really was JK Rowling, why not? I do not understand why you are arguing so hard against this article's FA status. You are talking in circles. The USENET references are legit. --Fang Ailitalk 18:16, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because (despite the claims above) forums posts clearly made in jest are not an authoritative source of a canonical 'information'. Are we going to start taking every gag cracked by a creator of fiction and turn it into the backbone of a featured article?--Nydas(Talk) 20:21, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In jest? According to whom? It's decidedly whimsical, but I have never encountered a Babylon 5 fan (or anyone else remotely familiar with the subject) who considers the Spoo Post to be a throwaway post "in jest," because the humorous tone of the post (and the story-factual content) is well in-line with Spoo's on-screen mentions and uses directly in the series. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 20:30, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So it's authoritative because fans say it is? If you think we're going in circles, you could always address my other points, particularly the article's dual topics on spoo as a fictional foodstuff and spoo as a neologism.--Nydas(Talk) 09:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In your second bullet, you state there is "...no distinction between whimsical 'information' provided by J. Michael Straczynski on forums and stuff taken direct from the show." Oh, my, oh my... please bother to follow the references... each and every statement that warrants a reference goes to a very specific cite, and the cite clearly states the source, be it information taken from one of the series episodes, a website, a book, or information directly from Straczynski. Really, it couldn't be clearer, and perhaps this was another oversight on the part of the nominator.
It should be made explicit in the article body that the vast bulk of the information is gleaned from the creator's internet posts, not from the show itself. Such information is crucial to an out-of-universe understanding of spoo, hiding it in the references is not good enough. For example: In Babylon 5, spoo, the creature, is regarded with contempt by most of the sentient species that have encountered it; this is partly because of its extreme ugliness as a species - tiny, pasty, mealworm-like creatures - and partly because of the difficulty encountered in cultivating the food, in particular, a "sighing problem" sounds like it is from the show when it's largely from Internet posts.--Nydas(Talk) 16:48, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All of the statements are quite clearly sourced. In fact it is very clear. If anyone wants to know which bit of information comes from where, simply click the footnote and you can easily follow. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 17:34, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Users should not have to click links to find out if the 'sighing problem' is from the show or from Internet posts. The difference is critical to the understanding of the subject.--Nydas(Talk) 18:04, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Finally, after repeating (flawed) arguments on the sources (see my points above) you claim "...The out-of-universe importance of the term 'spoo' is not convincingly demonstrated." Again, the delineation is very clear. Indeed, Spoo has been long held to be an ideal example of having the proper balance of in-universe and behind-the-scenes information: it's been cited in FACs, AFDs, and Peer Reviews (really, a bit much to list here, so follow the Whatlinkshere for the article for more), and was listed as a prime example of how articles on fictional subjects should be written at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction), or it was until you removed it.
You're dodging my point. Instead of saying it's long been held up as an ideal article, say why it's so good. Even if you think Internet posts are reliable sources for in-universe info, they most certainly are not for out-of-universe stuff. Where is the source for the claim that the term "spoo" has been creeping into popular culture since the 1970s?
I've made a fairly clear case as to the article's fitness as a FA, and for your question, its all in the links. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 17:34, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A single use of the word in a comic from 1971 does not prove anything, see WP:NEO.--Nydas(Talk) 18:04, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Trawling the Internet for usages is not evidence; there needs to be published information about the word itself, as specified by WP:NEO. Also, this information is about the word 'spoo', not the fictional foodstuff 'spoo' and should arguably be in a different article, or moved to Wiktionary.--Nydas(Talk) 16:48, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've long followed people's commentary on the article, and at times it has been a lightening rod. For as many feel that it is a prime example of the potential of Wikipedia, there are just as many who disagree that an article on such an esoteric subject should even be allowed. But any subject deserving of an article is deserving of a featured article. This article meets all the criteria, and the arguments put forth above were used in the FARC from last year (just prior to the article appearing on the Main Page) - a FARC that failed by an overwhelming consensus, indeed a FARC that was decided by Raul at a time that I was coincidentally (unofficially) in charge of Featured Article Removal. The article has changed little since then (it is possibly the most stable FA we have), and contrary to Featured Article Criteria overcoming an older FA, the widely held standards for inclusion of certain primary references (such as notable statements by individuals in forums or Blogs) has caught up with the standards established by this article and others like it. Again, this article meets the criteria, and is not deserving of removal. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 14:16, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Zappa is the co-author (http://www.amazon.com/Real-Frank-Zappa-Book/dp/0671705725). For reference 20, for some reason the mention moved a page in the thread, strangely. The link is actually here: http://boards.theforce.net/eu_community/b10194/7432408/p3. For reference 21, the website seems to have removed its archive, but luckily the specific short film mentioned as part of the reference is linked directly on the main page of the main website at http://www.babylonpark.com/ (and, they actually made a T-shirt out of that!). And I have found multiple uses for Spoo in relation to the S&P 500. I will integrate these changes shortly. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 15:29, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that covers all of my comments. Like qp, I think the article is OK as it stands. DrKiernan 16:01, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's a pretty good article. The only thing I would suggest is that the reference formatting be tidied up, so that we don't have raw urls.
Reading the article, I noted that the distinction between the fictional world and the frame of the article was repeatedly inserted to avoid in-universe writing. I also felt that the article distinguishes between Spoo's presence in the programme and its further life online and in the comments of the creator.
As far as online references are concerned, we should distinguish between what is appropriate for, say, a history article, and what is appropriate for subject matter of this sort. Wikipedia policy provides for programmes and creators to be cited as sources for themselves in the absence of more traditional sources; and so I feel that this article, odd though it is, fits the criteria.
On notability, we must presume that since this was part of a popular show and the subject of much talk online, it meets that criteria. We shouldn't be snobby about it. I suspect far more people would sign up for a Spoo conference than for one about Anglo-Saxon burial rites.
How do we know it was the subject of much talk online? There aren't any sources, just usage tracking.--Nydas(Talk) 16:54, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep featuredComment. I do not see a basis for the nominator's assertions. I have a few suggestions for improvement, however: I'd like to see a few inline citations in the intro, and I'd like to know more about why "Stock and bond day traders have begun to use spoo in reference to S&P 500 futures." There's just that one line about it, as well as the mention in the intro, but nothing else. Overall, I love this article and I get a little thrill every time I remember it's featured and was a featured article of the day. Thanks for all your hard work on it, Jeffrey O. --Fang Ailitalk 18:00, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Remove are not declared during article review; please see the instructions at WP:FAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:18, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What instructions? I don't see anything about "how to comment" on that page. --Fang Ailitalk 13:28, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh nevermind, it's irrelevent. My views are clear. --Fang Ailitalk 13:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The fair use rationales for the non-free images are terrible. They don't actually explain why the images can be used, they just claim that the images are being used appropriately. Jay32183 23:15, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I agree, the fair use rationales were quite awful, and I apologize. (I wrote them nearly two years ago, long before we had anything resembling properly written explanations of why things should be considered fair use.) I have gone through and provided detailed rationales and information for each of the images, and the situation is now resolved. Thanks. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson 10:41, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KeepComment - This one has been reviewed and not much has changed since then or the nomination. Dalf | Talk 11:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Remove are not declared during article review; please see the instructions at WP:FAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:06, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Although he was in support of the article, Qp10qp did have concerns with the use of raw URLs in the somewhat untidy reference formatting. I have fixed that issue, and the references look much better. Thanks for the suggestion! --Jeffrey O. Gustafson 12:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Suggested FA criteria concerns are reference quality (1c), focus (4).Marskell 08:38, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think people are happy with this. Moving it down to get straight kp or rm comments. Marskell 08:38, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cleanup needed. There are external jumps in the text; there's a strange section called "Additional references" which is not a standard appendix (see WP:LAYOUT) and appears to be a listy part of the article that should be incorporated as prose, and the citations aren't formatted (see WP:CITE/ES). Some of the section headings might benefit from WP:MSH tweaking to avoid repeat words. There's also a 425px image in the lead (infoboxes are capped, I think, at 300px; see WP:MOS#Images on image size). There is incorrect use of dashes and hyphens throughout. Common words (like cookbook) should be delinked per WP:MOSLINK, WP:CONTEXT. Quotes are incorrectly italicized, see WP:ITALICS.SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:04, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've prose-ified the horribly named "Additional References" section, reduced the lead image size to 300px, de-italicized the JMS quote, de-linked common words, and cut down one of the headers. Diff. As far as dash/hyphen issue, I haven't fixed that only because WP:DASH confuses the hell out of me, and I'd appreciate some assistance from someone familiar with proper hyphenation. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 20:11, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll do some dash and ref cleanup to help get you started. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:54, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the external jump; it was a dead link, so that text may need to be modified. I left an inline query. I left several other inline queries where dates and other info didn't seem to match the source. I fixed the dashes. I left sample edits of the kind of info missing on citations. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:18, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your help. I applied the fixes noted, verified the remaining external links, and hid the note on computer programming (as the company appears to no longer produce the software). Diff. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 04:06, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and keep featured in case my feelings on the matter were not abundantly clear. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 20:11, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Remove. My points about the article's dual focus have not been addressed. One half deals with the fictional food, the other deals with the word. The article tries to build an unwarranted relationship between the two, listing usages of the word 'spoo' (or vaguely similar words) in a way which WP:NEO clearly states is original research. Many of these are totally unrelated to the Babylon 5 foodstuff; the day trader jargon 'spoo' comes from an abbreviation of 'Standard & Poor's 500 futures'. The grand claim that spoo is 'seeping into popular culture' is unsourced.
As for the Babylon 5 component, I ask editors to consider whether an article relying heavily on Internet posts would be featured today. I cannot imagine a fictional food from RuneScape or Naruto being featured on the back of Internet posts from the creators.--Nydas(Talk) 09:18, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot imagine that this article, with the sourcing it uses, could be featured today. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:38, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comparing Straczynski's involvement in the Babylon 5 franchise both in an executive role & his nearly unprecedented creative control to the creators of nearly any other franchise is like comparing apples and caterpillars. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 17:42, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep featured. Like I said before. --Fang Ailitalk 01:46, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have no problem with either reference quality or focus. DrKiernan 09:21, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, this paper needs citation info (like title, publisher, date etc.) " ... and cited by linguist Pamela Munro in a paper on 1980s collegiate slang at UCLA."[citation needed]SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:10, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. The cite was left on my talk page ages ago, so I do not know why neither myself or the editor providing the fact added it to the article. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 16:57, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I do not see any compelling reason to remove this one. Not every FA has to be of earth shattering importance. Dalf | Talk 03:56, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep—not too bad on the whole; the prose could use a light copy-edit, but nothing serious is needed. The sourcing is one of those borderline, fundamental debates. — Deckiller 23:08, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What about the neologism tracking?--Nydas(Talk) 07:23, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep featured. I don't think the problems discussed so far are serious. Anyone who came to Wikipedia to read an article on Spoo would be delighted to find this, which in my view supports its position as an example of Wikipedia's best. Christopher Parham(talk) 16:18, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You don't think that original research is serious? As it stands, one could add 'Spoo is also a surname' [17] and 'Spoo is also a character in a Japanese kids show' [18] and attempt to tie these utterly unrelated meanings to the article.--Nydas(Talk) 18:13, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Original research is serious but the article doesn't appear to have significant flaws in that regard; it's not building a thesis or introducing new arguments. Christopher Parham(talk) 19:14, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The thesis being built is that the word 'spoo' is used in popular culture, based on a grab bag of examples. It's also implied that Babylon 5 helped popularise it. The reader is not informed that 'spoo', as used by day traders, has no relationship with the fictional foodstuff.--Nydas(Talk) 09:16, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That the word is used in popular culture isn't a thesis, and I disagree that the article implies the television show was central in popularizing it. Christopher Parham(talk) 19:02, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NEO states otherwise. There is no source for the word being used in popular culture, just a grab bag of (weak) examples which is synthesised into an original thesis. There are still chunks of misleading info like 'Since its advent and popularization in Babylon 5' in the 'current usage' section. Incidently, 'spoo space' gets 6 ghits, so perhaps the usage is not really current.[19]--Nydas(Talk) 19:19, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How many of those are 'current'? Most of them are from more than five years ago.--Nydas(Talk) 09:51, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Remove. The article fails WP:FICTION miserably; it does not use one secondary source independent of the subject (except when discussing the spoo "separate from its fictional meaning", which doesn't even belong in this article). Bulbasaur was defeatured because it has similar sourcing problems. Some particular comments: The article calls one of the USENET postings "classic and hilarious"; it is up to reliable secondary sources to make that judgment. The article says that many fans have tried to make spoo, and even discusses common methods for making spoo, but all the reference says is that one fan presented Straczynski one dish they christened spoo. The "Commodity" section offers two interpretations—"mistake" or "intentional"—but only the "intentional" interpretation is sourced. The source for the "intentional" interpretation is a fan site, but we can ignore that for now because the site doesn't even claim that the 10-15 discrepancy was Straczynski's intention to begin with. The "Real-world etymology of the word" section is made up of trivia, most of which is irrelevant to Babylon 5. Surveying internet message boards and search engines to draw conclusions about word usage is original research. Keep in mind that everything in this article may be true, but Wikipedia is based on verifiability through reliable sources, not truth. Punctured Bicycle 10:13, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Remove, per Punctured Bicycle. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:00, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Featured, the article is well written, well sourced, well supported and makes for a fine FA. Jeffrey O Gustafson is right on the mark about Straczynski, the fans, and the release of information on the show through the internet and other fan outlets, including information on spoo. Although I know it’s not WP:V from a WP:RS, I remember Spoo very well from my days working on the trading floor for a Wall Street Investment bank, and there were a number of traders who were B5 fans that enjoyed the B5/Spoo connection. Several even showed up at office parties dressed as a B5 character with plates of Spoo…especially around Halloween. Dreadstar† 01:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Remove as per Nydas and Punctured Bicycle. I'm far from convinced that semi-humourous Usenet posts, even by the sainted JMS, can be considered as reliable sources. Virtually the entire "Real-world etymology" section is irrelevant - a grab-bag of unrelated uses of a word similar to Spoo. There's very little in the article to demonstrate the out-of-universe importance of the topic. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 09:59, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Remove: Fan-related articles are fun and interesting and should be a part of the enyclopaedia. But the FA standards should be applied uniformly and this one unfortunately does not meet 1c. --RelHistBuff 15:15, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: As I've understood things previously (this article has been discussed before in terms of 1c) editors have argued that if USENET etc. are not used then no article would exist. It's those or nothing. Now, if it's common knowledge that the creator used USENET, I'm wondering if we can get a reliable source confirming the fact. Thus the specifics would still be sourced to the USENET archive but we would have a covering citation confirming that we should trust the dubious source. Can that be done? Also Punctured has some specific, actionable concerns that should be addressed. Marskell 14:44, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's honestly beyond me that anyone can doubt the verifiability of the USENET (etc) posts. I have met the man. And the last time I did (at the New York Comic Con), he is on a first name basis with people from rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated (what he calls the "JMS irregulars"). He has mentioned jmsnews.com in press interviews (I can probably dig out a link if really needed). He's been interacting online with fans, unquestioned, since 1991. To say that JMS posts stuff and interacts with fans online is like saying the sky is blue - no joke, no hyperbole, anyone remotely familiar with JMS and his works knows that he posts online, and if you regularly post to rastb5m and meet him in person, even money says he knows who you are. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 17:49, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Objections to the topic (i.e. "neologism tracking") do not seem to me to be actionable, and thus are not valid objections. The sourcing is reliable, if non-traditional, and this remains exhibit A for why rigid interpretation of sourcing guidelines is simply idiotic. While the balance between in and out-of-universe writing could be better, it looks like about a 50/50 split, which is high but not unacceptable. Phil Sandifer 17:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's actionable, like all original research. You remove it.--Nydas(Talk) 17:35, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note for whoever resolves this - It is absurd to claim that the Usenet posts are not reliable sources. J. Michael Straczynski's identity on Usenet has been confirmed, and any posts from him are known to come from him. People saying "Usenet is not reliable" are simply not understanding the situation for this article, and their comments are, simply, not useful. Phil Sandifer 19:06, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So if JK Rowling made a few whimsical posts on a fan forum detailing a humorous backstory for butterbeer, we could make a featured article from it?--Nydas(Talk) 19:36, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a tired argument. Any subject deserving an article deserves a featured article. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 19:39, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There isn't an article for butterbeer, though.--Nydas(Talk) 19:43, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So? Pick a relevant example, then. My point stands. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 19:54, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It was an article[20], but got merged, even though it has the same potential as this one.--Nydas(Talk) 23:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That seems immaterial - the sources are not a priori unreliable, as some are suggesting, and those suggesting the sources are necessarily unreliable because they are Usenet posts have, frankly, not looked at the situation closely enough for their judgment to matter. Phil Sandifer 21:25, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The sources are reliable about the nature of spoo, but not reliable enough to justify raising that nature to absolute canon, on the same level as the Earth-Minbari War. Fan say-so isn't enough.--Nydas(Talk) 23:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Erm... I believe that the "JMS says so" policy of canon comes from him, not from fans. Phil Sandifer 01:21, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is correct, to an extent. As noted above, the relationship between the creator (JMS) and the property (owned by Warner Bros) is unique. Straczynski is the keeper of the canon, in part because he says so, and in part because the fans will not except anything else. In an unrelated example to that effect, Mongoose, a book/comic/game publishing company specializing in licenses for pre-existing properties, obtained publishing rights for Babylon 5. Warner Bros said it was "official" (which is technically correct). Mongoose trumpeted it as official.... and canon, claiming it was JMS approved. JMS said it was not canon, and that he was explicitly against it. The backlash from fans was so great that Mongoose more or less abandoned the license. JMS said, in essence, that anything not by him, or produced without his approval and oversight, is nothing more than fan fiction, regardless if it is officially licensed. "JMS says so" is the policy of B5 canon, and the fans wouldn't accept anything less. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 09:46, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like this article has POV problems as well. Since when was the content of articles dictated by fan concepts like 'keeper of the canon'?--Nydas(Talk) 18:03, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While it's vaguely touching to know that you're this unrelentingly dense in all debates you get involved in, questions of canonicity are pretty standard, at least, in Doctor Who and Star Trek articles. Though in the current version, I'm pretty sure there are no canon discussions. Phil Sandifer 18:56, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It would be better to let the reader to judge for themselves.--Nydas(Talk) 20:08, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Straczynski's USENET postings are reliable enough. The main problem is that the article lacks secondary sources, independent of the subject, that assert the importance of the subject. I want to know why Babylon 5's spoo is important outside of the mere 6 out of 110 episodes of Babylon 5 it appeared in, and outside of J. Michael Straczynski's personal recollections. The article lacks substantial real world content—critical and popular reception, development, cultural impact, etc. Any subject deserving an article deserves a featured article, but this subject doesn't appear to deserve a full article. Punctured Bicycle 01:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Remove Per 1b and 4. Article omits the necessary real world information and focuses too much on the fictional aspects. I would also note that there is potentially a strong case against this article if it were taken to AFD. Jay32183 01:33, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
More Comment I've made a pass at revising the article - renaming two sections and refocusing them to foreground the out-of-universe issues over plot trivia, and re-ordered another section so that it flows more chronologically. A bit of plot detail got lost, but I think the article still captures the silliness of spoo while foregrounding its out-of-universe material. I will note, I don't particularly think this was a vital revision, but it did mildly improve the article. Phil Sandifer 15:19, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Left note at User talk:Lord Emsworth, Wikiproject Spoken Word, and Wikiproject U.S. Congress.
This article needs in-line citations of references, currently has very few. Judgesurreal777 04:02, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hachy machy! ONE external jump within the text, ZERO foonotes, ONE reference (that is not actually cited), and FOUR external links. That's... well, that's bad. I can't imagine this is a salvagable FA without more improvement than could possibly done, even if a few hard-core editors were given a month (or more) to do it. -- Kicking222 21:37, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep The failure to recognize citation through attribution (in this case to Article One itself and the Supreme Court cases cited) is appalling. Nothing says that in-line citation must be a footnote. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson 02:49, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're still unjustifiably wasting Wikipedia's time I see PMAnderson, which actually is the only appalling thing here. Like I've said time and time again, if you have a problem with the criteria then go to WP:FA? and stop making a petty nuisance here. LuciferMorgan 09:34, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, I am applying the criteria, as written and as intended. Prose attribution is a form of inline citation, which fulfills every purpose of verifiability. Please do not render FA a laughingstock, as GA is. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson 14:57, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2c says to use consistent formatting using either Harvard citations or footnotes when giving attribution to sources. Jay32183 20:44, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Remove per 1c. --RelHistBuff 11:49, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of a grand sweep in the lead, we get boring details about clauses amending other clauses before after section preclude imposed by article five blah blah.
Indeed, references are essential for such statements as "The principle that Congress cannot delegate legislative authority to other branches of government (e.g. to the Executive) is known as the nondelegation doctrine." That's not in the consitution.
Who is the intended audience? Is this meant to be read in conjuction with a reading of the US Constitution? What exactly does it add? Why not just read the Constitution, which is pretty short and easy?
Doesn't explain basic things like "the Executive", which a schoolkid or foreigner—probably many American adults, too—need to be told is the Presidency.
"The House is often referred to as the "lower house" of Congress—the phrase reflects similar terminology employed when referring to the two Houses of the British Parliament, the "upper" House of Lords and the "lower" House of Commons—but the powers of the House of Representatives are roughly equivalent to that of the Senate." What a jumble. And I disagree that the powers are roughly equivalent. The "but" is a problem.
Reference list totally inadequate; so is the list of external links.
Put it out of its misery now. Tony(talk) 11:29, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Fails criterion 1c - no inline citations, 2a - lead is too short and possibly also 1b since it is quite short.--Peter Andersen 17:14, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DowngradeComment- for the moment due to no in-line cites Buckshot06 20:14, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please note in the FAR instructions that in this stage of the process there are to be no declarations. Comments to help improve the article are welcome. --RelHistBuff 08:22, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I took that photo and simply forgot to add the license tag. Now fixed. --mav 17:11, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It shouldn’t be a problem for anybody to fix the inline cite issue since the primary source for this article is online. I disagree that the article is not comprehensive; this is simply a battle that was not that long or complicated. So the prose size seems appropriate to me. I also don’t see much of a problem with the lead; seems appropriately detailed given the size of the article. --mav 17:20, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
At a glance I see a few things I would alter, besides the lack of inlines.
I see several really short sections/paragraphs, perhaps merger is appropriate to satisfy 1(a).
Articles should not be used in section headings, a criteria 2 miss step. (Change "The Battle" to "Battle")
Back to the structure, as is I don't think the article is comprehensive, mainly because it doesn't provide enough context about the events leading up to the battle. The details included in the background aren't really background, more the prelude of the battle. The background section should let me know, briefly, what led to war in the first place and what events happened leading up this battle. Then a prelude section would be used to discuss things like number of troops, troop movements in the days preceding the battle and what happened in the war immediately preceding the battle, and, if required, why the battle itself happened. See relevant guideline at WikiProject Military History.
That's all thus far, hope that helps.
IvoShandor 09:17, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Alteration to my third bullet point. There is some background, but I still don't think there is enough context, it seems to be written as if the reader is familiar with the Modoc War, I am sure most are not. IvoShandor 09:21, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Remove—1c, and it's a boring article. Tony(talk) 10:49, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Completely missing any inline references. Was promoted to FA status way back in 2005, when FA standards were quite different than now. Such an important article needs more work done to it. --Sdornan 17:57, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's one Ronald Reagan quote which needs a citation and a handful of excerpts from the Constitution which could use clearer source information. What other statements do you think are likely to be challenged? Reading the article it doesn't seem to make many statements that would be at all controversial. Christopher Parham(talk) 21:25, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The featured article criteria clearly lists (d) consistently formatted inline citations, using either footnotes[1] or Harvard referencing (Smith 2007, p. 1). (See citing sources for suggestions on formatting references; for articles with footnotes or endnotes, the meta:cite format is recommended.) as criteria for a featured article. Sdornan 20:56, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What do you propose is the best way to add in-line citations? There are extensive sources listed in the article, but it would be a monumental undertaking to review those source documents (most are books and not on-line) and then try to reverse engineer which fact or statement in the document is connected to that source. I realize that this is a key reason why in-line citations are important, and why the article fails on that point. Constutional statements would be fairly easy to reverse cite, but I doubt very much that the article will ever see in-line citations added unless the article is completely rewritten. If in-line citations are the criteria for featured article status, then I say remove it from the featured list. The article still stands on its own as a good article.Dcmacnut 15:32, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's a style requirement; the guideline for what statements require inline citations is that quotation require them, as well as statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged. Christopher Parham(talk) 17:30, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What's up with the necessary-and-proper clause section? pasting job is a mess and it looks like quotations are needed... Monkwaugh 08:15, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Suggested FA criteria concern is citations (1c).Marskell 09:06, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Remove Little work has been done since the FAR began. De-feature per 1c. -- Kicking222 12:20, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Little work as been done because, IMO, no work needs to be done. The article is extensively sourced, and a few inline citations have been added where appropriate. FARC 1c merely requires an article to be "factually accurate" and is "verifiable against reliable sources." There is no requirement that every statement in the article receive an inline citation. The sources listed at the bottom are more than enough to verify the article. It is well-written and accurate and should remain a featured article.Dcmacnut 14:34, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment How long does the article remain listed here? When I have time, I'd be happy to work on referencing the article. I have some good books and other material to work from, but just don't have a lot of time at the moment. I'm trying to get another article to FAC in the next week or so, then will be on wikibreak (for a ~week) at the beginning of September. Expect to have time to work on this when I come back after that. Suppose it wouldn't be a huge problem if this gets delisted, and then renominated in 1-2 months? It might as well stay listed, though. --Aude (talk) 05:40, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I see this was listed on July 29. I just got back from 2 weeks wikibreak, so first time I see this. I may be able to do small bits of work to the article in the next two weeks. No promises, but will have time in mid-September. It's not a matter of finding sources and adding the citations. I have material to work with, and many of the books listed in the references section can probably be located in local used books shops here. --Aude (talk) 05:45, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Aude, if significant work is undertaken, by you or any other editors, before the close of the FARC, let me know on my talkpage and I'll gladly reexamine my article (and, obviously, my above !vote). -- Kicking222 14:31, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As long as you're working on it, it will be left open. Marskell 14:34, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per DcMacnut - This article seems to me like no work needs to be done, ok there are 6 unsubstantiated facts that require sources but surely that can't be enough to delist it? Onnaghar tl | co 14:13, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If there are several ((fact)) tags in a FA candidate article, it would probably not pass. So delisting a FA article due to unsubstantiated facts seems normal, although it is certainly not preferable! In an emergency, one could remove the unsubstantiated facts temporarily until Aude has the time to work on it. --RelHistBuff 15:05, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Remove. I start being unhappy at the prose right at the top. For example:
It's not the House, but its members, who serve two-year terms.
Wouldn't it be nice to have that tiny pic in the infoblot blown up to a better size and placed at the top?
"The House and Senate are co-equal houses." I disagree.
"two thirds"—MOS breach.
Stubby paragraphs.
"51-49 Senate majority"—MOS breach.
"2 independents"—MOS breach.
"namely" is redundant.
although in formal registers. Tony 13:24, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Remove Article lacks citations, and it appears efforts have not been made to find citations for statements specifically marked as needing them. Jay32183 23:47, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Just to reiterate my previous vote. Please point out which statements have been specifically identified as needing citations? I see no [citation needed] tags anywhere in the article. There are extensive citations at the bottom of the article, and FAR does not require in-line citations. As far as MOS concerns, the are easily rectified.Dcmacnut 18:41, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Remove per 1c, and Tony's concerns. LuciferMorgan 14:52, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Remove: There are at least 5 citation-needed superscripts that I see in the article. FA criteria does require inline citations where appropriate, so there may be more. If someone requested them, they most certainly need to be supplied, but one should be proactive and put citations on any issue that may require verification. If there are MOS concerns as specified here in this FAR, then the editors should rectify them now. These basic issues can easily bring down an article during its FA candidacy. The same criteria applies here. --RelHistBuff 20:56, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Remove per above and WP:FACR c1. Lack of in-line citations hinders verifiability. -- Chris B • Talk • Contribs 19:32, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've added citations to the bulk of those statements identified as needing them. I also deleted several items that were unnecessary to the purpose of the article. I still think it deserves featured article status.Dcmacnut 20:39, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. All of the "Citations needed" have been addressed. This is a large subject and not every sentence can be (or ought to be) explicitly sourced.—Markles 16:29, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What actually needs "in-line citations"? The article looks good. Which specific statements need a source that doesn't already have one? Keep listed for now. Mahalo. --Ali'i 13:29, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For example, I would suggest the "Comparison to Parliamentary systems" needs it in several places. There are items that are debatable and taken from someone's analysis or opinion (e.g., "The lack of superpowerful political parties allows U.S. Congressmen to more faithfully represent their constituents than members of parliament can" or "A problem in some parliamentary democracies, especially Canada, is regional alienation"). From which reference did these gems come from? None of the references are the obvious choice for looking up the info. Someone could have sneaked this in à la Siegenthaler. This article would most likely fail as an FAC nowadays. --RelHistBuff 21:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As general advice for what to cite, don't just look to WP:V. Citations can help an article with WP:NOR concerns as well. WP:CS does list reasons to cite sources beyond preventing edit wars over controversial material. Jay32183 22:56, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have put some notes on the talk page that may start helping explain these portions for you. Mahalo. --Ali'i 13:49, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The comparison with Parliamentary systems could use sources, but I've seen much worse. I strongly suspect that the judgment involved, that Congressmen are more dependent on their constituents than MP's are, is non-controversial, at least within the United States; our text does not mention one of the material differences: that Representatives must reside in their districts, Senators in their States. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson 03:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What you state applies to the UK but not necessarily to parliamentary systems in general. The section which seriously needs citations also seems to be restricted to comparing UK/Canada and US models, probably based on someone's personal experience and hence it is very likely original research (one would never know for sure unless there were cites that one could verify). The use of weasel words such as "generally" seems to support that possibility. Not only does this bring doubt to this section, but the lack of citations in general puts the rest of the article into doubt. In my opinion, it is best to defeature, work on bringing in proper citations, and then bring it back to FAC. --RelHistBuff 10:37, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Almost Closing: Well, a split review so the numbers don't solve it. I cannot in good faith keep this. We have zero citations and then suddenly four arrive on one sentence. We have numerous unsourced dates, numbers, and judgements. And RelHist is dead on with the comparison section: the facts may be accurate but it clearly reads as off-the-top-of-the-head original research. Nor is it clear that we even need that section.
There's plenty of info here and this could go back to FAC easily enough if better sourced. But removing for now soon, if no work. Marskell 15:29, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, my unofficial rule is to wait a week after improvement work. There has been some here since the beginning of the month so I'll wait three more days. We need quite a bit of work here, however. Marskell 15:46, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So would you mind going through the article and tagging those specific statements that you feel need (and don't have) a source. I suppose I would be interested in trying to keep this article listed, and would like to know specifically what needs work. Is it just every "date, number, and judgement" that needs a little <ref> tag next to it? Because that's not necessarily how an encyclopedia works. But any assistance would be appreciated. Mahalo. --Ali'i 16:19, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to tag bomb this article, no—that rankles people. As suggested, the entire Comparisons section needs sourcing or cutting. We have sentences like "A problem in some parliamentary democracies, especially Canada, is regional alienation, which is generally not present in the United States Senate," which manage to be both too vague and too judgemental at the same time. We could just as easily argue "A problem in the United States Senate is that it accords equal representation to California and Wyoming."
Go back up the page: "The authors of the Constitution expected the greater power to lie with Congress and that is one reason they are described in Article One." Hangers-on to the current emperor seem to feel the greater power was vested in the executive. The entire article needs to be audited for judgements of this sort. But I don't mind waiting, if you begin. Marskell 09:31, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Confirm my earlier declaration of remove. It's a great and important topic, and one that Americans know too little about, not to mention foreigners. But the referencing is quite unsatisfactory. When I see major statements such as this, I two-thirds believe them, but that's not at all good enough. I'd want not just any old reference, but one or two authoritative ones:
The twentieth and twenty-first centuries have seen the rise of the power of the Presidency under Theodore Roosevelt (1901–09), Woodrow Wilson (1913–1921), Franklin D. Roosevelt (1933–45), Richard Nixon (1969–74), Ronald Reagan (1981–89), and George W. Bush (2001–) (see Imperial Presidency). In recent years, Congress has restricted the powers of the President with laws such as the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 and the War Powers Resolution; nevertheless, the Presidency remains considerably more powerful than during the nineteenth century.
And why the sloppy inconsistency in the closing year ranges. "Presidency" might well start with lower case (unsure, anyone know?) Is 1974 recent? When was the WPR? It's a complicated issue, and is tossed off here in what are probably simplistic terms. I lose confidence in the whole article, because it's all about trust.
What inconsistency? The years listed are both consistent and correct. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson 22:47, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But there's a deeper problem: often, the article is simplistic or lacking in logic. Let's look at "Checks and balances".
Paragraphing is awkward.
"The authors of the Constitution expected the greater power to lie with Congress and that is one reason they are described in Article One." I don't buy the logic. The Australian Senate is not as powerful as the House, but it's always mentioned first (a relic from the class-based Lords/Commons).
See any general history of the United States detailed enough to cover the Consitutional Convention in detail. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson 22:47, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Under the first half-dozen Presidents, power seems to have been evenly divided between the President and Congress, in part because early Presidents largely restricted their vetoes to claims of unconstitutionality." Look, this is far too simplistic (evenly = the same in effect, and that can't possibly be true).
"In 1803, the Supreme Court established judicial review of Federal legislation in Marbury v. Madison, holding, however, that Congress could not ..."—This sentence needs to be split for the sake of our digestive systems.
"Comparison to Parliamentary systems" (title)—MOS breach, and "with" would be slightly better.
Any "review" that uses the uncivil term "MOS breach" should be summarily disregarded. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson 22:47, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Finally, I find it extraordinary that the widely acknowledged gerrymandering of (House) districts that has gone on since the 1970s—a gentleman's agreement between the two parties to render quite a lot of districts solid seats for one or other party (a snitch to retain for the lazy)—goes without mention. So does the practice of tagging bills with extraneous, irrelevant sops to local constituents, to vote-buy. And so do all of the other widely reported aspects of the corruption by money of the congressional system, an intricate issue that can and should be reported in a POV manner; it's not as though there isn't enough literature on it. This article would offend no congressional staffer who was charged with satinising it, and that must surely be of concern to the project. Tony 13:11, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The word "president" is only treated as a proper noun when part of a specific title or as the official title of a position. "President Nixon" not "president Nixon", "Nixon was President of the United States" not "Nixon was president of the United States", and "Nixon was U.S. president", not "Nixon was U.S. President." According to MOS:CAPS anyway. Jay32183 18:20, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest "the American Presidency" (proper noun) but "the Bush presidency" (common). Marskell 07:00, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Ali'i is working so I guess the reprieve continues. Marskell 15:53, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm trying, I'm trying. I really would like this important topic to be a Featured Article (FA). But there really is a lot that needs to be "adjusted" to have this be the best of the best. So now, here's my problem. It is obviously a lot easier to maintain FA status than it is to gain FA status. So I could say, "this still needs some work. De-feature for now", but I know it wouldn't make it through the rigmarole of WP:FAC again soon. Or I could say, "I'm working on it, don't de-feature it yet", and then continually draw out the process ad infinitum.
So this is my problem. Do I let this go on being a FA, when I know in my heart-of-hearts that it is extremely good, but not quite up to the current standards for FAs (and would currently fail if it went through FAC again)? Or do I relent and accept that it should be de-featured, and have Wikipedia lose such an important FA? It would be nice if FAs that were de-featured could get re-featured without having to go through the same process again. Has anything like that ever been presented? Well, do what you will. A hui hou. --Ali'i 16:56, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Update I see that User:Ali'i has been working on the article, which has been a huge help. As promised above, it's now mid-September and I have some time to spend on the article. Some edits today [21], adding sources and material. I have plenty of source material at my disposal to use to help add cites, but it won't all happen overnight. Not sure how quickly we can get this fully cited and up to current FAC standards, but just let you know it's being worked on. Have also taken note of Tony's concerns about the prose. --Aude (talk) 21:48, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can see that some work has been done, but heck, this is a very exposed article for WP, and will be judged against exacting standards. I took another para at random:
The constitution provides certain checks and balances among the three branches of the federal government. The influence of Congress on the presidency has varied from one period to another; The degree of usurpation of the power of Congress depends largely on the leadership, political influence and boldness of the encroachments attempted by the President. If the Congress is not united these may often succeed for a time until the Congress has the votes to override a Presidential veto.
Remove "certain". Upper-case after semicolon? "Usurpation"—there's an ugly word. The last sentence is vague, inaccurate, and seemingly referring to a particular historical window. Examples, please? References, please? I just don't believe the text without them. I don't like "attempted". What does "united" mean here? Remove "for a time". But critically, NOWHERE does this article provide a critical fact: that presidential vetoes can be overridden by a two-thirds majority in both houses. How could that have been omitted? This has been in the article for some time now... but really should be in the "checks and balances" section. --Ali'i 14:11, 17 September 2007 (UTC) And what about some useful data on the relationship between Congress and the presidency? List the vetoes during key historical periods? List the overridings? (Can't be too many.)[reply]
Why isn't there an exigesis of the historical roots in the British parliament of the day, and its relationship with the king? Why aren't there comparisons with the power structures in other comparable/different jurisdictions? Why is there no mention of the influence of the congressional/presidential system on that of the US state governments, and other public organisations (many universities, for example)? Superficial, and needs to be deep, penetrating, insightful, enlightening. It can be all of these things without being original research.
Sorry, not happy yet. We need to provide a clear, precise, comprehensive article on this topic, for both Americans and foreigners. No one is yet well served. Tony 14:08, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not happy yet, either. But heck, I only started work on it yesterday. Unbelievable that you think I have the ability get everything addressed in just a day (or actually a few hours). As already mentioned, it won't all happen overnight. But, my understanding of FAR is that as long as the article is being worked on, the review can continue. Or am I wrong about that? I'm new to FAR, so if someone can please enlighten me on how this works, I would greatly appreciated it. Should I keep working on the article? Or should I not bother at this point? --Aude (talk) 16:41, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ya, keep at it. It's still open. Marskell 09:48, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. I have continued work. Not sure how long it will take to resolve all issues and get the article to a level of quality that's expected of current FACs. I know the article is still deficient, but will do what I can, User:Ali'i is helping, and others to resolve those issues ASAP. I'm first working to make sure the article is "comprehensive", with inline citations throughout. Then, will go through and work on copyediting and styles issues. Cheers. --Aude (talk) 14:33, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - citations would definetly be helpful, especially in the paragraph talking about the so-called "Imperial presidency." Happyme22 20:02, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm still concerned about the links in the quoted material, as it's not clear to me that the articles linked reflect original meaning. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:52, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Which specific links do you doubt?
There appear to be two classes: One is represented by the link from magazines to Magazine (artillery), which elegantly identifies, for those who need it, the relevant sense of the word. I doubt any of these are genuinely controversial. (Some of them are unimportant, like the link from forts to Fortification; but leaving these out might be a change of emphasis.
The other is represented by the link from borrow money on the credit of the United States to United States public debt, the relevant subarticle of History of the United States. I found that this immediately brought up a large and dubious chart of this debt as a proportion of GDP; but that's not a problem with this article (and I fixed it); to declare it one is to discourage all links whatsoever. This is equivalent to ((main)), except that the number of invocations of ((main)) required to do the same job would be unmanageable.
Such links should of course be done with circumspection, to avoid bias; so should all writing. Equally of course, they should all be checked. This system, however, is one of the article's great strengths; to make it an objection would make FA a disservice to Wikipedia. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson 02:42, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. An excellent article. Almost all of the remove objections are trivial; some betray ignorance of American government and English grammar. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson 03:58, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Good work, those who have improved it. The wiki system's built-in "oversight" (if it exists) can surely keep an article on such an important topic in good shape without endlessly citing sentences that a high-school student can look up in a library. –Outriggr§ 04:16, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the central criticisms of the page, it's simplicity and its OR, remain unaddressed. The comparisons section, particularly, is still a bit of a joke. But people have tried, so I'll try to contact them. Marskell 23:14, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't had much time to work on Wikipedia in the past few days. Agree completely with all the opposes, comments, criticisms, etc. Not sure how long it will take to get to current FA standards, but still working on it. It wouldn't bother me terribly if this was removed as a FA, because when I'm done working on it, the article should be at a level of quality that it can easily pass WP:FAC. But, it can stay open here. Doesn't matter to me. --Aude (talk) 11:30, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If Aude isn't bothered, I will remove. Kudos to all who have improved it but I think it will take a while to audit for all the uncited simplicity and we're already at eight weeks of review. Another FAC won't be a bad thing. Marskell 11:42, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.
External links and further reading sections are far too long, making it hard to find good items further reading. The authoritative works should be noted.
"Dramatizations" is but a "... in popular culture" section, something I believe there is a consensus against. It is a list of loosely associated topics, and should be prose, not a list. A list can never hope to include all dramatizations of this battle - prose can highlight the most notable ones.
Several tags are in place: a neutrality tag, some citation needed tags, and a complex one - "when?". These indicate not a passerby wanting a citation, but rather an ongoing dispute, failing 1e.
The article is too long, failing 4, and related, the table of contents can be called overwhelming with some certainty, failing 2c.
It lacks inline citations, containing only nineteen for a great length of prose.
A good review and some editing would greatly help this article, and I am quite confident it can be kept featured then. But, without the necessary maintenance, it should be demoted.
User:Krator (tc) 01:10, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Some of these tags make no sense: "in the spring of 1944.[when?]" is pretty absurd. Christopher Parham(talk) 01:19, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looking further, the external links section could use trimming but the further reading section seems excellent, it is well structured and provides a nice range of works. It's not clear what distinction is being made between "Sources" and "Bibliography". Christopher Parham(talk) 01:26, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The when tag is just a few days old and is indeed absurd, I was considering removing it right away, but wanted to give the editor who added it another chance to explain his reasoning (the entire article deals about the Northern Hemisphere, so there should be no doubt of when spring 1944 was). At least the Eastern Front section is disputed right now, but not so much that it couldn't be solved in the near future if a few editors take a look.--Caranorn 10:48, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Largely concur with Krator. The TOC has a total of 49 sections and readable prose is 78k. While the topic has broad enough scope to justify a long article, 78k is too long. To shorten it, I would suggest splitting the section on the landings themselves out to be a new article (D-Day landings currently redirects to D-Day, which seems odd!). I would also agree that stripping out or condensing the long list of computer games would be a good idea. Another potential new article would be Impact of the Battle of Normandy with material from the current Section 9. Perhaps if these sections were split out then the work of providing citations for the material would be manageable, rather than insurmountable. The Land 13:49, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Look at the version originally promoted - [22] - it is far shorter and is essentially about the invasion, not the battle. All the more reason to split off one or more articles. The Land 21:40, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
oh, my. Certainly feels insurmountable. Krator, pls follow the instructions at WP:FAR and notify relevant WikiProjects and involved editors. If anyone is going to take on this gigantic task, deficiencies can be detailed further. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:04, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I had notified the three main contributors as suggested in the guidelines. I will notify the Wikiprojects as well. --User:Krator (tc) 20:08, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The only WikiProject to be notified, military history, has a banner at the top that lists all articles undergoing FAR. --User:Krator (tc) 20:10, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Top editors and original nominator should be notified (check article stats and the original FAC), and a note posted here at the top about notifications (see other FARs). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:46, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just noticed this now. It looks like there is an over-abundance of images, the entire right side of the article on my monitor. Oberiko 14:11, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Second point, the article should, IMO, be structured better, into the major phases of the BoN, right now, it's far to focused on Operation Neptune which should be summarized here instead. Oberiko 14:17, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Suggested FA criteria concerns EL and MoS issues (2), citations (1c), trivia and length (4).Marskell 13:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've addressed the missing citations problem, the when tag problem has been addressed (I'm awaiting resolution from BD mills). Caranorn did some good work sorting out the external links citation. Regarding the length, we could split the Normandy/Dramatizations section as per WP:Summary, but I don't want to create WP:POV fork/WP:CRUFT. --Oshah 13:27, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comments, please review section headings per WP:MSH; there is a lot of capitalization of words that I'm not sure are proper nouns. Why the listed point in "Army Group B Reserve" instead of prose? The appendices are a wreck; I can't sort out Further reading, it has no publishers, and don't know why all that bolding is there, pls see WP:MOSBOLD. Ditto for Bibliography, and websources need to be correctly formatted (see WP:CITE/ES). What is the difference between Sources and Bibliography and Further reading? Is Bibliography part of Sources or Further reading? External links need pruning per WP:EL, WP:RS, WP:NOT. Footnotes are not all completely and correctly formatted. More significantly, the article is still massively undercited; at minimum, hard data needs citation. Dramatizations is extended trivia. And there are external jumps. Also see WP:MOS#Captions regarding punctuation on image captions. 64KB readable prose exceeds WP:SIZE guidelines, trivia at minimum could be lost. Then there's the neutrality tag. This one doesn't look salvageable. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:40, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Remove—1a, 1c, 2.
MOS breach: spacing for ellipsis dots.
"the Red Army had done the majority of the fighting against Germany on the European mainland." Ambiguous, "done" is ungainly, and "the majority of" means more than 50%. Bombsite.
"Prime Minister Winston Churchill had announced the "full understanding" was reached"—word missing?
MOS breach: caption periods.
"In addition to fresh units, von Rundstedt also received a new subordinate,"—In addition to and also?
ise or ize: be consistent. Tony 12:35, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Remove. Besides prose issues analyzed by Tony, there are external jumps, POV tags, the referencing is poor, the structure "overwhelming", and the sources-further reading etc. not properly presented. It needs an editor who will commit himself to the article.--Yannismarou 16:10, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Remove This article needs a lot more inline citations to be considered FA quality and seems overly focused on the landing. The 'Further reading' section needs to be integrated into the bibliography and then be removed - at present it looks like somebody's list of favourite books on the battle, and seems very US-centric (eg, why are the US official histories listed but not the British official histories?) --Nick Dowling 08:22, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Remove as above. Buckshot06 19:20, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.
1(a) - Someone might want to read User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a. Sentences like -- This hurt Andrew so much he believed the only way to deal with it was to stop loving Bree first, so when she rejected him, it would not hurt so much. -- hardly fall under "engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard."
When Bree accuses Andrew of having a relationship with his friend Lisa, he merely laughs.
The prose is minor, it needs some copy editing and rewording, but not the major issue.
1(b) - Where's the information on how they created the character? Where's the information on the casting of the actor who plays the character? How about some character development from the writers, directors, and actor's POV? How come there isn't anything about what they've specifically done to advance the character through the years.
1(c) - From Andrew's hurt reaction to his mother's rejection of him, it appears that he deeply loves his mother, as his determination to hurt her in Season 2 is so he can "stop loving her first". He also loves and respects his father, and only Rex who can get him to stop tormenting Bree in Season 1, albeit briefly. Later on in Season 2, Karl, another strong male figure, has some similar success in forcing Andrew to stop harassing Bree temporarily. In Season 3, it is Orson, and not Bree, who persuades Andrew to return home and whom he continues to respect throughout the season. Andrew is very protective of his mother, as is shown in Season 2 when he attacks George after George tries to kiss Bree against her will, and then in Season 3 where he threatens Orson under the belief that Orson may hurt Bree. -- All original research. It's drawing conclusions based on actions. You cannot do this. Only verifiable, reliable sources can interpret a character, and his/her motivations. Simply reporting what is happening wouldn't suffice either, because then it would be just indiscriminate information.
While fans have heatedly debated his sexual orientation - Unverifiable. What fans? How many fans? Is that a significant number? Is that relevant in the wide scope of the article that should be directed to everyone, and not simply fans?
2 (MOS criteria) - Seems to fail WP:WAF and WP:PLOT.
2(a) - This takes up the majority of the lead:
Andrew first appeared in the pilot of Desperate Housewives and had a recurring role throughout Season 1 as Bree's increasingly delinquent son. Eventually sent to juvenile boot camp, Andrew is removed when he told his mother he was gay. Although he later stated he liked "both vanilla and chocolate", claiming he had originally said he was gay to get out of the camp, Andrew refers to himself as gay in almost every instance. When asked whether Andrew was specifically gay or bisexual, Shawn Pyfrom stated "I really don’t even know at this point." Nevertheless, Andrew had seen how his mother reacted and believed that she would never accept him for who and what he was. This hurt Andrew so much he believed the only way to deal with it was to stop loving Bree first, so when she rejected him, it would not hurt so much. Andrew was made a regular character in Season 2, in which he deliberately set out to provoke Bree as far as he could. This backfired when, finally unable to cope, Bree abandoned him on the streets to fend for himself. Andrew returned home eight months later in Season 3 "a changed man",[2] but only making small appearances.
All of this is just plot information. Little too much emphasis on the IU. If the article was comprehensive then this probably wouldn't be a problem.
3 - There are three images in the "history section". None specify what their need actually is. They appear to just be eye candy, showing off the character of the article...which the image in the infobox takes care of.
4 - One of the biggest problems with this article is the lack of summary style in the "history" section. It is not impossible to summarize events of an entire season. FA criteria, WP:PLOT, even style guidelines clearly state that the IU information should not dominate the article. We have season pages and episode pages that catalog these details, we don't need them here as well. People can watch the show if they want the details of what the character did on the show. Wiki isn't a substitute for watching a television show. All these direct quotes from the show, completely unnecessary. What purpose do that serve? I can't see any other than stealing copyrighted material. There's a reason we have a Wikiquote, because lists of quotes are no encyclopedic information, and neither is a list of IU quotes surround by more IU information that doesn't assert why the quote is relevant.
Please see Troy McClure, Bernard Quatermass, Jason Voorhees, Jabba the Hutt, Padme Amidala, Palpatine, for good examples of comprehensive articles.... and specifically in regards to the plot information: User:Paul730/Buffy Summers#Television. Paul has managed to summarize seven seasons worth of appearances by a main character (Andrew is a secondary character) into a much more concise overview of the fictional character's appearances. I also suggest changing the title of the section to just "Character", like Bernard Quartermass, since this character has not appeared anywhere outside of the show. Saying "History" invites more extraneous details, as it suggests you want a complete description of everything in the character's history, which is not encyclopedic. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 22:48, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I agree that the character history is a major issue. Try to focus on what Andrew's character arc was in each season and only mention key points rather than specific details. The way I see it, it would be something like:
Season 1 - Comes to terms with sexuality, tells parents and copes with their reaction, vows to punish Bree
Season 2 - Explores sexuality further with Justin, torments Bree, is thrown out
Season 3 - Comes home, repairs relationship with family, now close to and protective of Bree
Try to summarise that in about three short paragraphs is my advice. I also recall the creator of the show mentioning that Andrew was originally planned to be a minor character, and only became prominent after the casting of Shawn Pryform (is that his name?). If more information can be found, a "Casting/creation" section would improve the article a lot. Paul730 23:14, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Suggested FA criteria concerns are prose (1a), comprehensiveness (1b), referencing (1c), and MoS issues (2).Marskell 19:43, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Remove - I have to vote to remove FA status. There are lots of issues that were brought up, but no one has talked about them, or just taken action to fix them. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 12:00, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Remove - Per all the concerns mentioned above. This article is not FA quality and nobody seems to have made any effort fix it in the weeks since it has been under FAR. Paul730 23:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Remove per 1a, 1b, 1c, and 2. No progress made. Jay32183 23:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Remove per above arguments and lack of initiative. There are far more appropriate articles on fictional characters, such as the recently-promoted Jason Voorhees. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:05, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What has Jason Voorhees got to do with anything? Please judge each case on its own merits, they are completely different characters and should not be compared. I realise that user BIGNOLE wrote the Jason article (and that FAC and this FAR seem to have attracted his overzealous sycophants), but this FAR is not about trying to boost BIGNOLE's already over inflated ego.80.1.32.8 13:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please keep personal attacks out of this. If you look above, you can clearly see objective concerns about the article, as well as half a dozen other example articles to look at. If you are only here to criticize editors, then please leave, but if you are here to discuss the issues with the article--or take action cleaning it up yourself--please stay and share your opinions. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 13:39, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I mentioned Jason Voorhees because I consider it an example to follow. Andrew Van De Kamp does not serve as an appropriate model for articles about fictional characters. While Bignole and I have collaborated, we are critical of each other's work and do not hesitate to point out flaws. I don't appreciate the personal attack in my selection -- it is the "freshest" article on a fictional character available currently. If you'd like to impart your objective perspective of the status of this article, feel free to do so without attacking other editors. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:02, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just want to point out that as almost the sole author of this article (with input from Zythe), I took the decision to dewatchlist both this FAR and Andrew himself because I was not prepared to wreck what I see as a perfectly good article to comply with the whims of some vengeful and tempramental editors. What this empty FAR has shown is that no-one else wants to as well. Delist if you want, but it's only a star - it's still FA quality. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 09:27, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's the attitude that brought us here in the first place. Unfortunately, there are clear cut problems with the article, the most important of which is that it is not comprehensive--which is one of the requirements for FA status. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 12:11, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've been silent till now, but my understanding of FA quality has changed. I find while this would make a brilliant article for a Desperate Housewives website, for Wikipedia it requires more focus on out of universe context and less on plot summary. Making Andrew into an FAC wouldn't be impossible - there is some press which discusses the character, compares it with Stephen on Dynasty etc. which could all be used. ~ZytheTalk to me! 19:36, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Holy cow... I wonder if it's possible to speedy de-feature, because I can't imagine anyone saving this article. Even three years ago, I'm almost surprised this was accepted as an FA with such a lack of references. -- Kicking222 16:10, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is no "speedy" defeature process. The whole point of FAR is to improve the article up to current standard. One note to the nominator: please notify relevant Wikiprojects and major editors as described in the FAR instructions. --RelHistBuff 16:24, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not to be overly sarcastic, but oh really? I had no idea.
Yes, I'm well aware of what an FAR is for, thanks. -- Kicking222 02:52, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Simply saying something is a "bad article" w/o backing that up with specifics or at least stating what parts of current FA standards this article fails to meet, is not an actionable objection and thus invalid. You also need to specifically state what parts of the MoS this article does not follow. So far, the only valid point raised is a lack of references; enough on its own, if not fixed, to defeature. But not before a proper review period. --mav 17:04, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Problem is with criteria 1b,1c, 2a, 2b, 2d, and may be 1a. See WP:FACRfor the details of criterais. AmartyabagTALK2ME 05:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Suggested FA criteria concerns are citations and formatting (1c and 2d), comprehensiveness (1b), and LEAD (2a).Marskell 07:04, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Remove per 1c, 1d and 2a. LuciferMorgan 19:05, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Remove, almost completely uncited (example: It is estimated that approximately 2000 to 4000 reindeer live in Rondane and the nearby Dovre area.) Common terms like food should be delinked, btw. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:04, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Remove Pls. remove this article as quickly as possible, it is here for more than a month and no significant changes have been made. AmartyabagTALK2ME 07:35, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Remove—1c. And why are units linked, and inconsistently abbreviated? Unsatisfactory first caption. Stubby paras. Tony 12:25, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Remove—1c and MOS breaches. Tony 12:27, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Remove: Don't really want to flog a dead horse, but since I said something in the FAR, I thought I should vote in the FARC. --RelHistBuff 07:21, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Article seems to lack a level of referencing commensurate with that expected of a featured article. Entire sections are unverifiable as they lack any citation whatsoever. For example:
The Family life section lacks any citations, making it impossible to verify where these claims exist outside of Wikipedia. There are very specific claims in this section made about Mandan family life which seem to come from somewhere; yet no credit is given and no connection is made to an external (outside of Wikipedia) source.
Again, the Subsistence section suffers from much the same.
In the Origins and early history "Early studies by linguists" are alluded to. Where are these studies? Where is the analysis of these studies done?
In the European encounter section, mention is made of one John Evans and his contact and work among the Mandan; yet no citation ties these claims to a reference.
The Smallpox epidemic of 1837–38 contains statistics which are uncited to any source? Where did these stats come from?
The Late 19th and the 20th centuries contains statements that seem to beg for citations, such as "While a new town was constructed for the displaced tribal members, much damage was done to the social and economic foundations of the reservation." According to whom? This is an interpretation of events which lacks any citation to a reliable historian or analyst outside of Wikipedia...
The article seems to meet all basic requirements of WP:WIAFA EXCEPT 1(c), but the ommisions from 1(c) are glaring; It would appear that the references exist given the list of references at the end of the article, however unless the claims that the article makes can be tied to said references they appear unverifiable... If the citations can be added to the article, I see no reason for it not to remain featured, however in its current state it appears below standard. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 06:01, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, almost no edits since it came up for review, unformatted citations in addition to other issues mentioned. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:01, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Remove per previous reviewers. Plus irritating trivial links and MOS breaches by the plenty. Images crowd the text in places. Tony 12:23, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The article is written with far too much capitalisation of Wolf, Gray Wolf and other variants. This has been discussed at talk for WP:MOS and the consensus is to use lower case letters except where a proper name (such as Bengal tiger but not Bengal Tiger). Owain.davies 12:01, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Need to standardise British/American spellings throughout. DrKiernan 13:53, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the comments of both Owain.davies and DrKiernan, above. Additionally, I find there are several areas that serve up potentially debatable statements that have no citations whatsoever. Just as one example, the last paragraph in the Reintroduction section talks about re-ordering food webs and delivering a banquet, etc, and there's not a single reference to support any of it. In fact, that entire section, I'd suggest, needs work in terms of citations. I'd also like to draw attention to the Taxonomy section and, specifically, to the table that lists the various subspecies of grey wolf. The entire table is based on a reference from 1978. A quick look to ITIS or, for that matter, to MSW, shows that most every one of those subspecies more recently has been placed into synonymy with C. lupus lupus, the subspecies names being considered deprecated or invalid. Both ITIS and MSW show only two valid subspecies for the grey wolf, namely C. lupus lupus and C. lupus lycaon. Finally, I find a lot of the stuff in that table about the colouration of the various "subspecies" to be kind of dubious, at best, based on the phenotypic plasticity and variability in all wolves. I know lots of people make general statements about various wolf populations and that's fine, I suppose, for some folkloric, vernacular sort of discussion. I'm not convinced it's rigorous enough to be cited in an encyclopedia. — Dave (Talk | contribs) 15:20, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Capitalisation has been discussed again and again on the various biology projects without any consensus being reached. Certainly a discussion between less than 10 people, several of whom objected to the suggestion that capitals shouldn't be used can't be called a consensus. There is guideline for this at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (fauna) where no discussion has taken place before the "consensus" was reached. The points on taxonomy and spelling are good but I'm just not sure that a FAR is justified for those changes. Unless there are any substantive arguments that the article doesn't meet the criteria I'd suggest closing this FAR. Yomanganitalk 16:39, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:MAM#Capitalization. You can capitalize or not capitalize, but whatever you do should be consistent. (I did write that section, so naturally I think it fair.) By itself, capitalization should not be used as an FA criterion. There are numerous problems with this article, besides; I'll try to go over it later. Marskell 17:42, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fixes needed - for mine the article is somewhat lopsided; there is no proper taxonomy section as with many recent bio FAs, - the stuff with it and dog is brief. I also understand there's an issue with the subspecies. The see also section is huge - do we really need a link to werewolf here? A better way would be to have a more developed folklore subsection under Historical perceptions. I haven't read the prose much yet but have spotted at least one typo which I shall fix posthaste.
Dog breeds with recent wolf ancestry: - rather than a list, this should be a short para which expands upon the topic.
similarly Extinct Grey wolves - something more on evloution in article too?
I realised why I couldn't find DNA and evolution stuff - it was in this vague Features and adaptations subsection of a vague Anatomy, physiology, and reproduction section. The sections are not arranged logically or hierarchically - with Courtship and mating and Breeding and life cycle (i.e. behaviours) not in a behaviour section (?). I will see what I can do - there are plenty of mammal FAs to choose from - Bobcat and the other felines have been arranged one way nicely by Marskell while I have played with Common Raven(yeah I know its not a mammal but it is an omnivore so what the heck) as well as Elk and a bunch of whales - Humpback Whale etc. cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 13:49, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
...speaking of balance - there's a huge amount on behaviour and none on distribution...cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 13:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
LIVESTOCK PROTECTION DOGS
The dog breed which is the most capable to be the guardian for livestock against wolfs from Hungary is NOT the KUVASZ but the KOMONDOR!
Its size, weight, mentality of independent guardian and the protective coat it makes the KOMONDOR dog fare more effektive for this purpose than the smaler KUVASZ. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Warrington (talk • contribs) 06:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Suggested FA criteria concerns are organization (4), comprehensiveness (1b), and MoS issues (2).Marskell 13:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep nownot yet - see below . What I thought were missing bits were scattered around the article. I reorganized it more along the lines of some other vertebrate FAs and embellished a little, especially with a bit of systemic taxonomy. I removed the gallery and a few of us toned down some POV sounding adjectives about the place. A few others have gotten stuck in too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Casliber (talk • contribs) 14:10, August 6, 2007
Comment Ref #64 is broken.--Rmky87 14:42, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cleanup needed. There are completely unformatted citations (blue-linked URLs only). Can those 3 lines of redirects at the top be manually formatted to one line (they're unsightly)? There are still some tags to be dealt with, and there are some one-sentence stubby paras, example: In Alaska, for example, wolves are sometimes hunted from aircraft. Can some of the See also be incorporated into the article and removed from See also ?SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:34, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did some ref cleanup; I'm not convinced this article is well-sourced, there are numerous inline queries, and cite tags. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:25, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Remove—Sourcing as per Sandy, and MOS (e.g., 'wolf'—read MOS on "Words as words"). Why link "kilogram", etc? But I hope this one can be saved. Tony 00:04, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I thought most mentions of capitalised Gray Wolf now only referred to the entity-as-taxon rather than wild doggy thing, but am going though it. I concede it could still do with a bit of a copyedit as some language is a bit flowery. I don't have any nice wolf books so am a t a bit of a loss over some places where a ref is clearly required. I'd say give it 2 weeks. cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 02:39, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Update - I just got a book from the library which may help with the source problem. cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 05:05, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've been really tied up elsewhere and haven't had/won't have time to revisit this article over the next week or two. I don't feel strongly one way or the other, and defer to whatever Casliber concludes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:22, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I started to work on this again, but there are now blue-linked URLs in refs, See also hasn't been worked into the article, dashes are out of whack; in other words, I'm not sure the article is stable or being maintained. I have time to work on clean up if any decides it's worth it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:50, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Closing: I have been agonizing over this one, hence the long review. No, I don't think this being actively maintained. But there's a lot of good info here—this page is far from an embarassment to our TOL articles.
But there's just too much wrong, particularly considering the great animal articles we're seeing now at FAC.
A LOT of wordiness (e.g., "...components of the ecosystems they typically occupy" --> "...components of their ecosystems."; "...weigh about 20% less than their male counterparts" --> "...weigh about 20% less than males"; "...include, but are not limited to, temperate forests..." = legalese).
The U.S. POV tags are correct. Outside of the subspecies list, 'Russia' occurs once and 'Canada' not at all. These, not the U.S. (and certainly not the U.K., which gets two paragraphs), are the principal range countries.
Suffers from the last half problem. Sourcing is fine until near the mid-point and then drops off. See, for instance 'Body language'—all of it sourced to a personal website. In general, I wouldn't call this terribly sourced but compare to Lion, an animal of similar stature that Cas and others are preparing for FAC. Clearly not to the same standard (ditto on the LEAD).
Proportion of journal refs needs to increase.
But the bright side: given how much is here to work with, it wouldn't be so hard to bring it back to FAC. It needs a full audit in the meantime. Marskell 11:41, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This article got a spurt of attention prior to this politician's election, but now it has suffered major linkrot, even for the few in-line references that still exist. Naturally, some of these material dealing with that time period can undergo compression now that the heat is off and 20/20 hindsight kicks in and provides some perspective and maturity about what will still be Important one or two years later. Also, a very large section of "notes" that were links to news articles has just been dumped in the Talk page.--SallyForth123 23:57, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please notify relevant editors and Projects with ((subst:FARMessage|Jean Schmidt)) and leave a message here about notifications, per the instructions at WP:FAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:10, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I note that PedanticallySpeaking declares himself on his userpage to be wikibonked and that he has been inactive for several months. If this article remains FA, I suggest, because it is a BLP, that its talk page get a ((maintained)) tag on its talk page with at least one active user listed.--SallyForth123 01:07, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the notification. I think the article is too long by half, that it's not a particularly important article at this point, and that the linkrot significantly complicates the matter. And I have other commitments, so I hope someone(s) with more time and energy is(are) willing to work on the article. -- John Broughton(♫♫) 01:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Image:SchmidtFamily.gif and Image:Jean Schmidt Clermont Sun.jpg have no fair use rationale. The former is replaceable. Pagrashtak 17:11, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Suggested FA criteria concerns are reference quality (1c and 2d), focus (4), and images (3).Marskell 06:56, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Remove, lots of work still needed here, after more than a month. References are unformatted and incomplete (see WP:CITE/ES). SERIOUS lack of citation on GOBS of hard data and direct quotes. WP:MOSBOLD, WP:MOSDATE and WP:DASH issues, and punctuation on image captions needs attention (see WP:MOS). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How did this get to be a FA?
"two months into her first term"—At the top. Problem is, her term is not defined in chronological terms until later.
MOS breach: logical punctuation required for quotes. It's not even consistently wrong through the text.
MOS breach: "four-year career"—with the hyphen.
"hurting its tax base"—Is that the right verb?
"The two also made joint appearances on WCET-TV's Forum on 28 July and WKRC-TV's Newsmakers on 31 July.[19][20][21][22][23][24][25]"—Are all of those references necessary? Looks so nice visually.
Stubby paras.
Unencyclopedic subtitles, especially in "Special general election" (whatever that is): they read like a policial brochure.
Inadequate referencing, e.g., "Schmidt repaid the lobbyist for the cost of the entertainment. Her spokesman told The Columbus Dispatch "Jean specifically asked if this was a reportable gift. We immediately corrected it by paying the full price of the tickets." Her former colleague Raussen blamed Colby. "Here we have a lobbyist who was extremely sloppy."
Overall, disjointed. It's the kind of effect you'd get from politically motivated visitors to the site who are out to sanitise the article. Tony 12:19, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Messages left for Paul Barlow (top contributor), Dbachmann (second-biggest contributor), and Sam Korn (original nominator), along with at the Hindusim and Jainism WikiProjects.
This article, which became an FA approximately 28 months ago, is problem-filled. There are missing citations everywhere- though there are only four ((citation needed)) tags, tons of paragraphs have zero citations (including two in the Overview, the complete list of alternative names, and the entirety of the History section- and that's just the first quarter of the article!); additionally, there are switches between footnote citations and external jumps throughout the article. The prose is far from brilliant, both in spots of less-than-stellar writing and in the frequency of one-sentence paragraphs (and in a few cases, one-sentence subsections). The majority of the footnotes, including every footnote that's not for a book, are formatted improperly. There's a big linkfarm at the end of the article. -- Kicking222 16:55, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article has much improved since it was featured [23] (diff). It is easily the best single reference on the topic found online, and runs circles around any 'real' encyclopedia entry. The Britannica one is pathetically brief, and even contains errors that our article is debunking. If that doesn't make it FA-worthy, I suppose WP has somehow moved on beyond my horizon. If there are problems with less-than-stellar prose, ((sofixit)). I may not get the FA and GA related bureaucracy these days, but whatever has happened to actually working on articles if you spot a problem with them? dab(𒁳) 17:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not claiming that this isn't a great article; I'm claiming that it shouldn't be a Wikipedia Featured Article. What does the quality of another encyclopedia's article have to do with the status of an article on this encyclopedia? -- Kicking222 15:48, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FA means "we think this is a great article". Other encyclopedias' coverage of a topic is of crucial relevance, and is often our main beacon in finding consensus how to arrangeme material, what is notable, and what is not. The Britannica in particular has traditionally been our benchmark, and articles that are clearly better than Britannica should be considered FA candidates by default. --dab(𒁳) 12:23, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, we have specific criteria for determining FA status. Subjectively comparing the article to another encyclopedia does not appear on that list. Jay32183 18:42, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
this is nonsense. WP:FA? calls for prose that is "professional standard" (such as that found in other, professional, encyclopedias. It requests the article be "comprehensive" (as, for example, you'd expect article's in the world's great encyclopedias to be). It should be "verifiable against reliable sources" (again, such as professional encyclopedias). etc. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and as such, our benchmarks have always been other encyclopedias. dab(𒁳) 13:44, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question Why is there an section called "overview"? The lead is supposed to summarize the article, which would provide the general overview of the topic. IS the section redundant or inappropriately named? Jay32183 22:44, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
true, that section was a tad superfluous. I've refactored the material to get rid of it. dab(𒁳) 14:22, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A paragraph without a citation isn't evidence of a missing citation. What statements do you believe are likely to be challenged that lack sources? Christopher Parham(talk) 06:38, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comments. WP:DASH fixes needed, mixed reference styles, templates belong at top of sections, unformatted citations, external link farm, one- and two-sentence sections and paragraphs, poor image layout throughout creating large white spaces, besides the citation issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:14, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Suggested FA criteria concerns are citations (1c), MoS issues (2), and prose (1a).Marskell 19:52, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I see dab is willing to work. Moving to see how people feel. Marskell 19:52, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment dab hasn't touched the article in over two weeks. Little work has been done in general. All of the problems still persist. I continue to see no reason to keep this article featured, despite protests that it should be featured simply because it's 1) better than the corresponding Encyclopedia Britannica article, and 2) the article has improved since it was featured 2 1/2 years ago (has any article that's been around for that long not improved in the past 2 1/2 years?). In short, people have already had more than three weeks to make improvements, and they simply haven't been made. As if it needed to be said, I still urge delisting. -- Kicking222 03:36, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Remove unless lots of work is done on the prose. Tony 13:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
MOS breach: no hyphen after "ly".
"swastika shaped ornaments"—hyphen the double adjective.
Pity to have a huge bulleted list at the top. The last item doesn't fit the lead grammatically.
"The swastika has an extensive history. The motif seems to have first been used in Neolithic Eurasia. The symbol has an ancient history in Europe, ...". Extensive, then ancient history; neither item is quite right, and "extensively" appears again in the subsequent sentence.
Spaced en dashes (acceptable) or spaced em dashes?
1 billion: MOS breach.
Caption for Greek helmet: MOS breach in the hyphen, and since it's not a proper sentence, it should not end with a period. Check the others for this, too. One caption starts with a lower-case letter.
Stubby, disjointed paragraphs.
fine, delist it. Another reason to ignore the FA/GA bureaucracy and write good articles for the sake of writing good articles. I agree, of course, that there are minor issues with prose and the dashes. Nothing that you couldn't fix investing the time spent conducting this formal review. --dab(𒁳) 13:46, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tony actually reviews lots of articles, and if he spent his time fixing all the articles he wouldn't have a life. To be honest, if you dislike being edited and reviewed by others there's no point in you editing Wikipedia - you've had some negative feedback, and so what? Get on with it like everyone else does. LuciferMorgan 14:55, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
203.213.99.31 13:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)I'm surprised there is no mention of the Swastika in Zoroastrian religion in this article. The Swastika is found on pottery from the Archaemid dynasty as it was seen as representing the elements of creation. There should be at least some reference to this in the article. -AuPaul[reply]
Remove, most of the issues I listed during review are still present, little progress. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:35, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Featured in 2003 and not since reviewed, this article would not even pass as a good article now. The lead is totally inadequate as a summary of the article, citation is inadequate, the article is unbalanced in its content, and needs to take better advantage of summary style and subarticles. Geometry guy 23:55, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment first glance is that is contains a lot of uncitated comments, that is well below what is expected for a FA. Michellecrisp 00:57, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A list on the talk page of uncited statements which are "challenged or likely to be challenged" would be helpful. This is plainly writing out a single chief source (Finocchiaro, which I do not know); and many points presumably cite it by implication. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson 20:17, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article reads like a collection of essays on why Galileo is great and important, rather than a biography of Galileo. In addition to the sourcing issues, I think this would require a complete rewrite to meet current FA standards.--ragesoss 18:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The organization of the article into modern fields of science but especially dividing his work on astromony from the Galileo affair seems strange. — Laura Scudder☎ 19:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually this is not unreasonable, given that the affair was largely political, and may have been based on his Epicurean views on chemistry (De Santillana's Crime of Galileo should be included). SeptentrionalisPMAnderson 20:17, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the article is quite good, in my opinion, but does need tightening up to be truly FA standard. I did remove the Italy flags which were added here back in February 2007. I think that is the first time I've shouted in an edit summary... Incidentially, if we wanted to illustrate what Italy was like in Galileo's time, would the 1796 map be good enough? Does anyone have a map of Italy in Galileo's time? Carcharoth 11:42, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say the 1492 map is closer to how it was at his birth. It unfortunately doesn't show the Grand Duchy of Tuscany, but that wasn't created until 1569. Can't find anything that actually clearly shows how it was for most of his life. I could make one if needed, but my historical atlas skips right from a low-detail 1559 to a post-Peace of Westphalia, and I haven't found an old map that shows enough detail of Italy. — Laura Scudder☎ 15:28, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In a recent edit to the article Galileo Galilei you deleted a footnote on the grounds that "Wikipedia is not a reliable source". But the deleted footnote was not in fact citing wikipedia as a source. It provided a link to a footnote in another article (Galileo affair), where the evidence for the assertion being supported was outlined, and highly reliable sources were cited. It is true that this would not have been clear unless one actually followed the link, so perhaps the wording of the deleted footnote left something to be desired. At any rate I have restored it with a more informative wording. David Wilson 12:13, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I still disagree with your claimed justification for the vc template you have now added to my footnote in the article Galileo Galilei.
"Wikipedia is NOT a reliable source." I am well aware of that. Simple repetition of an undisputed claim in a louder voice is not something I find very helpful. As I pointed out above, the footnote you are disputing is not citing wikipedia as a source. If you disagree with that statement it would be more helpful if you could give some reasonable argument to justify your opinion.
"If another Wikipedia article contains a cite to a reliable source for this text, ... " This wording seems to indicate that you did not actually follow the link to the source citations. If so, please do so now.
"... then cite that source here, in this article." There are very good reasons why I have not done that
If you would care the check the footnote where the sources are cited you will find that it contains some explanatory text, together with Harvard citations to three printed references and links to three on-line references. Full details for the three Harvard citations are given in the references section of the Galileo affair article.
The claim for which this footnote cites sources is made in at least threefour separate wikipedia articles, here, here, here and here. Copying both the footnote itself, together with the full references to the three printed sources to twothree other articles (as well as to any others where the same claim might turn up) simply doesn't make any sense, in my opinion. For one thing, if some other editor wants to improve the footnote, or add, delete, or substitute references, he or she would need to do so in threefour separate places (or more, if any further instances of the same claim come to light). And to do this, he or she would need to be aware that the other instances of the footnote even existed. Ensuring this would entail the addition of hidden comments to each instance, alerting editors to the occurrence of the others. Keeping all that properly coordinated would be a nightmare.
The alternative of having threefour or more separate different sets of citations of possibly variable quality for the same claim also doesn't seem to me to make much sense either. It seems to me to make much better sense to cite the best currently known sources in a single place where they can be easily improved by anyone who chooses to do so.
One reasonable, but in my opinion, less desirable, alternative to the method of citation I have adopted is to cite the footnote with a direct link, like this: [24]. If you can offer any good reasons why this would be preferable, I would be happy to make the change. Alternatively, if you have any other reasonable suggestions for handling the citations for this claim, I would also be happy to implement them. However, as I have already made clear, I don't consider the suggestion of simply keeping multiple copies of the same citation in threefour or more separate articles to be a reasonable suggestion. David Wilson 08:41, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The text should be cited in the current article. I would move the citation myself, but it uses a format I'm not familiar with. Please move the citation information to this article. Another Wiki article can't be used to cite a featured article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:12, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, not until someone can give me an adequate reason for doing so. I simply don't consider it sensible to duplicate exactly the same text in a footnote of one article, when a simple crossreferencing link can serve essentially the same purpose more conveniently. If such a link disqualifies the article from being a featured article then so much the worse for the concept of featured article. David Wilson 16:55, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A more than adequate reason for not doing this is that you would have to watchlist every article to which you link. If someone at Galileo affair edited that article to change the name of the reference, the link would no longer work. Even more of a problem is that there is no indication in the footnote at 'Galileo affair' that there is a link pointing at the footnote. Someone might rewrite the footnote at 'Galileo affair' to say something different, not realising that they are messing up the citation at Galileo. Citations need to be self-contained in the article they are in, which is merely an extension of the "articles should be nearly self-contained" dictum. There are exceptions, but they have to be set up very carefully. An example of distributed references is seen in the data references used for chemical elements. Have a look at Chemical elements data references which appears at the bottom of the infobox for every chemical element. Carcharoth 16:38, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, the reader reaching the footnote at Galileo affair may scroll up, or click the "return to text" link on the footnote, and find themselves in a different article to where they thought they were - very confusing. Only those pressing "back" on their browser would get back to the article they had come from. Carcharoth 16:41, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the feedback. Unfortunately there are (at least) two main issues here which seem to have become confused. I must accept some of the responsibility for that, and I apologise for not being more careful. What I was asking for above were adequate reasons for copying the entire footnote and associated references from the Galileo affair article across to the Galileo Galilei article. What you have supplied are not adequate reasons for doing that, but rather arguments against relying on a cross-referencing link as an adequate method of citing references. These are not at all the same thing. I now agree that reliance on the cross-referencing link as the sole means of citing references was not a good idea, but I am still convinced that copying the entire footnote and associated references across was an even worse idea.
The whole point of having a separate Galileo affair article is to enable most of the details about it to be hived off into a separate article so that the corresponding section of the Galileo Galilei article could be reduced to a summary. If it were felt necessary that an assertion made in the Galileo Galilei article needed to be separately documented by a reliable reference (even though it is already copiously documented in the main article, Galileo affair), citation of a single good secondary reference should have been perfectly adequate. The footnote in the Galileo affair article contains much extra detail which, in my opinion, is entirely inappropriate for inclusion in the Galileo Galilei article (since it is supposed to contain only a summary account of the affair). The footnote also contains two secondary references for the assertion being documentated, as well as four of the primary references which those secondary references relied on as evidence. While this seems to me to be entirely appropriate for the main article on the Galileo affair, it also seems to be massive overkill for the Galileo Galilei article, where citation of a single good secondary reference would have done the required job much better. Since the reference list in that article already contained one of the cited secondary references (Galileo at Work) this could have been achieved by having the footnote in the Galileo Galilei article merely say "Drake (1978, p.367)", rather than duplicating the entire footnote from the Galileo affair article. In my opinion, reducing the footnote to that simple citation would be an improvement to the Galileo Galilei article as it now stands. As a disputant over these matters I am unwilling to make the change myself, but would be pleased to see someone else do so.
This deals more fully with the first of the two main issues I was referring to above--namely what constitutes appropriate or inappropriate citation of sources. The second issue is what constitutes appropriate methods of referring readers to other wikipedia articles for further details. First I note that this is already done by cross referencing links to main articles at the top of sections where summaries of those articles are given. For claims which might be disputed, it seems to me that referring readers of a summary section of one article to specific sections (or footnotes) of another main article for further details via a cross-referencing link provides them with a valuable service, and the most effective means of providing that service should be made use of. As long as at least one good secondary citation is given in the article where the link is made, I really don't see what the objections are to providing a link to part another article where the reader can obtain further details if he or she so desires. The arguments you have made against doing this don't seem to me to be all that strong. It is true that the issues you raise may result in some problems, but all of them can be mitigated (though not eliminated entirely) in various ways. Please have a look at the way I have now implemented this in the Two New Sciences and Galileo affair articles and let me know what you think.
The way you have done it now looks good. The reader of Galileo affair that clicks on the footnote in that article will still be surprised to see the footnote start "return to Dialogue; Two New Sciences" at the beginning of the footnote. Possibly leave that until later, or say more explicitly that this note is intended for readers arriving from other articles, not for readers of the Galileo affair article? The footnotes in Two New Sciences and Dialogue look good. As for the Galileo article, please do change the footnote yourself. I don't want to do it for fear of misunderstandings, but you shouldn't feel you can't make the changes. A briefer, single citation for the summary section, compared to the main article, makes a great deal of sense. Carcharoth 11:37, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comments. Ceoil's at work on the prose and cleanup of the cruft, and there are a few areas that still need citation. If someone else understands that citation method used in Galileo affair, that cite can be brought over. The lead might be expanded; it's not currently a compelling, stand-alone summary. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:15, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I added the citation and removed those things that would have required to ((wikicite)) some of the books.--Rmky87 22:19, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have just filled out the lead and I think it a decent summary now. With some work, this one is eminently saveable. Does anybody intend to have a go at the unreferenced sections? Marskell 14:46, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to help out here, Marskell, if I find the time. — SomeHuman19 Aug2007 19:49 (UTC)
Having started to do a little searching, I could find sources about two 'citation needed' phrases. The first required rephrasing of the article text, as it suggested more than what sources (not just the one I put in) appear to confirm; another insufficiently notable source did not quite say that Galileo deemed his daughters unmarriageable because of their parents' status, but mentioned a dowry problem, though that might be unverifiable even if a notable source would claim such. The age of "around ten" at which the daughters entered the convent, appears at least for one to have been thirteen. The doublequoted Einstein quote is correct, but not a literal one (hence I removed the doublequotes, see also Talk:Galileo Galilei#Einstein and Hawking quotations). It appears to me that the article's statements should be verified with the references. Those may once have been accurate, but meanwhile 'improvements' by other contributors may have made the text deviate from the original. I assume this to be about details and not a very serious matter that forbids FA status, though. — SomeHuman26 Aug2007 13:54 (UTC)
Comment, I am not comfortable with that list of External links. I thought I'd sufficiently pruned it a couple of times already. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:13, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If Sandy's concerns are met, I think this should be retained as an FA. Tony 02:37, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Remove - Even assuming that all uncited passages are implicitly from the main sources used to write the article, this article is badly organized and uses sub-par sources. Drake's landmark biography Galileo at Work is not used at all, nor is Biagioli's very important Galileo, Courtier (which explores important aspects of Galileo's life that don't get mentioned here at all). I'm sure an actual Galileo scholar would find far more extensive shortcomings in terms of adequate use of the rich body of Galileo scholarship. The "Life" aspects are underdeveloped, and in my view it still reads more like a collection of essays on why Galileo is great than a biography.--ragesoss 02:39, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Marskell has asked me to be more specific. Galileo, Courtier, mentioned above, discusses Galileo's extensive efforts a courtier, working to secure more prestigious and better-paying patronage and moving from place to place. It's a whole different interpretation of Galileo's life and certainly bears some discussion. Another issue (in my opinion, the fatal flaw of the article) is the organization: the separation of his work into our own modern categories. Galileo at Work makes it very clear that his work in each of these areas was interrelated, and in my view, the only treatment that would make sense is a chronological one. Calling his work "astronomy", "physics", "scientific method", and "technology" misses the point of what Galileo was trying to do; these all fall under natural philosophy, or at least they would by the generation after Galileo...thanks partly to Galileo's efforts to bring them together. Going back to the patronage issue, this is part of why he moved from patron to patron, and eventually away from the universities to the more prestigious political and religious patrons: he wanted recognition as a [natural] philosopher, not just an astronomer. (See the "origin and evolution of the term" section of natural philosophy; it's not great, but it gets the point across.) As I said before, my knowledge of the subject only scratches the surface of Galileo scholarship, so I can't say whether there are more serious omissions. The article has definitely seen considerable improvement during this review, but I think it has problems of missing content as well as a fundamental problem in composition, either of which would be enough for me to oppose if this was a new FA nominee. Because Galileo has had so much written about him, a truly FA-quality article (by our present standards) will be much harder to write than for a typical FA topic.--ragesoss 13:45, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the above are fatal, these are clear actionable points; I'm confident David can meet them, given time. Ceoil 21:47, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, the structure issue, if it were to be resolved, would basically require a rewrite of much of the text, as I see it. But I don't think others necessarily agree with my reasoning on this point; I recall someone saying they really liked the structure of the article. From my perspective (as an historian of science, but not an early-modernist) it seems like more the case of the framework of modern science and philosophy being imposed onto the article, which is perhaps why it's appealing. I would also expect a new FA to use more scholarly sources as the core references, rather than articles from various other encyclopedias and short biographies. No doubt most of the facts traced to these bios are right, but it can't represent the most reliable assessments of Galileo's work and significance without consulting and referring to a decent portion of modern Galileo scholarship (which has developed considerably even since the 1980s). But my FA sourcing standards don't represent the typical trends at FAC.--ragesoss 02:05, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Closing: This is certainly a tough one, but I find ragesoss informed and convincing. That it doesn't even mention he was a courtier does suggest weak coverage of his life. We also have large swathes of unsourced material. The review has helped—better LEAD, better sourcing despite the gaps but I don't think it's there. I asked David for a comment and he's since edited without saying anything. So, I think remove, after six weeks up here. Marskell 16:06, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.
WP:MOS, listiness, and See also corrected already; citations and possible Irish errors remain. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:32, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Definitely needs expanded lead to at least 3 or even 4 paras, plus inline citations are seriously lacking. ww2censor 17:37, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm currently working, albeit slowly, on inline citations but can someone please work on the lead. ww2censor 14:07, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's not bad; the lead needs to be filled out as above, it needs a light copyedit. There are many many sources to choose from. Ceoil 20:53, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Remove unless significantly improved. Citation is far too weak to be of FA status today, and that's not mentioning the other problems raised and commented on here and the talk page. As it stands this article would definitely not pass FA nomination, and I'm not even sure about GA nomination either. I will remove my vote if article finds a hard working hero to rescue it. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 02:46, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Remove are not declared during the review phase, which is intended to suggest and facilitate improvements; please see the instructions at WP:FAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Remove per 1c. Onnaghar tl | co 14:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Remove—1c and 2a.
Lead: totally inadequate in length and scope. "The President is usually directly elected by the people for seven years"—usually? What can this mean? I see further down that there is an exception to the seven years, but heck, it's not worth flaggin in this abstruse way in the lead. Remove "certain" as redundant. Last sentence awkward. Yuck.Tony 13:27, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Can someone please provide a diff to the version it was when it got Featured? I am sure it had to have refs when it passed, if not I am sure the references at the bottom of the page cover most of the points in the article so I will leave the user that worked on it a chance to put them in place before opposing or supporting. -凶 09:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)#[reply]
It was written based primarily on Meighoo's book, with some additional material from the two Malick references and the Sudama article. At the time it was promoted, I don't think inline citations were even possible, and they were not a requirement of FAs. Guettarda 23:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Concerning the objections raised by Hadseys
Length - the FA criteria require an article to be comprehensive, not "greater than a certain length".
Well its a very very concise overview
Lack of inline citations - it was written overwhelmingly from a single source; the other sources support the source, but don't provide new material. Would it really be helpful to reference statements when most of them come from the same source?
I'd say that it relying on a single source is unacceptable because it may be a source with bias, a good featured article should use multiple sources
Only one image - I would love to be able to get my hands on an image of the party symbol. If anyone can track one down, I'd be thrilled. I'm not sure how adding additional copyright images is going to substantially improve the article.
That would make an interesting addition
"It lists only four references" - because it was written based on one reference; the other references provided additional support.
I think basing it on only 1 reference is really bad
"Excessive red linking" - I can turn the red links into stubs; does that really improve the article?
Why not just remove the linking
"Most sections are only a paragraph long" - really? Can you point me to these one-paragraph-long sections? As far as I can tell, zero sections are one paragraph long (although as it currently stands, the lead should be one paragraph).
OK perhaps i misinterpreted the formatting but without doubt some of the sections are stubby
"Not very professionally written, i.e. The party was the party " - I agree; Xerex, who made some later additions, isn't the world's best writer. The prose needs improvement.
I see, if the refereces at the bottom of the page are placed where they can be used as 'inline citations' and some minor improvement to prose are made I will support keeping this article as a FA. I attemped to find a logo of the party by myself but was unsuccesful so I won't take lack of images under consideration. -凶 00:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The article is uncited and the lead could use work. The article size is fine. I'm not sure about the tagging on the image. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:51, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The sources used are cited. I agree that the lead needs works. I can fix that, but not before early-mid August. While I'm not sure how it would improve the article, I could add inline citations, but again, for a number of reasons, I doubt I would have time to touch this before mid-August. Guettarda 13:13, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We can leave it here for ten days then, which will take it into the middle of the month. Marskell 08:42, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, this has been up for almost a month, with little change. The lead could be expanded. I added seven sample cite tags on bio issues, hard data, and opinion that needs attribution. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:55, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Suggested FA criteria concerns are referencing (1c), LEAD (2a), stub sections and prose (1a).Marskell 09:02, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'll drop a note to Guettarda to update the review. Marskell 09:02, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - He hasn't edited since her last post here, this review should be posponed until he comes back since the issues here are mostly concerning reference ubication and lead wich for some reason didn't appear to be important back on 2005, he clearly met the standards back then wich are even lower than a GA now. - Caribbean~H.Q. 09:08, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Remove. Guettarda has been actively editing for over a week, but there has been no progress towards resolving the issues raised at review, and in fact, no editing of this article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:35, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Closing: Obviously, nothing's happening with this one. Marskell 19:07, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Article about a potential future technology promoted to the featured status in March 2004. Over 1000 edits since then. Needs some updating/overhaul. Potential problems: verifiability (Category:Articles with unsourced statements since April 2007) (1.c), lack of inline citations (1.c), style (rethorical questions?), stability (?) (1.e). Qbliktalk 20:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Insufficient referencing, too long an article, stubby paragraphs; needs major cleanup —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.36.182.217 (talk • contribs) 21:18, July 27, 2007
Comments. One-sentence popular culture section, numerous one- and two-sentence paragraphs, external link farm, missing and unformatted refs, external jumps, lacking citations, needs attention to WP:DASH and WP:MOSBOLD. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:07, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.
"Factually accurate" means that claims are verifiable against reliable sources and accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge. Claims are supported with specific evidence and external citations; this involves the provision of a "References" section in which sources are set out, complemented by inline citations where appropriate.
Again this obviously fails per the 3 ((fact)) tags on the page.
The article has any cleanup banners, including but not limited to ((cleanup)), ((wikify)), ((NPOV)), ((unreferenced)), etc, or large numbers of ((fact)), ((clarifyme)), ((huh)), or similar tags.
The fact that due to the tags, Franks would be deemed a "Quick-fail" even by GOOD article standards proves that this article shouldn't be featured - and how it came about to be featured is just beyond me.--danielfolsom 19:48, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like all the expand tags could be dealt with by just summarizing the appropriate main article (e.g., Migration Period art and Pre-Romanesque for art and architecture). It is, however, obviously in need of inline citations. — Laura Scudder☎ 20:46, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps not, as the art ones are pretty poor on the Franks too. There are some nice pics at Treasure of Gourdon. Johnbod 02:14, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the article could be improved, but going for a quick fail based on some tags is beyond me. That way a vandal could get any FA quick failed by just adding the tags on an article where the original author is no longer a frequent visitor (note this does not go in a nomination process as some interested editor has to be active to get into the nomination process).
As the article has been awarded FA status in the past, for that reason alone it deserves a thorough review. Arnoutf 18:31, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If a vandal placed random tags on an article they'd be removed. If a tag was placed and turned out it was needed then it'd be left. Keep in mind the quick fail is for the good article status - which is supposed to be one step bellow featured status.--danielfolsom 21:03, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Interestingly enough, A History of Private Life claims that the Franks invented soup (of the boiled meat variety). Unfortunately doesn't seem to belong anywhere. — Laura Scudder☎ 02:01, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article was FA status a long time ago. Times have changed. It is obvious that it needs to be spruced up and expanded soon or have its FA status revoked. But we shouldn't, in my opinion, waste too much time on ranking articles. Srnec 01:35, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Everyone, I've been trying to get more involved lately and I thought I'd start with the Merovingian Franks. Its true the article's a mess, but I'm starting off a wide ranging series of revisions of it and the sister article "Frankish Empire" today, hopefully that will be enough to keep the articles FA Status and to get the "Frankish Empire" article rated too! Anyways, if anyone interested could pitch in on those articles and their talk pages I'd appreciate it.
Ethan Hoddes 15:03, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Suggested FA criteria concerns are comprehensiveness (1b) and referencing (1c).Marskell 12:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Status update? Work is being done, but there still seem to be expansion and citation needs. Progress? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:56, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Remove. Since I inquired six days ago, one ref added, one wikilink added, and some spelling corrections. Problems unaddressed, the article has a factual accuracy tag. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:22, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Remove - as I'm the nom ... so per nom.--danielfolsom 04:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
^Cite error: The named reference Att1 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ abCite error: The named reference Baron-Cohen was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^Cite error: The named reference Asperger was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^Cite error: The named reference Moran was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^Cite error: The named reference emed was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^Cite error: The named reference refs was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ Articles on controversial topics can still be NPOV and stable, but scrupulous efforts must be made to keep the article well referenced to insure neutrality. Remember that neutrality does not mean that all points of view are equally covered, merely that no point of view is given undue weight in the article.
