- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was removed by YellowAssessmentMonkey 00:48, 20 April 2009 [1].
Noah's Ark edit
Review commentary edit
- Notifications (complete)
- Unstable, as the location of numerous disputes. The disagreements are intractable enough to have spurred a recent request for arbitration. The disputes have affected the quality of article presentation and writing. Many of the disagreements center on neutrality and related concerns. Large sections of the article are lacking citations and sources. (Noah's Ark#The Ark in later traditions is a prime culprit.) At minimum, this situation leads to the article failing to meet FA criteria 1(c), 1(d) and 1(e). --Vassyana (talk) 15:20, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: The Rfar is about the word "myth" which spans several articles. Has not yet been utterly rejected (although it will be, as a content dispute)
and still exists here. Basically involved several users concerned that the standard scholarly use of the word "myth" will be misinterpreted by the common reader as meaning a vulgar variant. KillerChihuahua?!? 15:43, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]- And no surprise, now rejected. dif KillerChihuahua?!? 22:18, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I am seeing extensive cites in the section Noah's Ark#The Ark in later traditions, and not seeing anything recently questioned. Did you have any specifics in mind, Vassyana? KillerChihuahua?!? 15:46, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- (edit conflict) "In Rabbinic tradition" has three references, to three articles in the Jewish Encyclopedia. It is not clear what information is supported by the references and not all of the information in the section is supported by the source. Additionally, it is presented as a 2002 publication, but it is a public domain text published in portions between 1901 and 1906.
- "In Christian tradition" is spordically cited and littered with OR/editorial observations. Additionally, it provides some decent illustrative examples of historical Christian interpretations, but makes fails to establish much context or explain how it fits into Christian theology and tradition.
- "In Islamic tradition" is severely lacking in sources and full of original research. Some of the sources provided are blatantly deficient. One such notable error is using a century-old Jewish encyclopedia to describe modern Islamic beliefs.
- "In other traditions" completely lacks references except for about the Bahai (in the last paragraph), cited exclusively to primary material (which leaves the weighting of the material in serious question).
- If I can further clarify my concerns, please let me know. Be well! Vassyana (talk) 16:47, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks - much appreciated. (going off to examine the darn thing in detail now, since I've been neglecting the article somewhat for a while.) KillerChihuahua?!? 17:54, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am the editor who instigated the rfar. I must state that the issue which ultimately led to the rfar was specifically over the lead. However, that dispute has had an unfortunate effect on the rest of the article. Whilst a number of editors (including myself) have expressed a desire to improve it, the dispute over the lead has dominated discussion and led to the involved parties agreeing to suspend the improvements until that dispute was settled. That said, I believe that there is a general feeling that the dispute over the lead should, for the time being, be left alone (if for no other reason, to give those involved the chance to cool off). There are also some tentative efforts being made by some of the editors involved to try to find ways to work together on that issue. Most of the editors are working in good faith and have plenty to contribute. If those editors can come to a more "formal" agreement to levae the lead issue alone for a time, then I believe that the rest of the article can be worked on relatively quickly to restore it to the desired quality. The will to do that is certainly there - we just need to (at least temporarily) set aside the lead question. On that basis, I believe the FA status can remain.--FimusTauri (talk) 16:31, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- On top of the unresolved issue about the use of the term "myth", there's some major POV problems. The search for the Ark section, for example, says finding the ark would prove certain literalist's beliefs, whereas non Fundamentalis Christian says the Ark will never be found because it would have rotted -- so there are only two sides, and both sides agree that it was a real historical event and the Ark really existed at some point?? Whoa. The deluge mythology section is also wholly inadequate for mentioning similar myths out there, with the claim of some remarkable discovery and only one other myth mentioned. I realize that there is a whole other article about that, but the summary is inadequate and given such a minor section that the weight of the article, along with phrasing in various places, seems to overwhelmingly support the overall existence and historicity of the event in a literal sense. My understanding is that among biblical scholars, prominent Jewish leaders and a sizable portion of the Christian community -- not to mention believers of other faiths and nonbelievers -- is that it should not be taken literally. The slant on the current article is pretty overwhelming, and I can't see how anything but a substantial rewrite could address that problem. DreamGuy (talk) 16:40, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Edited to add: I just now noticed that this was an article that already was a Featured Article instead of one being nominated. A quick look at the article as it existed when it became a Featured Article shows a much, MUCH better version focusing on a wide range of topics and views and not just the fundamentalist Christians' side of things. I think anyone comparing the two differences will see a dramatic difference. I would support reverting back to the old version and then allowing editors to discuss what, if anything, of the current version could be salvaged. I don't know whether the current editor would support such an action. It looks like over time that the editors most active on the article all shared a similar POV and let it influence the article unduly. Again, without some major overhaul this clearly no longer meets FA standards. DreamGuy (talk) 16:49, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The previous version to which you refer was under referenced, contained links to non-reliable sources, was weighted heavily towards a discussion of Fundamentalist Christian interpretations of the Ark, contained no references to non-Fundamentalist Christian interpretations, had an entire section on 'Biblical literalism and the Ark' without any corresponding sections covering other views, and contained a lengthy WP:COAT digression on the flood story and its relationship to the Mesopotamian flood narratives. It was hardly Featured Article material. --Taiwan boi (talk) 04:03, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- So the article that actually earned the Featured Article status is, in your mind, somehow not suitable for Featured Article status? The claim that it had no references to non-Fundamentalist Christian interpretations is simply false, as anyone who looks at it can clearly see. From that logic and your comments on the talk page it's e clear you have no idea what a Featured Article is supposed to look like. Hint: not a religious tract endorsing your POV. DreamGuy (talk) 16:31, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- On the article talk page, an editor has suggested a draft article. IMO, your suggestion - to regress, then discuss the differences and either implement; implement with better sourcing, copyediting, etc; or reject - has merit, but its doubtful ut would meet with wide acceptance. Suggest you repeat your suggestion on the article talk page. KillerChihuahua?!? 17:54, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The previous version to which you refer was under referenced, contained links to non-reliable sources, was weighted heavily towards a discussion of Fundamentalist Christian interpretations of the Ark, contained no references to non-Fundamentalist Christian interpretations, had an entire section on 'Biblical literalism and the Ark' without any corresponding sections covering other views, and contained a lengthy WP:COAT digression on the flood story and its relationship to the Mesopotamian flood narratives. It was hardly Featured Article material. --Taiwan boi (talk) 04:03, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Edited to add: I just now noticed that this was an article that already was a Featured Article instead of one being nominated. A quick look at the article as it existed when it became a Featured Article shows a much, MUCH better version focusing on a wide range of topics and views and not just the fundamentalist Christians' side of things. I think anyone comparing the two differences will see a dramatic difference. I would support reverting back to the old version and then allowing editors to discuss what, if anything, of the current version could be salvaged. I don't know whether the current editor would support such an action. It looks like over time that the editors most active on the article all shared a similar POV and let it influence the article unduly. Again, without some major overhaul this clearly no longer meets FA standards. DreamGuy (talk) 16:49, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see no reason to un-rfa this. The "myth dispute" is a non-issue. Of course "Noah's Ark" is a topic that will always have a few biblical literalists prancing around on the talkpage. That's not a reason to revoke rfa status, or there would never be any stable rfas on Biblical topics. --dab (𒁳) 17:25, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The concerns detailed are far more extensive than a single limited dispute. --Vassyana (talk) 18:17, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem is that the Biblical literalists aren't just "prancing around the talkpage," they have completely changed the article so it's no longer at all comparable to the one that got FA status. DreamGuy (talk) 18:18, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Vassyana is correct - the article is not stable and the wrangling over sundry issues makes the article a poor example to cite as among our best. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:20, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I concur. --Taiwan boi (talk) 04:03, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- When last I looked at the NA article it bore no resemblance to the article PiCo and I wrote and shepherded to FA status. In fact, it had been degraded by so many bible thumpers and others on the lunatic fringe that it looked like a Conservapedia article. In the interim it has only gotten worse. It is disjointed, inaccurate and crappy. I have no time for it. Bah. •Jim62sch•dissera! 22:10, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, let's start by reverting back to the Featured Article version as the starting point. DreamGuy (talk) 16:31, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As •Jim62sch•dissera! (and others) says, the article as it stands bears no resemblance to the article whch passed FA. This is entirely because of the efforts of those whom Jim unkindly, but accurately, calls bible-thumpers - strongly motivated individuals with an agenda and an unwillingness to compromise in any meaningful sense. As a result it now consists in large part of an earnest discussion of the capacity, size, logistics etc of a fictional vessel. Having this drivel as a featured article does damage to the credibility of Wikipedia. (Plus, as Vassyana says, it's unstable as well). PiCo (talk) 04:05, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- When last I looked at the NA article it bore no resemblance to the article PiCo and I wrote and shepherded to FA status. In fact, it had been degraded by so many bible thumpers and others on the lunatic fringe that it looked like a Conservapedia article. In the interim it has only gotten worse. It is disjointed, inaccurate and crappy. I have no time for it. Bah. •Jim62sch•dissera! 22:10, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ever since I first looked at the article I have felt it needed some improvement. I have, until now, taken the FA status for granted - i.e. assuming that meant the article was already in pretty good shape (despite what I thought). For this reason I have been circumspect in suggesting changes. It is clear from the above that I should have been a lot bolder. On the other hand, I stick by what I wrote above - there are a lot of editors with good ideas for this article. It would not take too long to get this article "back into shape". I would suggest keeping the status for a short while; give those editors involved the chance to sort it out and then take another look.--FimusTauri (talk) 09:17, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- PiCo gives many hints inhis comment. •Jim62sch•dissera! 17:43, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ever since I first looked at the article I have felt it needed some improvement. I have, until now, taken the FA status for granted - i.e. assuming that meant the article was already in pretty good shape (despite what I thought). For this reason I have been circumspect in suggesting changes. It is clear from the above that I should have been a lot bolder. On the other hand, I stick by what I wrote above - there are a lot of editors with good ideas for this article. It would not take too long to get this article "back into shape". I would suggest keeping the status for a short while; give those editors involved the chance to sort it out and then take another look.--FimusTauri (talk) 09:17, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Agree with DreamGuy and others abve, starting point should be a revert back to the promoted version. Ceoil (talk) 20:42, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FARC commentary edit
- Suggested FA criteria concern is citations, neutrality. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 03:59, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist, per FA criteria concerns. Cirt (talk) 00:44, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist verifiability, neutrality, comprehensiveness and focus. Actual facts should be clearly distinguished from story, traditions and beliefs. The potential origins of the text and comparisons with other deluge myths could be expanded. There's very little analysis of allegory. DrKiernan (talk) 12:54, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.