Misplaced Pages

:Featured article review/archive: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Featured article review Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 18:09, 15 October 2009 editMarskell (talk | contribs)22,422 edits →Kept status: archive← Previous edit Revision as of 04:32, 20 October 2009 edit undoYellowAssessmentMonkey (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers15,460 edits →Removed status: 4Next edit →
Line 55: Line 55:


==Removed status== ==Removed status==
{{Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/Warsaw Uprising (1794)/archive1}}
{{Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/Virginia Tech massacre/archive1}}
{{Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/Oroonoko/archive1}}
{{Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/Manos: The Hands of Fate/archive1}}
{{Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/"Weird Al" Yankovic/archive1}} {{Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/"Weird Al" Yankovic/archive1}}
{{Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/Introduction to evolution/archive1}} {{Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/Introduction to evolution/archive1}}

Revision as of 04:32, 20 October 2009

Pages are moved to sub-archives based on their nomination date, not closure date.

See the Misplaced Pages:Featured article removal candidates/archive for nominations under the previous FARC process.

Archives

Kept status

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 Misplaced Pages talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept by Marskell 18:09, 15 October 2009 .

Nafaanra

Review commentary

Notified: User talk:Mark Dingemanse, Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Africa, Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Languages.

FA from 2005, some referencing/1c issues, WP:LEAD is a bit short. Much of article appears to be descriptive rather than historical. Images: File:Nafaanra language.svg and File:Nafaanra Delafosse1904.png could use standardization with commons:Template:Information. Image File:Nafaanra literacy class.jpg could use confirmation of status with WP:OTRS. Cirt (talk) 11:02, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

  • I don't see why "much of the article appears to be descriptive rather than historical" is a problem. +Angr 12:00, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. Referencing seems to be very robust, especially in relation to article size; plenty of notes, plenty of references. It's easily comparable to current FAs. A more detailed motivation/specification concerning 1c issues would be enlightening. Peter 12:17, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. Done; thanks. Images need alt text as per WP:ALT. Eubulides (talk) 17:22, 20 July 2009 (UTC) Done. Could you check if it is appropriate? G Purevdorj (talk) 08:46, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Given the overall shortness of the article, a short lead may be justified. Then, it would indeed be possible to find a few unattributed statements (eg on the translation of the Old Testament), but that might be dealt with by the FACT tag rather than by a wholescale review. And while I didn't check the sources of this article, it inspires confidence that it made best (and critical) use of these sources. So I don't see much that would call into question the FA status of this article. G Purevdorj (talk) 22:12, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment - The section "Geography and demography" would benefit from clarification.
(Para 1): "Nafaanra is bordered by Kulango languages to the west, ..."
(Para 2): "The Nafana people live in the north-west corner of the Brong-Ahafo region of Ghana, concentrated mainly in Sampa (capital of the Jaman North district) and Banda. There are two dialectal variants of Nafaanra: Pantera of Banda, and Fantera of Sampa. Bendor-Samuel gives a 79% cognate relationship on the Swadesh list between the two of them. The Banda dialect is considered central. The terms 'Fantera' and 'Pantera' come from other peoples and are considered pejorative by the Nafana."
  • "Nafana" apparently refers to the language sometimes, and at other times to the people and to a geographical area. This is confusing This section would benefit from some added context to orient the general reader, in my opinion as I find the article difficult to decipher.
  • Also, I think the article would benefit from a "History" section, again to orient the general reader, and place this language in an overall context.
  • "Delafosse was the first linguist to mention Nafaanra." Who was Delafosse? How did he come to be the first linguist to "mention Nafaanra". Did he name it? Is there a story here on how he came to be the first? (I now notice that there is a wikilink to his name, way down in the references.)
  • I suggest this article be organized more clearly, so that the relevant information is together in the article. (See above comment on Delafosse.) —Mattisse (Talk) 12:18, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Para 1 basically says "language group A is bordered by language group B". Not sure how that can be improved. I've tried to tweak para 2 by explaining what a Swadesh list is, but I'm not sure what else needs to be done. Is it the "central" comment that's troubling you?
    • I've searched the article for instances of "Nafana" and "Nafaanra" and I can't find any inconsistencies in usage. The former refers to the people, the latter to the language. The only exception is the description of the historical map.
    • I've linked to the article on Delafosse in the first instance. However, I'm not sure it's actually relevant or necessary to describe the European "discoverer" of the language in any greater detail since it wouldn't have any relevance on the nature of the language itself.
    • The organization of the article quite closely follows the language template developed and maintained by WP:LANGUAGE. What little historical information there is is basically present under one heading, which in this case seems like an acceptable solution. I don't believe that creating a history section from what little related content there is would improve the article. There might be a need for more historical information in general, but it's difficult to tell if such information is actually available without proper knowledge of the sources. Peter 05:11, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concern are citations, lead. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. FAQ? YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 02:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep, sources are high-quality, and lead seems to be long enough for a relatively short article. If not, it can be expanded without the need for delisting. +Angr 10:25, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Delist, per unaddressed FA criteria concerns. Cirt (talk) 10:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep. As said, the section in question is swimming with references, and the rest of the article is transparently referenced as well. The article itself is quite short and doesn't seem to need a very long lead, but if THIS is the main concern ...? G Purevdorj (talk) 14:45, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. Done; thanks. Images still lack alt text as per WP:ALT and WP:ACCESSIBILITY. Please click on the "alt text" button in the toolbox at the top left of this article; all the blue boxes in the result are blank and need to be filled in. Please fix this problem, as alt text is required for featured articles (see criterion 3). Also, two references are dead links, and have been dead for a while; please click on the "checklinks" button. Eubulides (talk) 18:27, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Fixes needed There are many {{citations needed}} and {{page needed}} tags in the "Research" section. These need to be fixed with references and page numbers. Dead links should be replaced or removed, e.g. the PDF for Blench 1999 (ref 7). Books need isbns. —Mattisse (Talk) 19:03, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
    • There's no requirement on specifying pages for each and every citation. It all depends on what is being cited and how. We need more specific examples. Peter 21:27, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
      • (Naturally, I agree with the last statement. Removing the last dead link, though, led to Blench 1999 becoming an unitentifiable source, ie not citable. G Purevdorj (talk) 21:32, 3 August 2009 (UTC))
        • You need to address where someone has tagged {{page needed}} in the article by an editor. —Mattisse (Talk) 21:37, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
          • It is nonsensical to demand page numbers when you merely introduce research works! Page numbers are an appropriate demand to hinder people to make claims that may be hidden within 300 or so pages. But deign to take a look at just WHERE page numbers where demanded. I'll quote one tag that I deleted: "After a period of silence on Nafaanra, Painter (1966) appeared, consisting of basic word lists of the Pantera and Fantera dialects." Setting such a tag may be indicative of a certain sense of humour ... but it would not even be possible to adhere to its demand. So please consider what you ask! There seem to be problems that should be addressed, though, eg the image matter or the incomplete source I just pointed to. G Purevdorj (talk) 01:20, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment Lead has been expanded with an additional paragraph describing various distinctive linguistic features. Peter 18:08, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment: It appears that none of the image issues from above have been addressed. Cirt (talk) 21:21, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Questions:
  • Is the number of speakers growing/shrinking/remaining constant?
  • Is there much published in Nafaanra?
  • Have any famous plays/books/poems/TV shows/radio shows been created in the language?
  • Are there any famous speakers of the language?
  • These are just a few questions that occurred to me while reading the article. JKBrooks85 (talk) 22:38, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
    • The current situation of the language is not my area of expertise, but I'm just guessing that a relatively small West African language with speakers in the tens of thousands (without a literary tradition) is unlikely to generate notable works of literature or sustain major media outlets. Oral tradition is probably lively, but that requires dedicated research and can't exactly be googled. As for "famous speakers", not even FAs on major languages like Turkish have such info and it's not considered to be a relevant requirement by WP:LANG. Peter 08:16, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
  1. There is no published information about current sociolinguistic trends so the first question has to remain unanswered.
  2. It seems there is not much published in Nafaanra besides the New Testament and some literacy materials. The Old Testament is still under revision (Carol Jordan p.c.). I did find some more audio here but I'm not sure how relevant that is.
  3. As for questions 3 and 4, I don't know about famed speakers or famous creative works, but of course any language is intrinsically important as intangible cultural heritage. — mark ✎ 08:32, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
  • True. For me, listing noted or internationally acclaimed works is a way for readers to connect to the subject. Even if they've only read a translated work, it gives a frame of reference. JKBrooks85 (talk) 23:09, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
  • For once, a map in which you can read the embedded text!
  • The logic of "however" escapes me: "Nafaanra is bordered by Kulango languages to the west, while Deg (a Gur language) and Gonja (Kwa) are found to the north and east. The closest eastern neighbour, however, is the Mande language Ligbi (whose speakers are also called Banda), interestingly enough also an outlier to its own family."
  • Ref 4 is from 1980: "The Nafana people relate that they come from Côte d'Ivoire, from a village called Kakala. Their oral history says that some of their people are still there, and if they go back they will not be allowed to leave again." Is this still the case?
  • Double, not single quotes.
  • 17th, not a superscript "th". (See MoS)
  • "or are unable to speak"
  • See MoS on spelling out numbers: "15–25% of the Nafana people are literate in Twi, whereas only 1–5% are literate in Nafaanra." Start with "Of the ...,".
  • Some awkward sentence structure, such as "Dompo, thought to be extinct until a field work trip of Blench in 1998 proved the contrary, is their first language." Why not "Dompo is their first language, thought to be extinct until a field work trip of Blench in 1998 proved the contrary."?

That's just from the top. Needs work on the writing. Tony (talk) 09:23, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for having a look at the article, Tony. I've done my best to fix the issues you mentioned here. I'll run through the rest of the article as soon as I can, if someone doesn't manage to do it before me. If there are reoccurring issues that you feel need fixing, don't hesitate to point them out.
Peter 07:41, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep The article is predominantly written by two linguists editing under their own names, and their home pages indicate expertise in this area. I'm not quite clear on what is meant by "The Banda dialect is considered central." I'd be inclined to remove the second sentence of "The Nafana people relate that they come from Côte d'Ivoire, from a village called Kakala. Their oral history says that some of their people are still there, and if they go back they will not be allowed to leave again." and just leave it as something like "The oral history of the Nafana people relates that they come from Côte d'Ivoire, from a village called Kakala. This is consistent with the linguistic affinities between Nafaanra and Tagwana, the language spoken in that area of the Côte d'Ivoire." DrKiernan (talk) 09:33, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Misplaced Pages talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept by Marskell 18:09, 15 October 2009 .

Gyeongju

Review summary

wikiProjects notified. Author has retired.


Article fails 1c. Many sections and paragraphs are entirely uncited. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 13:56, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I will work on that. Please hold on the review for a while.--Caspian blue 14:03, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
sure. If work is steady, it can take up to 3 months YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 14:12, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Two of the images, File:Burial-Mounds-at-GyeongJu.jpg and File:Temple-at-gyeongju.jpg appear to be missing permissions, or at least I couldn't find it at the web site given as the source . The dead links in the references should be updated. DrKiernan (talk) 10:57, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I replaced the images with File:Korea-Gyeongju-Bulguksa-32.jpg and File:Gyeongju-2.jpg. And the dead links seem to be a result of updates by the Gyeongju City site, so I will replace the broken links with correct ones.--Caspian blue 01:09, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Alt text done; thanks. Images need alt text as per WP:ALT. This is for WP:ACCESSIBILITY to the visually impaired. Eubulides (talk) 07:27, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concern are citations, alt text. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. FAQ? YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 01:06, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Meaning, please? I've uploaded images of Gyeongju to Commons to enhance the article (I'm planing to expand some sections so..), so I've been not much paying attention to editing/replacing sources in the article, but I will get back to the replacing sources in the next week.--Caspian blue
I've started tweaking things now that refs are being added. I won't be closing this obviously YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 04:32, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Hold. Caspianblue is doing a heck of a job improving the article, but it's still got a ways to go. I've added a raft of fact tags to aid in placing additional citations, but the article needs an entire new section dealing with utilities like electricity, water, and communications. If Caspianblue wasn't working on the article, I'd vote for Delist, but I hope it'll continue to improve and I can change my vote. :) JKBrooks85 (talk) 08:32, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I have enabled the toolbox at the upper right corner of this page, to make it easier to debug problems with alt text and with external links (both problems exist). Eubulides (talk) 02:46, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment: Work appears to be continuing, but I'm concerned that virtually all of the citations are in Korean. I suppose that's unavoidable, but it means I can't check them. ;) JKBrooks85 (talk) 02:57, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Unfortunately, Koreans do not use English in real life, and academic studies on Korea are far behind compared to Chinese and Japanese studies in Anglosphere, so high quality English sources are really really scarce. Except history section and tourism, there are virtually no English sources even though the city that once was the capital is the third most visited tourist place and has the 2nd most cultural properties and treasures in South Korea. I've tried to minimalize using sources from the government, so many of my sources are from online Korean encyclopedias and newspapers with high credentials but written in Korean language. To break through the difficulty, I'm planning to seek another type of copywriters who can read Korean language. Or if you have any doubt in your mind, please just ask me to quote specific passages and translate them.--Caspian blue 11:21, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
      • It was just a bit of wishful thinking on my part. I did a bit of searching but ran into the problems you mentioned. Given your editing history, I've got no problem accepting the citations IGF. JKBrooks85 (talk) 21:25, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment I know the prose is not well written in the current stage even though the original writer is a native English speaker. As the article is getting expanded, my grammatical errors (I'm not a native speaker of English) should be fixed as well. So I've tried to find copywriters, but some of them declined my request and one ediors promised to edit the article next week due to their involvement in other works. So I was planning to expand the article this week since reviewers above demand me to add new sections (I've added health/utility/sports sections as well as expanded other sections) and then expect other promised copywriters would take the job of proofreading/copywriting. So please give me more time, or would you give me some direction, where I could find skilled copywriters? Thanks.--Caspian blue 11:21, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Comments by Himalayan

Definately avoid saying things like "Today Gyeongju is a typical medium-sized city sharing the economic, demographic, and social trends that have shaped modern South Korean culture" in the intro. Too subjective. How exactly do you define a "typical medium sized city"? The later on in the article you claim "In the 20th century, the city has remained relatively small, no longer ranking among the major cities of Korea.". Either it is a typically sized city or small city or what?? I would remove this loose definition.. Himalayan 12:52, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

That passage was written by the original writer, and I could not know what source he used for that. Per your request for clarification, I modified it to
“ As the city of Gyeongju was united with the nearby rural Gyeongju County in 1995, it has been an urban-rural complex city among 83 small and medium-sized cities in South Korea. With the historical heritage, today Gyeongju shares the economic, demographic, and social trends that have shaped modern South Korean culture. ”

--Caspian blue 15:04, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't the population/data for the sub divisions by referenced? You mention a source but it needs to be verifiable..

The last paragraph of the Economy section is unreferenced except for the final sentence. Maybe you could add a source to back up the history? Himalayan 15:46, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Himalayan 15:35, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

The population/data is referenced. Also The whole last paragraph at Economy is referenced with the same sources as used for the last sentence.--Caspian blue 15:50, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment. Some alt text is now present (thanks), and is a very good start, but has a few problems:

  • Five images still lack alt text. Please use the "alt text" button in the toolbox at upper right to see them. (Warning: that button uses a cached version of the page and can sometimes give delayed results.)
  • The phrase "the city's name" in "On the center of the map, the city's name is put on a red circle." cannot be verified by a non-expert (non-Korean-speaking) reader simply by looking at the image as per WP:ALT#Verifiability. Please change "the city's name" to "慶州", which can be verified. Normally it's better to avoid Unicode text but there is an exception when transcribing prominent characters (see WP:ALT#Text).
  • The word "Buddhist" in "A front view of a Buddhist shrine" also cannot be verified by a non-expert simply by looking at the image, and should also be removed, or moved to the caption.
  • "Illustration of principal mountains and drainage patterns of Gyeongju" simply repeats part of the caption and does not capture the gist of the map. Please see WP:ALT#Maps for suggestions here. A similar problem exists for the long text beginning "Simplified map of the administrative divisions of Gyeongju".
  • Phrases like "A front view of" (twice), "A side shot of", "An under view of", "A slightly side shot of", "On the far right,", "A side view of" are not that useful and should be removed as per WP:ALT#Phrases to avoid.
  • The proper name "General Kim Yusin" should be removed from the alt text as per WP:ALT#Verifiability.

Eubulides (talk) 17:10, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

    • I hope the revision of alts is okay now.--Caspian blue 23:28, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
      • All the problems noted above have been fixed; thanks! One new one has been introduced, though, and needs fixing: the alt text for the maps focus on unimportant visual aspects such as colors and icon shapes, and neglect the essence of what the maps tell the reader. Please see WP:ALT#Maps for advice here. For example, for File:Gyeongjumts.png the current alt text is "Moutains in Gyeongju are marked as triangles. Mountains with a high height are colored in black, otherwise in gray. Gyeongju is colored with white. Outside regions of Gyeongju and rivers and a sea are respectively colored in peach and light blue.", but better alt text would be something like "A river runs from south to north through the region, draining most of it. Half the tallest mountains are on the southern border; other mountains are mostly in the west, clustered in the northwest." Please fix the alt text for all the maps in a similar way. Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 02:53, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

If progress is still being made, a sources review should be done. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:41, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Comments

  • "57 BC–935 AD": please read MoS on dashes. Same for "urban-rural complex". And see MoS on hanging hyphens: "small and medium-sized cities". And see MoS on minus signs for the table?
  • Why is "tourism" linked? And why "foothills", "drainage", etc? Please remove common-term links throughout.
  • Images: why so tiny? Consequently, we squint to see what they are, and the captions wrap awkwardly. The text on the map needs a powerful magnifying glass: I don't have one.

Generally, the prose is pretty good. Tony (talk) 09:14, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Thank you for the review. Is File:Gyeongjumts.png "the map" to which you're referring to? Yes, the letters look quite small. I will increase the text soon. However, the first image at History section at 280px looks too big to my eyes. As far as I've known, except few cases (such as lead images, maps, or articles focusing on images), forced images are discouraged. May I ask you what resolution are you setting at? I've checked the layout with 13, 15, 17, and 19 inch monitors in various resolutions, but the images looked fine to me. (See Talk:Gyeongju#Layout) The default setting of images on Misplaced Pages might be small, but since other people could have different opinions on this, I will follow to the consensus.-Caspian blue 11:14, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
    I had to revert the image setting at 280px per WP:Images#Forced image size, WP:IMGSIZE and MOS:IMAGES, but I will implement the map about mountains and drainage.--Caspian blue 21:03, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
    I increased the text size and updated the color scheme.--Caspian blue 00:37, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Note about Korean sources Although I have tried to use English sources, but except history and tourism sections, virtually very little or no source could be found. So I've mainly used three reliable encyclopedias (Encyclopedia of Korean Culture, Korean version of Encyclopædia Britannica, Doosan Encyclopedia) that provide information online and several newspapers written in Korean (not direct translation to avoid plagiarism). However, it is shame that many articles of such major newspapers or media in South Korea have not been created yet. Therefore, several links are also "red links" if you see the reference section on the bottom of the page. As you would be curious at to know what "Ilbo" and "Simun" mean; they respectively refer to "daily news" and "newspaper" in Korean such as The Chosun Ilbo, JoongAng Ilbo, The Dong-a Ilbo, Daegu Ilbo or and Kookje Sinmun. Unless Korean newspaper/media companies prefer styling with English translation, transliteration is commonly used for Korean media-related articles. I've also used many Korean academic sources from reputable universities. I hope this will help to rectify any concern about Korean sources. Thanks.--Caspian blue 12:04, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Regarding images

Per Misplaced Pages policy (WP:IMGSIZE) we should as a rule use the default thumb or thumb|upright sizes and not set images to a fixed size. There are exceptions to this outlined at MOS:IMAGES, but the only such exceptions in this article are IMO the maps. Also per the MOS, "Do not place left-aligned images directly below a subsection-level heading (=== or lower)". I'll try and do a bit of cleanup with regard to images sizes/placement on this basis. Some of the captions could do with a little work, but I'm afraid I don't understand Tony's comment above ("the captions wrap awkwardly"). I'll try and fix the hyphens/dashes/minus signs issue that Tony raised, though.

Per Caspian blue's request I shall try and do a bit of copyediting and look at the image captions and alt text, hopefully within the next week.

Caspian: Can you do anything to improve File:Gyeongjumts.png? It may be an idea to request improvement at WP:GL/MAP. Also, can you check refs #73, 155, 156, 157, 177? The Checklinks tool identifies these as dead links. PC78 (talk) 23:58, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, PC78. I have read the dash things, but I could not find what difference "-" and "–" and "—". (I'm dull at such manual parts) As for the source, the first links works fine, but the others from Gyeongju Sinmun are currently under construction.:-( They were added on Sept.10, and worked fine, but well....I shall replace other news sources. --Caspian blue 00:21, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
OK, I've adjusted the images slightly. WP:PICTURE recommends that if image width is specified it should be at least 300px, so I've increased the map to that size (also makes it easier to see). File:Korea-Gyeongju-Bulguksa-Dabotap Pagoda-01.jpg now uses "upright" rather than a fixed width. MOS:IMAGES also says "Avoid sandwiching text between two images that face each other"; that may still be a problem for the "Tourism" section. PC78 (talk) 00:29, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
I've just been throgh the article and fixed a few dash/hyphen issues I found, fixed a few dates and de-linked a few years. I've also used {{convert}} for all the measurements, though not in the "Utilities" section for kW or tonnes because I'm not sure if they need converting or what they need converting to. PC78 (talk) 01:38, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
I deleted the (temporarily or not) deal links and replaced with other sources.--Caspian blue 18:56, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Korean name: is the hangul for Gyeongju 경주 or 경주시? The infobox gives both, and it's not obvious (to me) why. PC78 (talk) 10:46, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

It is like calling 'Gyeongju' or 'City of Gyeongju' (or Gyeongju city) (corresponding to the order of your above comment). It is commonly called 경주, but officially 경주시.--Caspian blue 12:12, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Misplaced Pages talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept by Marskell 20:59, 8 October 2009 .

Talbot Tagora

Review commentary

Notified: Bravada, WikiProject Automobiles

Concerns: Seems quite short (1b), limited number of references, few of which are clear cut reliable sources (1c), could use move/better quality images and more comprehensive captions (3). Aubergine (talk) 01:16, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment. Images need alt text as per WP:ALT. Eubulides (talk) 03:19, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment: It doesn't look that bad to me; the main thing I'd suggest is substituting specific page numbers for the Auto Katalog references (if possible) instead of a general range reference. Without having the catalog at hand, I can't make that decision. I'd also suggest a quick runthrough for weasel words; forex "far short". Other than that, the prose looks concise. JKBrooks85 (talk) 04:24, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Comment: I have gone over the article and fixed up all issues that are within my ability to fix, however, I do not have any print sources for this car so I can replace the two "questionable" references. I would just like to note that the "questionable" sources are not referencing anything controversial (it's only a car) so I would argue that they are okay. If this was a biography or controversial event, I wouldn't be arguing this.
"Seems quite short (1b)": we work with the references available, the article seems to cover everything important. Aubergine, could you please point out the information that you felt was lacking?
"could use move/better quality images and more comprehensive captions": the image quality is fine for the subject in question. Captions have been addressed. OSX (talk • contributions) 11:50, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Can you please fix the alt text too? Click on the "alt text" button in the toolbox at the upper right of this review page. Please see WP:ALT for advice about what should go into those (now-empty) blue boxes. Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 01:34, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concern are citations, comprehensiveness, alt text. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. FAQ? YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 02:34, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


  • Keep I admit to have written a good chunk of this article as it stands, and I am absolutely positive those were and are the "best quality" sources we can get on this obscure subject. Other possible sources are either inaccurate or incomprehensive, so even if they might look nicer by means of being print or more "high-quality" websites, they wouldn't consitute better-quality SOURCES for me. This is a rather special case in that there was minimal coverage of the subject by any form of lasting media, and I understand it is raising considerable doubts, but I hope this meets with understanding. Please do point me towards better sources if I missed some by any chance.
    As concerns comprehensiveness, this article really says all there was to say about the subject, and then some. I was actually getting anxious there was too much of trivial and unencyclopedic material put in there, so I am quite surprised the article is getting doubts on the other front. OTOH, similar concerns were raised during the original FA candidacy, and proved mostly to stem out of reviewer's cursory look at the article as "too short". Such concerns usually fade away on more thorough reading - there really isn't much, or actually anything, left to say.
    The alt text issue seems to have been fixed by OSX, or am I wrong?
    Kind regards, PrinceGloria (talk) 06:05, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
"I admit to have written a good chunk of this article as it stands" - Good to see you back Bravada! I think I asked you about this last year YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 06:15, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Your not the only one then: "So I am guessing you are the same person as the long retired User:Bravada? I have kind of suspected that for a while now." OSX (talk • contributions) 07:55, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
I emailed him last year. Who else edits vintage cars and Eurovision? YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 04:21, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the alt text problem has not been fixed yet. Please click on "alt text" in the toolbox at the upper right of this review page. All the little blue boxes are blank, which means the alt text is missing. Eubulides (talk) 07:19, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
All images have captions. Please check the actual article rather than relying on that tool sever programme. OSX (talk • contributions) 07:55, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
This thread is about alt text, not about captions. Alt text is intended for visually impaired people, who cannot see the image; it typically has very little to do with the caption. Please see WP:ALT #Difference from captions. Eubulides (talk) 16:19, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
So if visually impaired people cannot see the image, how are the supposed to read the text? Wouldn't an alt text description be against WP:OR? OSX (talk • contributions) 12:59, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Typically they use a screen reader like JAWS, which reads the alt text and caption out loud to the user. The alt text should contain only information that can immediately be verified by a non-expert who is merely looking at the image; this satisfied WP:OR since the image itself supports the alt text. These topics, and others related to alt text, are discussed further in WP:ALT. Eubulides (talk) 02:00, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Alt text now added. OSX (talk • contributions) 12:21, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, it's now present, but it needs work. "Brown Talbot Tagora" conveys one word ("Brown") about visual appearance, but the other two words "Talbot Tagora" are not about visual appearance and repeat the caption. Alt text is supposed to not repeat the caption, and should focus on visual appearance only. It's OK for later images to have alt text that say "Talbot Tagora" and thus to refer to the lead image, but the lead image should describe the gist of the visual appearance of this automobile: it's a 4-door sedan, it's an angular style with rectangular headlights, it has a black stripe along the side at bumper height. This shouldn't be too long; just the gist. Later images can have alt text that describes what's distinctive about this particular view of the car. Similarly, "Grey-coloured automobile interior" doesn't contain quite enough detail: I'd shoot for something more in the range of 20 to 40 words. Eubulides (talk) 00:30, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Comments: I'm concerned about the adverbs in the first sentence of the design subsection: "generous", "ample", and "large" aren't precise and might be called weasel-wordy, unless they can be backed up with a source. Can someone provide one or give accurate measurements as to the wheelbase changes, etc.? JKBrooks85 (talk) 23:49, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
I have fixed this up as best I can without loosing meaning (). It cannot be ignored that the Tagora is a large car. OSX (talk • contributions) 04:17, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, the sources seem to use much of the same language. How well has the car held up under maintenance? Have there been any long-term problems? JKBrooks85 (talk) 04:59, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment - Hard to see how this ever became a FA to begin with. Seems like a very minimal article. If this can be a FA, then many, many can be. But so be it. —mattisse (Talk) 00:52, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep. Looks alright. Not sure if it'd pass through WP:FAC today, but not worth delisting either. Cirt (talk) 06:02, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Provisional keep. But has someone sifted through for prose and MoS? "newly-launched"? (Check Hyphens).
  • Why is "bankruptcy" linked? It's a normal English word, yes?
  • Some of the images are TINY. Please increase: see this for the syntax: try 240 to 260px often.
  • "The deal was finalized in 1978, with the buyer paying a mere"—clumsy. Try ", in which the buyer paid ...". See this.
  • "Rather" is almost always unencyclopedic.
  • Does the "axle" link-target go to a specifically car axle section? ("Pre-production" is good: car article).
  • Linked "billboard advertising"? Is it an obscure item? "Brass"?
  • "higher power rating." -> "higher power-rating." Easier to read. Tony (talk) 14:07, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Done. OSX (talk • contributions) 14:05, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

Removed status

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 Misplaced Pages talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed by YellowAssessmentMonkey 04:32, 20 October 2009 .

Warsaw Uprising (1794)

Review commentary

Notified: Piotrus, Halibutt, Irpen, WikiProject Military history, Polish WikiProject.

I am nominating this featured article for review because it does not longer meet the FA criteria. The article was promoted in August 2006 and no review has been conducted since then. There are large portions of the article uncited (1c) and the majority of sources used are non-english. It should be verified if no English-language equivalent sources exist. However, a thorough referencing clean-up should be made. Eurocopter (talk) 18:40, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I was involved in the original referencing and I am sure it was done well. References in foreign languages are acceptable. Editors are of course welcome to improve the article by adding more references in other languages. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:37, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Are acceptable but should be replaced if an English equivalent exists per WP:RS. --Eurocopter (talk) 20:44, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Amended by addition, not replaced. If it says replaced, let me know where; such a policy needs to be changed :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:46, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

As the author of most of the original FA content I should probably throw in a cent or two.

  1. First of all, there were barely any English sources on the topic in 2006. Most of those that were available to me (Warsaw University Library, Google Books and such) were simply short notes in some encyclopaedias and such. What's more, many of them were far from reliable in that they repeated 19th-centurish misconceptions that were dropped by modern Polish historiography long ago (like for instance the ridiculous claims by Kiliński). I doubt there are more sources now as the topic doesn't seem to be high enough on the list of priorities for English-language historians.
  2. Of course we could cut the article only to statements that are available in English-language sources, but that would mean cutting the article to little more than a stub. I see no point in that, especially that there is a plethora of Polish language monographs, all of them by respected historians, peer reviewed and so on. If the choice is between good article based on Polish and Russian sources and bad article based on English sources, I'd go for the first option.
  3. If you feel something is fishy with this or that chunk of the text, just ask for a source and I'll be happy to provide it. Especially that many of the sources cited in the text are available on-line and easy to check. BTW, that's precisely what the {{fact}} template is for. However, I believe marking the entire article as "not meeting the FA criteria" without citing specific paragraphs that need revision is neither helpful nor justified.
  4. Finally, what do you mean by a "thorough referencing clean-up"? What's wrong with the current refs except for the fact that the majority of them are not in English?

Regards, //Halibutt 21:01, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Of course cutting the text is not a solution. First of all, I have added tags in places where citation needed, although I'm pretty sure you are familiar of how a current FA should look like. Secondly, you should have separate sections for notes and references - see examples of clean referencing systems here and here. I know that it's a bit of work to do, but FA standards grew up since 2006. --Eurocopter (talk) 21:28, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment on sources There is an over-reliance on "Kazimierz Bartoszewicz (1913). ">>Święta Insurrekcyja<< w Warszawie". Dzieje Insurekcji Kościuszkowskiej (History of the Kościuszko's Uprising)." which is sad, because its a 1913 work. I'm quite happy for the sources to be primarily Polish as long as 1) They're scholarly peer reviewed (of course) and 2) you try to find scholarly book reviews in English of the works, and 3) you include commented-out quotes (in Polish) so we can google translate the key evidentiary sentences for second editor verification. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:48, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concern are citations. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 00:50, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Misplaced Pages talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed by YellowAssessmentMonkey 04:32, 20 October 2009 .

Virginia Tech massacre

Review commentary

Notified: Ronnotel, Sfmammamia, WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography

I think that the article in its current state is not quite featured quality. Several sections are stub-quality, the timeline of victims contradicts the text, and the "See also" section seems to be composed of one relevant link and two off-the-wall links. Teh Rote (talk) 14:29, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment. Images need alt text as per WP:ALT. Eubulides (talk) 16:59, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment I don't understand what "everal sections are stub-quality" means, nor how that violates an FA criterion. See also—surely this is a {{sofixit}}-type issue? As for how the timeline contradicts the text, specific examples would be helpful. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:42, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
    Glad to clarify on the sections issue.
    • The "Victims" section is two sentences long and most of its information is repeated elsewhere.
    • The "Gun politics debate" section is the same length. Quotations from notable activists would probably be necessary.
    • The "Settlement" section can probably be fleshed out. Also, it just doesn't read as well as the rest of the article.
    The "See also" section, I suppose I can work on that. I would just like input from some of the authors as to why said links were put there in the first place.
    Now, for the timeline. User:Aquila89 noted that "The article claims to be listing deaths in chronological order. However, Librescu is third on the list, while the text of the article states, that Cho first went to Room 206 and 207 and killed people there, before going to Room 204, and killing Librescu." Their concern was voiced in June and still stands. Teh Rote (talk) 01:23, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the clarification and examples. Hopefully these issues (in addition to the alt text needs) can be addressed quickly so that the article can be kept without much fuss. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:52, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment. Almost nothing has been done since I listed this article. Not knowing what else to do, I removed the "See also" section myself, since the links didn't seem necessary. If this article is to remain at featured status, it needs work. Teh Rote (talk) 12:13, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Note that user:Auntieruth55 and I have been working on cleaning up the article. Karanacs (talk) 19:31, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
I can do little more without reading up on it, and that I don't have time to do. Nonwiki life--called a dissertation--calls. I'm happy to go through and copy edit, but I don't have time to read much. Auntieruth55 (talk) 22:37, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concern are comprehensiveness, accuracy (self-contradictions). Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 00:52, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Hold. I reviewed this article's prose and fixed some glaring issues; in one case, I removed (using invisible wiki text) a sentence that had no attribution/citation). There are contradictions between the order of the shootings in the box and the text. I suggest removing the box. "High quality sources" .... This is such a recent event, there is next to nothing scholarly written on it, but I submit that the appropriate quality available have been used, including the STate review panel report, and a variety of newspaper articles. I suggest contacting the original editor and asking if they want to tackle it again, before it is taken off FA status. Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:10, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Agree with Hold, concerned about these kinds of delists (where it doesn't appear that reviewers have engaged the article), and wonder if anyone looked into the possibility of reverting to the featured version, or version some time after mainpage day. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:17, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
  • that's a possibility, Sandy. I've also just gone through and reorganized some of the material, changed the heading on the chart, etc. I don't know how to do a revert that far back, so if that's the decision... Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:28, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
  • It was on the main page on April 16, 2008, which isn't so far back. The deal is to go back in article history and find the best version just after it was off the main page, after all vandalism and any pending talk issues are cleaned up. I can't offer to help just now because my main computer gave up the ghost, and I'm on a dinosaur. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:31, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Delist. This article is still sourced to media accounts from more or less immediately after the event. Since then, a number of books have been written, none of which are used. See Lucinda Roy's No Right to Remain Silent: The Tragedy at Virginia Tech, Ben Agger's There is a Gunman on Campus: Tragedy and Terror at Virginia Tech, Roland Lazenby's April 16th: Virginia Tech Remembers, and Douglas Kellner's Guys and Guns Amok: Domestic Terrorism and School Shootings from the Oklahoma City Bombing to the Virginia Tech Massacre just to name a few. Rather than simply relying on contemporary medica accounts, an article like this needs to take advantage of more extensive accounts written with the benefit of hindsight. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.1.214.112 (talk • contribs) October 13, 2009
    • I briefly skimmed a few of these books, and I think there is definitely room for improvement for the sourcing in the Perpetrator section and in some of the response sections. Several of the books offered comparisons with Columbine and placed this attack in a broader setting with other school shootings; this is not handled well, if at all, in the article currently. Karanacs (talk) 16:11, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Misplaced Pages talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed by YellowAssessmentMonkey 04:32, 20 October 2009 .

Oroonoko

Review commentary

Notified: Geogre, WikiProject Books, WikiProject Novels

I am nominating this featured article for review because it fails the featured article criteria, primarily criteria 1c. The article contains numerous unsources statements, with many sections being wholly unsourced.

  • The first paragraph if Biographical and historical background - entirely unsourced. All but one sentence of "Fact and fiction in the narrator" - unsourced.
  • "Models for Oroonoko" - all but a few sentences, again unsourced.
  • "Slavery and Behn's attitudes" - two sentences cited, the rest not.
  • "Historical significance" not a single citation.
  • "Literary significance" - two cited sentences.
  • Three cited sentences in "The New World setting" - the rest not.
  • "Character analysis" has one whole cited sentence.
  • "Women in Oroonoko" appears to possibly be cited, but with the issues in the rest, I'm inclined to think its only those three sentences that have citations
  • "Adaptation" uncited except one sentence.

It also fails criteria 2a - as the lead does not summarize the article adequately, or really at all. The second paragraph focuses on the author's history rather than the novel. It fails 2b in that it lacks the basic novel infobox. Being an older FA (passed in 2005) it does of course lack alt text on all images, though by itself would not be a reason to delist.

Attempted to tag the article for needing references to give time for improvement and left a note explaining the problems on the talk page, but tag was removed and was attacked for it by another editor who claimed "you are merely vandalizing the page by adding what amounts to graffiti. Please either list your concerns so someone can address them, or cease this" despite my having already listed the areas uncited (same as I've now noted here). In my original message, I noted that if the article was not corrected soon, it would be brought to FAR for review and delisting, but no work was done, only attacking me for daring to point out it does not meet the criteria. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:38, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I removed the personal attacks above per TPG, and advised C to pursue resolution regarding individual editors with them, but C has restored comment. For the record, I dispute this version of events. KillerChihuahuaAdvice 22:30, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
"Unsourced"
Collectonian, I've studied the argument on Talk:Oroonoko, including the sections you have removed, and I can't agree that you were in any sense attacked for "daring to point out it does not meet the criteria". Perhaps you're referring to Outriggr's attempts to explain that it does meet the criteria, since lacking footnotes doesn't mean an article is unsourced? It's a common notion that only footnotes are properly to be called "sources" or "inline references"; but that doesn't make it correct. There are other ways of giving the sources of an article; for instance, by incorporating them into the text. That is not in any way an inferior kind of sourcing. That (plus 21 footnotes) is the way Oroonoko is sourced. I quote Outriggr:
Do you not understand what it means for attributions to references to be incorporated into a sentence? Here's an example: "Also, as Ernest Bernbaum argues in "Mrs. Behn's 'Oroonoko'", everything substantive in Oroonoko could have come from accounts by William Byam and George Warren that were circulating in London in the 1660s. However, as J.A. Ramsaran and Bernard Dhuiq catalog, Behn provides a great deal of precise local color and physical description of the colony."
The references incorporated here are then complemented by the "References" section at the foot of the page, with full publishing information plus page numbers. Of course the sourcing wouldn't be complete without that. With it, it is. This happens to be the way sources are given in my own academic field. Why is it better that Misplaced Pages be peppered with unattractive superscribed and non-consecutive note figures? Does that in any way give more information? No, it doesn't.
Why are you so angry? Bishonen | talk 23:15, 20 September 2009 (UTC).
  • Although I greatly respect the article's primary editor, it does appear to need more inline citations. I would suggest having at least one at the end of every paragraph so that there isn't any dangling, uncited text. With that, the article should be good to go. Cla68 (talk) 23:38, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
I'd wonder if that would be possible, however? Looking at the original FA that passed in 2005, a much larger amount of content has been added, without a similar increase in sources, which would beg the question, where is the information coming from? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:40, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
I trust that the sources listed contain the information in the article. Someone with access to those sources just needs to take a few minutes and add the citations. It's not necessarily the primary editor's fault. This FA was done in 2005 before the current emphasis on having all text with cited sources. Cla68 (talk) 23:56, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

We can always go to FARC early if that's what people want. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 01:52, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

YellowMonkey, for months I have noticed comments from you at FAR talk that are not becoming the holder of a position that needs to be seen as neutral by the community. I would have commented about this sooner, but I prefer to stay as far away from FAR (and drama) as possible. Above, you appear to be using your position to threaten an early closure of the discussion. Here, you appear to be siding with the initiator of the FAR, suggesting that there are article "owners" (which is ridiculous, and which I find insulting, given that I simply find no merits in this case—has anyone noticed Outriggr on any "cabals"?—and it seems to me the main contributor to the article has left); and implying that you've already made a decision on the case. You have tried to implement quite "pointy" changes to the FAR "introduction text", against consensus from FA-related editors who show a great sensitivity to conflicts of interest. All of these are very non-neutral comments for any moderator of this forum. If this is your approach, can we go back to Marskell et al? It's kind of like a bureaucrat stepping into an RFA half-way through and saying, "well, this is kind of looking like an unsuccessful bid isn't it? Maybe close it now, speed it up a bit?" Due process please, or leave it for someone else. Outriggr (talk) 04:54, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Furthermore, I would now request that another FAR administrator be responsible for closing this. Outriggr (talk) 04:57, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Outrigger, you should have made this post on YellowMonkey's talk page, not here. I personally don't have a problem with the way YellowMonkey is administering this forum. Cla68 (talk) 05:02, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
The comment is directly related to FAR, and to this FAR. I'm afraid I don't follow that logic. Outriggr (talk) 05:08, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
The above comment by YellowMonkey (talk · contribs) may be referring to individuals choosing to bold their "votes" early, prior to the FARC segment of the FAR process... Cirt (talk) 05:22, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
I'd considered that, but there is actually only one individual who has "voted", so the suggestion still comes across, on balance, as rather "pointy" to me. The nomination has been open some 12 hours. The FAR introductory text says "Each stage typically lasts two to three weeks". One possibility: show me that this is YellowMonkey's usual approach and I'll retract my concern (although the concern remains that it doesn't follow the stated protocol). Outriggr (talk) 05:33, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
  • To my knowledge, there has never been a case of "go(ing) to FARC early" since the new FAR/FARC was instituted in mid-2006, and I would be seriously alarmed if that was ever done; I'm hoping that was a joke that I missed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:31, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
I believe it probably was intended as such. Cirt (talk) 05:58, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
  • It just seems extraordinary to me, that any editor consistently contributing well-sourced and well-written, knowledgeable and informative Misplaced Pages articles should want to expose himself to this kind of process. Even reading this page is unenlightening. Why should any editor want their article to be featured in this atmosphere? --Wetman (talk) 18:15, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
    • I think there is a hope that the featured article process with result in a useful critique. Unfortunately, too often the result is something like the nomination here which consists of footnote counting and detecting the lack of an infobox. It's far from being a useful or interesting critique; there's little evidence in the nomination that Collectonian has even read the article. Nominations like this would be well served if the nominator were to step back and ensure that they've at least demonstrated a command of the English language and not just basic counting skills. Christopher Parham (talk) 14:20, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep - There are no problems as the sources at the bottom cover most of the whole page. Direct quotations are directly cited. This can later be fixed to put citations throughout. But there is nothing to suggest that there is original research or the rest in the article, which would be the only reason to delist it here. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:50, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll assume as well that moving this early was meant in jest. The only early moves out of FAR are default keeps. But Collectonian raises fair points so this can get its time here. (Mostly fair points: the lead is meagre but an infobox is not required.) As for 1c, the newer material has significantly more than the older, which makes the referencing uneven. And there are areas that clearly call for a reference (e.g., "One potential motive for the novel..." or "...likely designed to awaken Tory objections"). "The New World Setting" mixes parenthetical citations with footnotes; it's also a single massive paragraph.

In any case, I don't see that YM needs to step aside from handling this. Marskell (talk) 22:30, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concern are citations, lead. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 00:49, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Misplaced Pages talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed by YellowAssessmentMonkey 04:32, 20 October 2009 .

Manos: The Hands of Fate

Review commentary

Notified: WikiProject Films

I am nominating this featured article for review because I do not believe it is up to FA-class standards. For example, the plot section is too long, and there are too many one- and two-sentence paragraphs. Honestly, I do not feel as if this article was ever up to FA-class standards. –Dream out loud (talk) 19:47, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment. Images need alt text as per WP:ALT. Eubulides (talk) 21:47, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm working on it. --Moni3 (talk) 22:47, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
  • The claim "Reports that the only crew members who were compensated for their work in the film were Jackey Neyman and her family's dog, who received a bicycle and a large quantity of dog food, respectively, would seem to indicate that the film failed to break even financially" seems like original research. The source only quotes Nayman saying "Everyone worked real hard, and the only ones who got paid were me and Shanka. I got a new bicycle, and Shanka got a fifty-pound bag of dog food" - the Misplaced Pages article appears to draw from that that the movie didn't break even. Yeah it probably didn't... but it still seems like a claim that runs afoul of WP:OR. --Sancho Mandoval (talk) 20:59, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
  • A broader problem is that, in tracking down the source for the above issue, it seems this article is heavily based on 2 articles that ran in "Mimosa", a fanzine of some sort. It is cited 17 times for core information about the movie. Both articles are written by Richard Brandt (almost certainly not the Richard Brandt there's a WP article on). Brandt's source appears to be interviews with 2 production people, but his story seems rather unlikely... he decided to write an article about the movie, then by shear coincidence learned that two people who made the movie are poker buddies of his good friend? It's not even clear the article isn't just a joke. I'd like to see some kind of corroboration that Brandt is to be believed before we report his claims as facts. This issue doesn't seem to have been raised in the FAC or on the talk page. --Sancho Mandoval (talk) 20:59, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I will say that this article still does a fantastic job of summarizing the production and reception of an obscure film... those sections read like a textbook featured article. If the information in them proves not to be BS, and the plot section is trimmed (its length caused me to skip over it to more interesting sections), this could be salvaged as a FA. --Sancho Mandoval (talk) 21:04, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
  • The more I dig, the stranger this is. Everything about the production of Manos seems to trace back to Brandt as the source. People have pointed out various claims of his seem more intended to be interesting and funny than factually accurate (for instance, his claim that Harold Warren was a fertilizer salesman has no non-Brandt source, and many people claim it's not true... in the MST3K episode they joke that he's a fertilizer salesman, but it seems like it was purely a joke). Furthermore, even the 1966 newspaper article someone scanned in is problematic. Maybe I'm just being overly paranoid here, but I find the last sentence "Someone is spoofing us" to be very strange... it has nothing to do with the article, as far as I can tell... and could be a clue that the whole thing is a prank. --Sancho Mandoval (talk) 00:36, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested criteria are citations, original research/verifiability. Also note the recent changed to WP:WIAFA requiring "high-quality sources" YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 03:25, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Delist. It's been almost a week and no reply to my concerns raised above. I did some more digging and found nothing to make me more confident in Brandt as a source. Apparently his 2004 documentary on Manos is based around an outright false claim (that everyone involved in the movie died or disappeared mysteriously, except a lone stuntman). As it stands, this article is based heavily on a fanzine article by a questionable person... it's not really FA material and could need a total rewrite if I'm right. I know I could be wrong, but someone needs to clear things up... and that doesn't seem to be happening. Sorry... I know people worked hard on this article... and don't doubt they did so thinking they were using a trustworthy source. --Sancho Mandoval (talk) 01:35, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Delist, concerns not addressed. Cirt (talk) 21:10, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Misplaced Pages talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed by YellowAssessmentMonkey 23:53, 12 October 2009 .

"Weird Al" Yankovic

Review commentary

Notified: User:BullWikiWinkle, User:Maxamegalon2000

I am nominating this featured article for review because large chunks are lacking in sources (1C):

  • The first three paragraphs of the "Music" section are unsourced, as is most of its "Music Videos" subsection.
  • "Reactions from original artists" also has unsourced OR.
  • "Notable television appearances" is also sorely lacking in sources, replete with a {{fact}} tag.
  • The discography list of Grammy awards should probably not have the dates pipe-linked, either.

Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • 20:15, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment. Images need alt text as per WP:ALT. Eubulides (talk) 20:17, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Quick comment: Discog links are piped to the respective year's Grammy awards, as opposed to a date page. This would be appropriate "date" linking as such as it is. --MASEM (t) 20:22, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concern are citations, sources, alt text. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 01:51, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Misplaced Pages talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed by YellowAssessmentMonkey 23:53, 12 October 2009 .

Introduction to evolution

Review commentary

Notified: User:Filll, WikiProject Evolutionary biology, Evolution


I would like to nominate that Introduction to evolution be reconsidered and removed as a FA. I am a biologist with a BSc, MSc, I am working on my MEd in ecoliteracy, and I have been teaching evolution to university students for the past ten years. I also hold grants and research in the field of evolutionary biology. There are MANY conceptual errors in this article. It is not entirely clear why this article exists in the first place, it is almost as complex as the main article Evolution and it is misleading in many respects. This is a very poor introductory article to be read by schoolkids for example - it would confuse the hell out of them.

Reviewing the criteria:

1. It is—

  • (a) not well-written: its prose is not engaging, hardly brilliant, and of a un-professional standard;

For example:

"Several basic observations establish the theory of evolution, which explains the variety and relationship of all living things. There are genetic variations within a population of individuals. Some individuals, by chance, have features that allow them to survive and thrive better than their kind. The individuals that survive will be more likely to have offspring of their own. The offspring might inherit the useful feature."

Please re-read that last paragraph. It is clearly not well-written. It is confusing because it makes broad generalizations that miss the premise and requires huge conceptual leaps.

  • (b) comprehensive: it neglects lots of major facts or details and places the subject in context;

There are entire sections that have few if any references that are entirely based on conjecture. For example, the first few paragraphs on Introduction_to_evolution#Source_of_variation is original research that cites only Darwin. I hardly doubt that Darwin reflected on how he was mistaken about heredity. The first sentence in this section is also a run-on sentence and so I refer you back to criteria 1a. This article cannot deliver on the type of information that is required of any person to grasp the concepts of natural selection (e.g., )

  • (c) well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature on the topic. Claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported with citations; this requires a "References" section that lists these sources, complemented by inline citations where appropriate;

Some sections are well-researched, however, the interpretations are oftentimes incorrect. For example, the lead states: "Traits which help the organism survive and reproduce are more likely to accumulate in a population than traits that are unfavorable, a process called natural selection." This is NOT natural selection - it conflates adaptation with natural selection in an awkward way only to confuse the issue. Hence, it does not serve its utility as an introduction. This topic is of such importance and has been addressed time and time again by many scientific organizations, such as The National Academy of Sciences’s book, "Teaching about Evolution and the Nature of Science (1998)" -- the concepts must be presented accurately.

  • (d) neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias;

There are lots of missing examples that would give the article balance. For example, there is no mention of sexual selection - which is one of the simplest examples that is used to demonstrate the principals of natural selection in an introductory level. What about ring-species? Every introductory book on evolution teaches the ring-species example, because it is conceptually the simplest way to demonstrate how breeding and geographic isolation has occurred. Some of the references are suspect - some of them take you to websites rather than peer-reviewed literature source, which introduces bias.

  • (e) stable: it is not subject to ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process.

Did the reviewer even read the talk pages? What a mistake this nomination was. There is an effort taking place to re-write the entire article from scratch because of the problems it faces.

2. It follows the style guidelines...okay, it does this, but the structure is poor:

  • 1 Darwin's idea: evolution by natural selection
  • 2 Source of variation
  • 3 Modern synthesis
  • 4 Evidence for evolution
  • 4.1 Fossil record
  • 4.2 Comparative anatomy
  • 4.3 Molecular biology
  • 4.4 Co-evolution
  • 4.5 Artificial selection
  • 5 Species
  • 6 Different views on the mechanism of evolution
  • 6.1 Rate of change
  • 6.2 Unit of change

Looking at this from afar you can see that it jumps around. This is an introductory article and #3 is about the Modern synthesis?? It is highly inconceivable that someone without any knowledge of the subject would be able to understand and comprehend the modern synthesis in the way it is presented. This introduction should be presented using a time-line of the topic, such as Historical Figures in Evolution. There are few sub-headings that would help in the organization of this article.

and

4. Length. It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

For an introductory article the paragraphs are long and tedious. None of my students would be able to maintain consciousness long enough to get through one of the un-captivating paragraphs. They go into too much detail and need to be broken down. The sub-heading issue discussed above would help this.

Without going into too much detail - there has been much debate on this controversial topic - this article is DEFINITELY not worthy of FA designation. Please see that this article is removed from the FA list so that people do not get a misleading idea of what evolution is really about. This would confuse the hell out of the kids I teach. Thanks.Thompsma (talk) 19:01, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


Delist for three reasons: (a) clarity and conciseness; (2) scope; (iii) quality of writing. (These pertain to WP:FA? 1a and 4. I think criterion 1b "comprehensive" can be bracketed for the moment, since an introductory article is expected to overlook at least some major issues that are too 'complex' to be adequately treated in a mere introduction.) a and iii are pretty self-evident, but regarding scope, I question why an article 'introducing' readers to the concept of evolution would spend 2 pages explaining evolution, 2 pages polemically defending evolution ("here's evidence for why you should believe us!"), and 2 pages discussing the history of evolutionary biology and the complex network of changing ideas in the field. Should our Introduction to general relativity article spend as much time discussing the lives and politics of physicists as it spends explaining the actual content of the theory? As I understand it, an article merely introducing a scientific idea or concept to readers should spend 99% of its time on that concept alone, and at most 1% explaining its historical background and social context. Framing the first section of an intro article as 'Darwin's idea: evolution by natural selection' does absolutely nothing to clarify what evolution is to anyone; if someone's taking a British history test and needs to know what Charles Darwin's big idea was, this might help (though not much, since Darwin never once used the term "evolution"), but if they're here to understand biology and the natural world, they'd be much better served by sections with titles like 'Natural selection: Traits helping and harming organisms', or even just 'Selection'. -Silence (talk) 20:33, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Minor technical correction: Charles Darwin stated that "from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved" as the closing sentence to all editions of On the Origin of Species, he introduced the increasingly fashionable term "evolution" to his writings in his 1871 publication The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex, and subsequently used the term in the 1872 6th edition of The Origin of Species. . . dave souza, talk 19:11, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment In regards to stability. The article is essentially identical to the version that achieved FA status over a year ago (The concern raised does not seem related to archaic information). The changes that have occurred are extremely minor at best. Perhaps the concern over stability raised by the nominator is based on the torrid history up to the Fa achievement. If so, then please see Raul654 comments on the original FA listing Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Introduction to evolution regarding edits for improvement during FA. Since the article has not changed since the original FA; this request; I can only assume is a rejection of the original decision to list. No doubt, Raul654, filtered through the massive amounts of commentary during that period along with the even more dramatic Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Introduction to evolution (2nd nomination) that was occurring simultaneously. Essentially, we are opening an old case. Few, if any of the many contributors during that period wish to re-live that event. I suspect the members of "The Wiki-gang" from the past hung up their guns and went into seclusion. This should prove interesting... I'll watch list the page.--Random Replicator (talk) 14:26, 11 September 2009 (UTC)(Sorry - I was responding from my retired account --JimmyButler (talk) 17:48, 11 September 2009 (UTC))

  • I agree that the article is very stable. In fact, I would raise the opposite problem. Too little change has taken place on this article. The editors at Evolution and others should be working on maintaining and improving it, but instead it seems that different factions have taken over the different pages, turning Evolution and Introduction to evolution into editorial POV forks of one another rather than an 'introduction-overview' relationship. (The lack of growth and change on the Intro page also accounts for part of the divergence between the two articles: Many of the 'features' of Introduction are actually vestigial leftovers which used to be present on both pages, but were removed from the more high-traffic Evolution page because they weren't very helpful, while slipping through the cracks on the Intro over the years.) -Silence (talk) 14:38, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Ownership and POV pushing are serious allegations that go beyond a merely badly constructed article. I've carefully re-read the talk page since FA and fail to see any evidence of this claim. In fact, I see the contrary, nothing but passionate discussion; however, consensus was reached in every case. Most importantly, I see no reverts of anyone's contributions other than vandalism. Your perception would have to be based on indirect observation; since I can see no examples where you have contributed to either the discussion or the article since it obtained FA status. I have requested that Thompsma respond; since he is the only User that I can find in the edit history that engaged in serious dialog over content in the past year. If he felt ostracized, then I am both wrong and sincerely disappointed in my behavior as an editor. --JimmyButler (talk) 17:48, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
?? Where did anyone suggest ownership or POV pushing? All I said was that different groups of editors have tended to work on Evolution and Introduction to evolution; it's as though the two articles, though sharing a distant common origin, were reproductively isolated, preventing healthy hybridization and gene (idea) flow, with the result that the article with less selective (editorial) pressure placed on it, Introduction to evolution, retained many subpar traits that were whittled away on the main page. :) That is how content forks usually develop. (If I was unclear in talking about 'editorial POV' above, I was simply referring to the different views editors have about, e.g., what sections to include on the page. If you go back to what Evolution looked like when the Intro to Evolution was created, you'll notice many, many more similarities to how the Intro page looks even today, e.g., with sprawling "Evidence" and "History of evolutionary thought" sections, lipservice to Dawkins and Gould, etc.) -Silence (talk) 18:06, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
I misinterpreted "different factions have taken over the different pages" which was intended to read "different groups tend to work on different articles". Thank you for your clarification. --JimmyButler (talk) 18:33, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Culpa est mea, I am sometimes prone to overly melodramatic wordings. :) -Silence (talk) 19:17, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment. The article was - very - thoroughly reviewed while at FAC. It hasn't changed much since then. If the nominator sees problems, then be bold and edit the article. All articles can be improved including this one. But to suggest that it somehow slipped through the cracks and doesn't meet FA standards is a bit off-base. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 18:22, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I would gladly simply start editing the article today .. except that the edits I'm proposing are so sweeping that they would require us to delist the FA article anyway (both because it would violate the 'stability' criterion, and simply because the article will have changed so much that it needs to be resubmitted as an FA). So, whether I improve the article to the point where it satisfies me (and thus completely change its scope) or leave it the mess it is, either way it has to be delisted because it will either be too low-quality to be FA, or it will be in effect a brand-new article, needing to go through the same series of hoops any article does before becoming FA'd.
For example: My first suggestion is to delete two-thirds of the article immediately. No "Evidence" sections (an article is not an argument!), no "Different views on the mechanism of evolution" sections, and no "Modern synthesis" section. And delete "Artificial selection" too while you're at it; this obfuscates the underlying process of evolution in the exact same way that appealing to the 'macro/micro' distinction would here. My second suggestion would be to completely reorganize and rewrite all the remaining sections: Instead of a "Molecular biology" section (which is about as non-introductory as you can get), integrate occasional crucial details of molecular biology (e.g., 'What is DNA?') into more general, flowing, and straightforward sections with super-simple names like "Variation" or "How does evolution work?". If our presentation of the topic isn't maximally simple and straightforward, and we don't want to treat the intro article as a content fork, all we're left with is simple:Evolution, which is obviously not the main function of introductory pages (even if simplicity of language is part of our modus operandi). -Silence (talk) 19:17, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Which policy or guideline says that an FA article must be delisted to make changes - even 'sweeping' changes? I think you misunderstand article stability which is to do with edit warring than legit content addition. FA articles can always be edited and improved. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 19:34, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment I fully agree with Silence and I don't see where there was any mention of POV pushing in the article. Nobody has said this is what has happened. I think that the article had not been accesses as much as the main Evolution article and so it had not received the same degree of scrutiny. The article may have been stable at the time of the FA review - forgive me for not putting a proper time line to the events. However, now that it has been opened up for discussion to a wider audience I feel that some of its deficiencies are coming to light. Given my review and understanding of the material - I completely disagree with Wassupwestcoast, the article does not meet FA standards. There are too many mistakes in the article and it is not very well written. I agree with Silence that too little has changed in the article. Moreover, I wrote JimmyButler to let him know that he did not make me feel ostracized at all - in fact I found his comments useful. This is a very difficult subject matter to be contending with and this is why this debate is taking place. In my expert opinion on the subject matter at hand - this article does not qualify for FA status because:

1. It is not introductory - it is complex.

2. It makes conceptual errors by trying to squeeze a difficult topic into simple language.

3. The quality writing hardly qualifies for FA standards.

Thompsma (talk) 18:50, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

This article went through a very thorough FAC: it meets FA criteria. Sorry it doesn't meet your personal FA criteria. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 19:13, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't see any "personal FA criteria" above. Thompsa is using the same criteria as you. We simply disagree about whether the article meets those criteria. -Silence (talk) 19:17, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
What I mean is that the community - Misplaced Pages - engaged in a thorough debate. Some editors thought that it didn't and some thought that it did. Concensus was reached that the article did meet FA criteria. This doesn't mean that it will satisify everyone's personal FA criteria. An FA article isn't supposed to be the definitive article on a subject: there will always be room for improvement and disagreement. All articles are a work in progress. The FA star doesn't indicate 'done'. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 19:29, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification! I agree with you on all counts.
However, I will give you one more chance to qualify your recommendations that I be bold and just start improving the article with my proposed changes. I do not think this would have the effect you expect :) I have stated that the proposed changes would render the article unrecognizable, compared to its status ante-FAR. This is why I do not think "just fix it!" is a valid option for keeping FA status. "Accept criticism + don't make improvements" and "Accept criticism + make improvements" will both result in delisting, for different reasons. The line defenders of this article's FA status should take up instead is: "Reject criticism" (+ make other, unrelated improvements, and/or leave it as-is). For example, if you can explain why my understanding of the role of an 'introduction to evolution' is wrong, my objection to over 2/3 of the article will evaporate. -Silence (talk) 19:40, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't really know how to answer. Misplaced Pages is a community where consensus - policy - is the guiding principle. I guess if your 'sweeping' changes don't have the tacit agreement of the community then they would be reverted. Personally, I don't see why they would be. You don't seem to be a vandal :-) Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 19:47, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
My critique of the article with respect to Wassupwestcoast suggestion that it does not meet my 'personal' FA satisfaction is incorrect. I am not presenting my argument according to my personal views - I am a scientist and I have published on the subject of evolution in peer-reviewed journals. In my expert opinion, after studying on the topic of evolution, and teaching the subject matter for many years I can see that there are MANY conceptual errors on the page. An FA article must meet professional writing standards and this article does not meet this criteria because it fails to present the correct information. The first few sentences of the article make an immediate error on what natural selection is - how much worse can it get? I read through the extensive review - many of the reviewers admitted that they could not comment on the scientific accuracy and would defer this to others to comment on this. There were a few comments on the science - but few that I would qualify as expert on the subject. I am an expert on this subject and I am giving it my review in this context - the page as it stands does not give an accurate portrayal of evolution - it is filled with propositions that differ from the peer-reviewed published scientific explanations. If an FA article is going to introduce the topic - it better get it right. This article needs to be de-listed from the FA status because it is not factual. It is a quasi-scientific article that uses many of the terms found in evolution publications - it sounds scientific and it sounds correct, but does not put the pieces together correctly. It needs to be removed because it does not give a proper review and/or understanding of evolution.Thompsma (talk) 20:30, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Well, if you are an expert then be bold and add content to the article. I'm not certain that you understand that 'delisting' the article has but one result: the little bronze star disappears from the article page. The article itself is still accessible. And, I doubt very many readers of Misplaced Pages notice or understand what the star means. If you are concerned with the content of the article: contribute by editing and revising the article. You are expending a lot of effort in finding fault. No one is going to do the revision for you. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 20:48, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
I say this with no intent to inflame. Respect for expertise on Misplaced Pages is gained through your contribution history as judged by others. Real world attributes - in isolation - hold no credibility. For one, they can be falsified (I do not for a moment think that is the case here). It is important that with respect all editors contributions on equal footing and not use our credentials to strengthen our case. It may in fact, intimidate potential contributors who may feel inadequate when we use, as merit to out argument - our expertise. Again, I know that is not your intent; however, the listing of your credentials in the opening statement may give undue credence to one individuals point of view. I am very sensitive to this, in that I have a group of high school students editing Misplaced Pages and at present their biggest fear are the potential experts. (Insert request for all to join us here: Misplaced Pages:WikiProject AP Biology 2009! Cheers!--JimmyButler (talk) 21:20, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment. For an example of major revisions occurring to an FA article without the article being delisted, consider the case of The Hardy Boys; a seemingly innocuous article that was thoroughly reviewed at FA. Within a short time after being listed, a couple of new editors wanted to do some major revisions. The affair was heated. Just looking at Talk:The Hardy Boys/Archive 2 will melt your eyeballs a la Indian Jones. But the revisions gained consensus. The changes were made. And, the article maintained its FA status throughout. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 21:42, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

All good points. After thinking this through - I agree with Wassupwestcoast - it is open to revision and perhaps the time would be better spent doing this. There is much of the article that I do like, by they way - but feel the FA review is premature. There are some sections that need help - I'll do what I can to help out, but I think I'm going to take a little time-out and come back to this when my thoughts are clearer. Perhaps we can find a good compromise - I do like the work that Silence is doing on his sandbox - he has some great ideas.Thompsma (talk) 04:47, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment. I strongly agree with Wassupwestcoast too. There are some very good points here about weaknesses in the article, and some good suggestions for improvements, and if someone – especially someone with expertise in the subject and experience of making such a subject accessible to beginners – is able to spend some time working on it, then that is to be applauded and encouraged. What I completely fail to understand is why it is necessary to indulge in a discussion about whether the present version is worthy of FA status. If work is done to improve the article, the "present version" rapidly becomes irrelevant. The rubber-stamping of "FA status" is equally irrelevant. If the article isn't up to standard, then improve it, tinker with it, rewrite it from scratch, whatever it takes! SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 06:17, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment the article did well for its time, as the main evolution article has improved it has exposed weaknesses in this article, and Silence's proposals which are currently being implemented appear to be bringing significant improvements. Welcome attention to an article which has been a bit neglected. . . dave souza, talk 19:11, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment The article has been restructured to the point that the original FA in no longer relevant. It should be de-listed immediately and renominated at a later date.--JimmyButler (talk) 17:13, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
    • There is no need to delist the article immediately and nominate it later. On the contrary, it is common for articles to be edited substantially while being reviewed, and then to be kept. As Misplaced Pages:Featured article review says, "The aim is to improve articles rather than to demote them." Eubulides (talk) 20:29, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
      • I guess I mis-understand the process. Is the commentary on this page an evaluation of the original article or the new version? If the new version - then none of the comments above are relevant to this discussion and in fact make no sense. If the old - then the old is gone. It just seemed that the FA status listed at the top of the article is no longer applicable - in the sense that it was a highly discussed "battle" over an article that is now gone. It seemed logical to resubmit an entirely different article for an FA review process on its own merits; once the editors feel they have a product worthy of such an attempt. The FA status that is currently placed there clearly is based on a product that no longer exist. Its not being edited substantially - its been completely replaced. Perhaps this page is the FA review - sort of a nominated for removal from FA approach; where you really hope it stays? I'm only familiar with the path where you offer up your work to the community for FA listing not de-listing. Sorry for my confusion -seriously.--JimmyButler (talk) 23:20, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
        • No problem. Your last comment is correct: this is an featured article review (see WP:FAR) and each comment on this page typically refers to the version of the article that was in place when the comment was made. It is normal during FAR for an article to (ahem) evolve and for review comments to become obsolete. There's no rush in removing the star; on the contrary the goal is to fix any problems and keep the star. Eubulides (talk) 23:36, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are prose (1a), comprehensiveness (1b), referencing (1c), neutrality (1d), and focus (4). Marskell (talk) 22:10, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Please make concise declarations on whether the article should retain status. Marskell (talk) 22:10, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Misplaced Pages talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed by YellowAssessmentMonkey 01:29, 9 October 2009 .

Arrested Development (TV series)

Review commentary

Notified: Brian0918, Arrested Development Taskforce

This article was promoted in 2005, and it doesn't look like it has had a review since. The most obvious problem with the article is its lack of citations throughout the "Themes" section (1c). I also have my doubts about how many non-free images are used (3). I believe many of them are unneeded and are unjustified. --Torsodog 19:13, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

  • File:GOB on stage.jpg should definitely be removed; an image doesn't help readers understand that a particular song was used. The other images, except for the logo, appear decorative; they illustrate the text but don't aide in understanding it. Is the logo actually copyrighted? I know it's trademarked, but it's typeface and a pen-marking, could be ineligible. Jay32183 (talk) 03:08, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concern are citations, images. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 03:14, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Misplaced Pages talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed by Marskell 20:59, 8 October 2009 .

Sheffield

Review commentary

Wikiprojects notified. Nominator retired

This article has an extreme lack of citations in some place, while other places are well covered. Secondly, it has accumulated an extremely large amount of examples of notable people, groups over the years, probably due to a large amount of drive-by additions of examples, due to vanity, advertising etc YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 06:28, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

You are correct that much of the material added to this article since it became feature is not properly referenced, and some gives no appearance of notability. But I disagree that it has an "extreme lack of citations" - it has a reasonable number, and the core material is referenced. It shouldn't be too difficult to look over the additions and either reference them or remove them for lack of notability. It may, however, be a good chance to utilise more of the information available in paper publications concerning the city - the vast majority of current references are to websites. Warofdreams talk 13:29, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Clarified YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 06:51, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concern are citations. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. FAQ? YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 02:10, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
  • It's definitely improved, but there's still some prose and citation issues. Forex, starting a sentence with a percentage figure is frowned upon. Also, "five are Grade I listed. 42 are Grade II*, the rest being Grade II listed" isn't clear to me. Is the asterisk a note that should be referenced, or is "Grade II*" a classification? I've added a smattering of citation needed tags that should be addressed. Good luck! It's been getting better, and I'd encourage Yellow Monkey to not close this as long as progress is being made. JKBrooks85 (talk) 23:32, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Hold. Looks pretty good, but there are two places I think should be cited a little better: the first paragraph of the geography section (maybe refer to a map?) and the sport section (particularly the various minor teams that have child articles. I'd also point out that many places and terms are linked multiple times in the article, occasionally several times in the same section. I removed a few of them, but I think there are others ... the neighborhoods feel like chronic offenders. But these are fairly minor things. The article has been improved a great deal. Kudos to everyone who worked on it. JKBrooks85 (talk) 23:36, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment I think that I have made good progress towards addressing many of the issues raised above. Please re-review the article before deciding on whether or not to delist. Thanks, —Jeremy (talk) 01:06, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Hold Progress is being made. I'll go through and add citation needed tags. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:05, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Thanks for your help. I have dealt with most of your citation requests either by adding citations or by copyediting the text. There are six remaining for which I can't find citations or I am unsure what to do with--in all of these cases I would not object to the removal of the uncited material. —Jeremy (talk) 03:25, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
      • Sorry for taking so long to get back to you. Suggest commenting out any uncited content. I see a few things to which I myself could add easy cites, which I will work on later today and tomorrow. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:59, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment: I still see some citations needed issues. Cirt (talk) 19:19, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Note, this article still needs a good deal of work before it's in keep territory. I saw awkward prose throughout and copyedit needs; will list examples if needed as work progresses. Mixed uses of upper and lower case throughout, and WP:DASH work needed (it's east–west, not east-west, for example). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:39, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm travelling a lot at the moment, so don't have much time for editing. If this FARC is still ongoing when I return I will be able to offer more help then. —Jeremy (talk) 13:54, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Comments

  • The population statistics in the infobox should have sources as it is counter-intuitive to suppose that the population of the entire county of Yorkshire is less than the population of Sheffield's city region.
  • Geoffrey Chaucer isn't from Sheffield. I don't think the picture is particularly pertinent. The Abbey isn't mentioned in the History, so why is it depicted?
  • The climate section needs attention. Sheffield gets 1218 DAYS of frost from December to March? That is obviously impossible. Most of the section isn't even about Sheffield. Talking of a "rain shadow" implies that it is a dry city, when surely it is actually one of the wettest places in Britain? I thought that was one of the reasons the steel industry grew up there, because of the plentiful and constant supply of water (steel production requires thousands of gallons).
  • Mention of Museums Sheffield's climate change exhibit is trivial. I would remove it and merge the section in with a reduced climate section. DrKiernan (talk) 14:35, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Delist unless a copy-edit is conducted soon. Here are problems just in the lead. Redundancy is in strong evidence. Good attributes, so let's try to save this one.

  • "The population of the City of Sheffield is estimated at 530,300 people (2007 est.)"—Estimate twice; I'd remove "estimated at".
  • Why is "steel" linked, particularly when two types of steel are linked two seconds later?
  • Remove "eventually"?
  • has increased by 60 per cent in recent years.
  • What is the "overall" economy, as opposed to the economy?
  • "averaging around five per cent annually and, as such, has been growing at a higher rate than has been experienced in Yorkshire and the Humber in general."
  • Remove "located".
  • Noun plus -ing—sometimes OK, but awkward here, as almost always when it's "with + noun + -ing": with much of the city having been built on hillsides. Three "withs" within that many seconds, too. Tony (talk) 05:04, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I've been through and copyedited the entire article as it currently stands although I've not touched the dashes. I've also corrected the figure regarding ground frost (67 days is far more realistic than 1218!). The Economy section could do with some more citations. Thryduulf (talk) 12:31, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Note Malleus Fatuorum (talk · contribs) will go through the prose within a few days. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:36, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Comments
    • There's clearly something missing in this sentence from the Carbon footprint and climate change action section: "Through a combination of educational events, a portable exhibit, and community town meetings, developed and promoted a variety of action awareness programs to help Sheffield residents respond to and cope with climate change", but I'm uncertain what it is.
    • The citations need to be formatted consistently; some are formatted manually, and describe the last access date as "Accessed 13 September 2009", whereas others use "Retrieved 2009-08-016"—which obviously ought to be 2009-08-16 anyway. Probably better to consistently use either the {{cite}} template or manual formatting.
    • From the climate section: "The area's western and eastern boundaries influence its climate." The article explains that the Pennines to the west create a rain shadow, but says nothing about how Sheffield's eastern boundary shapes its climate.

--Malleus Fatuorum 21:48, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Status? This is long overdue but there was work just a few days ago and it has seen substantial improvement. Is anyone still working on it? Any of the opposers have further comment? Marskell (talk) 22:13, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Comments. Revisiting: spot check reveals that more thorough sifting is required. It's nearly there. Independent copy-edit, fairly quick job, I think.

  • Why is "sea level" linked?
  • "It has over 170 woodlands (covering 10.91 sq mi/28.3 km2),"—I think "It has over 170 woodlands covering 10.91 sq mi (28.3 km2). See top here. But then "square miles" is given in full a few seconds later: please decide for the primary units. Should area be switched from the prevailing metric primary units? Is it a road distance?
  • 10-15. See MoS. Tony (talk) 14:15, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Geez, this can't seem to get done. I'll ask someone to look at the images if that's one of the last two things to do. Marskell (talk) 16:45, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

The images are fine. The one of the old football team doesn't have an absolutely solid provenance or license but it's so old (and poor quality) I can't imagine anyone claiming copyright. I still have problems with the population statistic for the City Region (which is uncited) and the Climate sections (which need trimming down as they include information which is either trivial or not about Sheffield). These would prevent me from supporting the article at a FAC, but are not sufficient for me to "!vote" to delist on a FAR. DrKiernan (talk) 08:54, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment - Great work to everyone who has cleaned up the article. However, as Dabomb87 has said, the climate section is in the most park unreferenced. Without going through the article, other bits and pieces are without sources. I suggest the article gets removed as a FA and when everything is sourced and copy edited, nominated for FA. Aaroncrick (talk) 09:28, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, it seems a shame to remove after all this time. But worked has stopped and concerns remain, so off it goes. Marskell (talk) 20:51, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.