Wikipedia:Featured article review/archive/August 2007

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

The article was kept 11:12, 27 August 2007.

---

Hey Jude

Review commentary

Messages left at Johnleemk, The Beatles Project and Songs

Message left at John Cardinal

I'm nominating this article for FAR because;

1. The sections "Cover versions" and "Cultural references" are extremely listy, violating 1. a. They need to be converted into clear, eloquent paragraphs which tie their subject matter together cohesively.
2. "Critical acclaim" fails 1. b. and isn't comprehensive at all. Firstly, the section title fails NPOV and should be renamed "Critical reception". Secondly, the reaction of critics past and present hasn't been touched upon in no shape or form in the section (apart from an AMG quote). Considering the popularity of the song, critical reaction should be easy to find.
3. There's no evidence to prove that Alan Pollack is a reliable source, and that the website in question is reliable. Is he an esteemed musicologist? How many publications does he have to his credit? At the moment the Pollack article used seems to be self-published and fails reliability.
4. The song's musical structure is discussed briefly in the "Critical acclaim" section - this isn't critical acclaim, so it shouldn't belong there. It should be in its own section entitled "Musical structure".
5. "Promotional film" section has an uncited quote.
6. One citation links to Youtube, which is likely a copyright violation. Another citation (23) is a broken link.
7. The "Love" subsection under "Single release" has no information on how the song was remixed, no nothing. It also fails to discuss critical reaction to the remix.

I feel all these points need to be addressed for this article to retain FA status. LuciferMorgan 19:01, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Is the...erm...fair use "rationale" for Image:Heyjude.jpg enough? Just out of curiosity. I've thought about dedicating the section to "talk page highlights" a few times. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 19:43, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the rationale for that image will have to be amended accordingly in order to apply to guidelines, and written properly. LuciferMorgan 19:49, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

• I have no interest in fixing the article; however, about half the problems mentioned could be resolved by reverting the article to how it stood as of when it became an FA. Most cover versions and cultural references have not received sufficient attention from secondary sources to warrant a mention. I have no interest in the ridiculous reliable sources guideline when applied in wedge cases such as this; however, as stated here, the works in question are not being published by Pollack, and were compiled and published by other people. And as for the fair use rationale, whoever wants to fix it is more than welcome to, but considering that it is a still from the promotional film and TV show episode both discussed heavily by the article, this shouldn't be too hard to do - and I doubt anyone doing it would do more than slap the ridiculous boilerplate which serves no purpose except to slavishly serve the literal meaning of non-free content policies without addressing their principles. </rant> Okay, sorry, I won't be bothering y'all again. Johnleemk | Talk 15:39, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

• I personally don't like this article. I am right now seeing this article from the view of a non-editor who has just come to wikipedia to get information. The things which will be a turn off are:-

Not systematic at all.Quite a messy article.

Not many pictures. Thus, makes the article dull.

The flow of the article breaks up in between a lot. Didn't have a nice smooth time while reading the article.

Perfect song article has to be Hollaback Girl. Hey Jude and Hollaback Girl both are FA, but you can yourself see the difference. I don't want to be rude, but i think this article does'nt deserve to be FA and has reached till here because of Beatles' fans. Luxurious.gaurav 15:55, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. Progress update? This article looks to be within striking distance of restored status, so it's not clear why the few remaining loose ends (listiness, etc.) can't be cleaned up. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:56, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Nobody has opted to undertake the article and improve it, so all the concerns I highlighted remain unresolved. LuciferMorgan 22:46, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I've discovered this FAR and am throwing my hat into the ring. I'll do a cleanup first and then search for any news sources that might be pertinent (time.com, msnbc.com, etc.). Give me a week or so. WesleyDodds 23:05, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

The listy sections have simply been taken out instead of being cleaned up as I recommended, although the info there actually needed to be there. This means now that comprehensiveness is at fault (1. b.) also. LuciferMorgan 18:03, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll work back in what I can, but a lot of it was essentially trivia. Those sections had been added well after the first FAR. WesleyDodds 21:46, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are prose (1a), comprehensiveness (1b), and quality and sufficiency of citations (1c). Marskell 07:28, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

• Remove per 1b and 1c. The listy info that was removed needs integrating into the article, and not simply taken out. LuciferMorgan 00:21, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Still working. Should finish with prose fixes soon enough. Hopefully will go to the library soon to check out additional sources. WesleyDodds 21:59, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Aside from one "cite needed" tag, the article is rather well sourced now. Is there anything I should look up? My library literally has an entire shelf of Beatles books. WesleyDodds 23:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I don't see a problem with the current level of sourcing, once you make that fix of course. The o/s issues are poor prose in areas, and in general the article is overlinked. Ceoil 01:54, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

• I worked on the overlinking, better now? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:34, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I just redid the "Release" section. Found some sales figures that were more accurate, so all the cite needed tags have now been addressed. Someone should review my prose for that section, though; all the shifting around I did might have confused things. Now I need to expand the "Musical structure" section (I have a source, it's just a bit . . . esoteric at times) and work some of the cultural references stuff back in under a "Legacy" section. Once that's done (by the end of the week, I promise you) we should be able to keep this article featured. WesleyDodds 08:05, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

"Musical structure" section taken care off. Now to work some of the cultural references back in, and we should be done. WesleyDodds 07:56, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep (many of my edits to the article are quite minor). Good save. If there are any outstanding issues, I'm confident WesleyDodds will address them within the appropriate timeframe. CloudNine 16:57, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Well done Wesley, but a light copy editing is needed yet. My only quibbles are from the lead, can you rephrase:

• "begins with McCartney singing gently while accompanying himself on piano" - its a Paul song fine, but still the phrasing is too sentimental.
• "Despite being over seven minutes long" - Carnt say why I dont like it, but I dont.
• "Hey Jude" lasted two weeks at number one in the British charts" - lasted?
• "for example, it appears at number eight in Rolling Stone's 500 Greatest Songs of All Time" - too informal, sound like you are addressing your reader.
• These are qibbles only. Ceoil 11:49, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll probably just rewrite the lead. Been thinking about it. WesleyDodds 20:34, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Done. WesleyDodds 06:48, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept 07:09, 26 August 2007.

---

George I of Great Britain

Review commentary

Messages left at WP British Royalty, WP Germany and WP England.

Messages left at DBD, Ian Rose and Lord Emsworth.

No inline citations. Epbr123 21:03, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment, no lead. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:43, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I've begun expanding the lead but I am not familiar enough to automatically be able to do the salient points. The prose isn't too bad really. What this really needs is someone to pop down the library and pick up a book to reference alot of stuff.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:54, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment The article doesn't really expand on the title "Archbannerbearer" nor does it provide a wikilink. This is not a common title, and needs some more context, probably at least a wikilink. There are language issues as well that need clearing up, such as repetitive word choice "Shortly after George's accession ..." stands out as one example. Also spotted at least one contradictory statement "Pursuant to the 1707 Act of Union, George became King of Great Britain..." The article earliers states that it was the 1701 Act of Succession (barring Catholics) that made him (his mother actually, he became second in line until her death shortly preceding Queen Anne) heir presumptive. The lack of inline citations is a major problem as already noted above, but there are other issues that accumulate to make this article in need of some real help. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 06:26, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support - Dramatic improvement, huge amount of inline references and a 3 paragraph lead. Great job! Judgesurreal777 04:00, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are citations (1c) and LEAD (2a). Marskell 09:04, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

• I'm still working on it. DrKiernan 09:14, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
  • It's improving, I should note, but still needs work. Also, could the section titled "Early Reign" be renamed to something more descriptive, such as "Reign as Elector of Hannover" or something, since the title does not make that distinction.... Keep working on it! --Jayron32|talk|contribs 19:27, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Trivia section needs zapping. LuciferMorgan 12:14, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Please, nobody vote yet. DrKiernan is still working and making great progress. --mav 02:12, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I'm fairly happy with it now. There are just a few very minor niggles: (1) I haven't been able to confirm the title "Archbannerbearer" yet; (2) the Castle of Ahlden is also referred to as a palace and a manor house, "castle" sounds more prison-like, "palace" and "manor" sound luxurious (which of course it was compared to the vast majority of people) (picture here)—any preference?; (3) I've used one self-published web-site as a source (Francois Velde) but his essay looks well-researched; and (4) I'm not sure about the "Highnesses" in the "Titles" section but they're correct according to http://www.heraldica.org/topics/royalty/highness.htm and http://www.heraldica.org/topics/royalty/royalstyle.htm#sub_german. These are all far too minor for me to consider demotion. DrKiernan 11:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep tweasked some prose - over the line now. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep It's always good to see this process work as intended, rather than see an article either ignored, or to spend pages fighting with another editor over needed changes. It is nice to see this article brought up to standard, and DrKiernan and anyone else involved shoudl be commended for great work. This is back up to feature quality now easily! --Jayron32|talk|contribs 18:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Good save. --mav

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept 14:13, 18 August 2007.

---

Casablanca (film)

Review commentary

Messages left at Films, Clarityfiend, Henry Flower, PhantomS

I just happened upon this article... and it makes me wonder why no one's listed it on FAR until now.

• 1(a) issues include:
  • Tiny paragraphs, especially in the "Sequels and other versions" section.
  • Well-written in spots, but needs a gentle copyedit overall. For instance, there are far too many sentences beginning with "he", "she", "Rick", "the", "there", etc. Many such sentences appear two or three at a time, e.g. "He refuses to give her the documents, even when threatened with a gun. She is unable to shoot, confessing that she still loves him. Rick decides to help Laszlo..."
• Doesn't meet 1(c): three fact tags (one dating back to February), and an unreferenced section, "Censorship in fascist and ex-fascist states", which has been tagged for two months.
• The WP:LEAD is too short, and consists of two lumpy paragraphs.
• Some content amounts to little more than trivia, such as the entire paragraph about an inaccurate depiction of the French Morocco flag.

This page was featured in September 2004. In the original FAC discussion, the supporters appeared to be judging the article by Brilliant Prose standards. szyslak 05:12, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

• Update please? The review is at two weeks; some work has been done, but there are still citation needs, including some direct quotes, opinions, and hard data. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:50, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are prose (1a), citations (1c), LEAD (2a), trivia (4). Marskell 08:37, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Two of the images lack fair use rationales. DrKiernan 14:46, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I've replaced one and added a rationale for Image:Casabl meetrick.jpg, but should it be replaced with Image:Principal Cast in Casablanca Trailer.jpg? I'm hoping not, because the free-use image does not show interactions between the characters, i.e. Rick and Ilsa are not looking at each other, with Renault in between and Laszlo looking worried. DrKiernan 08:03, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep I think all the fact tags are now cleared. I had no other unaddressed concerns. DrKiernan 09:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

• Work needed. Another ce review is needed. I flagged one nonspecfic "to date" statement, I saw sentences that begin with numbers, and I made a number of WP:DASH corrections. With one final runthrough on the prose, this could be a Keep. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:47, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept 10:02, 17 August 2007.

---

FairTax

User:Feco, User:FCYTravis, User:Unfocused, User:Morphh and Wikipedia:WikiProject Taxation notified

This article presents arguments for the proposed so-called "Fair Tax", but omits essential analysis and also omits major criticism. Specifically, the impact on people with incomes above US$320,000 is not shown in the graph provided, and the analysis of impact on those with incomes above US$200,000 lumps them all together.

This is a highly contentious and politically polarized issue. It is not sufficient to quote sources with no indication of possible bias, or to acknowledge the existence of contrary views without giving attention to the arguments given for them.

FAs are supposed to be

• well written: I don't agree that this is.
• comprehensive: See omissions mentioned above.
• factually accurate: See uncritical use of references cited above.
• neutral: Hah! This is propaganda.
• stable: There have been numerous edits, and a lot of complaints on the Talk page, and there is going to be a lot more if I have anything to do with it.

Cherlin 00:52, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Please follow the instructions at WP:FAR, using {{subst:FARMessage|FairTax}} to notify involved editors and WikiProjects, and post notifications here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:05, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comments. Seriously overlinked (see WP:MOSLINK and WP:CONTEXT), needs WP:MSH attention to repeat words in section headings, and External links are used inappropriately (which orgs support or oppose should be referenced in the text, not included as External link farm) and should be pruned per WP:EL. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:05, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comments - This user has not presented anything for us to attempt to address. We can not make up what the impact on people with incomes above $320,000 - likewise, the studies we have "lump" as he calls it. We have no data for this. All criticism that I know of are presented in the article. He has not presented any criticism that is not present in the article. He has not made a single edit to prose. Controversial articles often get pot shots, but we address points as they are brought up - I consider myself to be friends with one of the main critics on the talk page (GeorgiaTex) and we e-mail offline all the time and he said that it is reasonably well balanced. This editor wishes to have a criticism section, although the criticism is woven into the article as suggested by policy. I think we have an overzealous user that jumped right to FAR, rather then provide any discussion. One has questioned the FAC as BS. The article has gone through many reviews with many editors reviewing it. It has been described by both proponents and opponents as balanced. The article has only been FA for four months and any edits normally minor copyedits by me. I say we end the FAR - nothing has even been discussed on the talk page yet. Morphh ^(talk) 1:14, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Sandy - it was increased per AndyZ tool suggestions but was then decreased recently. Morphh ^(talk) 1:14, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

What was increased and decreased? (That tool isn't highly reliable.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:11, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

The wikilinks for context / build the web. The tool kept telling me to add more, so I kept adding until the message went away. Recently it was reduced by Ground Zero but I guess not enough. :-) Thanks for your help with it. I'll continue to work on it. Morphh ^(talk) 16:56, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

GeorgiaTex, the guy who came into the article saying "I hate to keep sounding like a broken record, but there are still WAY too many bogus cites in this article -- all of which conveniently support the FairTax."? He doesn't seem to support the article. Furthermore, even if he did, that would mean just one FairTax opponent supporting it, as opposed to the many more against it. -Nathan J. Yoder 07:18, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

• RemoveComment - Read my comments on the talk page. I don't think the original FAC should have been passed for various reasons. The original FAC page had 56 supporters total which seemed to be mostly FairTax supporters at that. In addition to this, I think it suffers from serious balance issues and its main proponent (Morphh) doesn't seem to understand NPOV/undue weight that well. Basically, an article needs to be balanced in proportion to the popularity of the views held (regardless of merit of the views or intelligence/knowledge of the people holding them). FairTax is a minority view...even if it had a whopping 50% support, then that would mean it would need to be divided 50/50 and this holds true even if there is more Wikipedia-acceptable material supporting FairTax than that (it would require reducing the amount used if that were the case). When it comes to keeping an article feature, the burden of the work in terms of changing/fixing/improving the article is 100% on whoever wants to keep it an FA--it's not the obligation of those offering criticisms to fix the problems their criticizing (that would imply a poor article could stay on FA indefinitely as long as no one bothered to fix problems brought up). Also, consensus on Wikipedia is clearly for criticism sections regardless of the opinions of the person above. -Nathan J. Yoder 07:18, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

• That's not correct. See the talk page archives of the Criticism page; Jimbo specifically discouraged Criticism sections and said opposing views should be woven into the text. Separating criticism isn't NPOV. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:01, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

So your only argument here is that "Jimbo said so"? Jimbo's opinions don't override overwhelming consensus. Yes, he technically can make an Official Dictatorial Declaration that overrides everything, including consensus, but nothing indicates that was the case and furthermore, even if he had, that would be against the spirit of Wikipedia (using dictatorial power to enforce a personal opinion regarding writing style instead of enforcing something on a serious issue). I have still not received a single answer as to why the overwhelming consensus is invalidated, especially considering the cited page by Morph earlier is just an essay, not even a guideline. -Nathan J. Yoder 21:26, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I have to say, I'm unaware of the "overwhelming consensus" for the use of criticism sections. Rather the reverse, in fact. Perhaps you could clear this up with some references/links? J.Winklethorpe ^talk 21:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm referring to my experience from reading Wikipedia. When there has been a significant amount of criticism, more often than not, it's put in a criticism section. In other words, it's a de facto consensus by virtue of current editorial choice. I just searched and can't find any places were it was discussed by a largish number of people and I can't get the search engine to search "==Criticism==" (section only); it tries to search for the word "criticism" anywhere not just as a section. -Nathan J. Yoder 21:56, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

May I suggest that if the majority of wikipedia articles use criticism sections more often than not, that doesn't necessarily lead to the conclusion that FA quality articles should use them? A lot of things occur in ordinary articles that are weeded out in FAs; I believe this to be one of them. J.Winklethorpe ^talk 22:05, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Keep or Remove are not declared during the review phase, which is intended to suggest and facilitate improvements; please see the instructions at WP:FAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:21, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

This is a really innapropriate FAR. Not much has been done to work out on the article's talk page the specifics of the criticisms of the article. Give that time, work in good faith, then come here. The original FAC had 6 supporters btw Nathan, and I don't see any evidence to support your position that most of those supporters are Fairtax proponents. Either way, the only way to improve the article is to be specific and constructive in helping improve issues that are identified. It's not "us vs. them", we're in it together. - Taxman ^Talk 14:32, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Remember, I'm not the one who made this. I would have waited until I spent more time on the talk page before I nominated it, but since it's done, it's done. If the original FAC was invalid, then it's a moot point as to whether or not anything was changed, because it shouldn't have been qualified in the first place. I have given specific criticisms; I simply haven't created a long detailed list, which is rather difficult to do for an article of this size demonstrating undue weight, which is my primary NPOV concern. I confused different people when I said they were mostly FairTax supporters, but I still stand by my main point. Also, I agree with others that it seems to have a lot of redundancy too and overlinking. -Nathan J. Yoder 21:26, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I can't speak for the other five support votes on the original FAR, but I'm entirely neutral on the FairTax. As I live in the UK, supporting or opposing it would be entirely futile. In fact, prior to reviewing the article, I had never heard of FairTax.

I would also note that on previous occasions on which issues have been raised on the talk page, they have been discussed and actioned if necessary. The short amount of time taken to discuss on the talk page before resorting to FAR is disappointing. J.Winklethorpe ^talk 20:56, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

(Replying here to Nathan J Yoder's 14th August comment, to avoid orphaning my 13th August comment) You query whether the original FAC was invalid. As far as I can tell, you are the only person making that suggestion, and you are basing it on the number of support comments in it. A quick survey of recent FACs shows that 6 supports and no opposes is not out of the ordinary for a successful nomination. As to whether or not your criticisms are specific, it may well be that myself and others are failing to take your points; can I ask you to work with us by expanding on your concerns? I will also note that work on the linking is currently underway. J.Winklethorpe ^talk 21:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

From my understanding, and please correct me if I'm wrong, Nathan your main points of contention are that there needs a criticism section (instead of or in addition to interweaving the arguments) and that the article should be more then 50% criticims, since you believe it has less then 50% support by Americans. I not only linked to the eassy on criticism sections but to the NPOV policy on article structure. As to the 50% figure of Americans (which itself is your own figure - like saying 50% of people don't like Chevy because they're driving a Ford.. but anyway), this is not how NPOV works and your misreading the policy. Using your figure, 50% of Americans could oppose the FairTax for one single reason. They don't have to have criticims for every single little aspect of the plan and they don't. Most of the article is a descritpion of the bill and the research performed in particular areas. If there is criticims for any particular area or an argument on terminology (like regressive / progressive), it is included and discussed. If there is verifiable research that is critical or debates proponent data, it is included. We should not, as you suggest, cut down the article to make up for lack of publish criticism. If we are giving undue weight to a particular proponent viewpoint over a criticism, that certainly is something we can work on... but we haven't been presented with anything. I don't know what to do in regard to your statements as they deeply change the article and seem to violate the policies you claim to be defending. Also the article should keep a global viewpoint in mind, so 50% of Americans (which I dought that 95% are even aware of the plan) doesn't mean anything unless you have a study or something to include in that regard (on that note - a study has been done that shows that something like 85% of Americans informed about the FairTax support the plan, but it has not been included it in the article). This does not suggest that 85% of the article should be support - it has no relation. Morphh ^(talk) 13:25, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

(This is also a response to Winklethorpe regarding criticism sections). No, my point concerning the criticism section is secondary to the NPOV (undue weight) concerns I have and I only brought it up because people were asserting that it's a matter of policy that it must be written that way; it's not. It is suggested that it should be avoided in some circumstances in the NPOV article, but that's pretty much it as far as guidelines and policies go. I brought up consensus specifically to counter the point that this is some sort of mandate. If a criticism section should be discussed, it should be discussed only on its particular merits for this specific article, rather than dwelling on wikilawyering (e.g. "it's policy because blah blah blah"). I'll do that back in the article itself when I get to it.

As for undue weight, can some other people help me explain this as well? I have encountered articles where undue weight was a serious issue, especially considering how contentious the topic is. Articles on evolution/creationism and abortion are particularly susceptible to this kind of problem--and the consensus on those was basically what I said: you document something in proportion to its support in the general population. Undue weight doesn't require that the article explicitly support a viewpoint (e.g. by saying "view X is right about this"); it requires that the number of statements describing a given view or presenting evidence for it be out of proportion. In other words, if I described 10 studies supporting subject A and 5 supporting subject B, but subject B was actually much more popular in the dispute, then it would be undue weight.

If you disagree with my interpretation, please give your own and link to the relevant parts of the policy supporting it. For example, how would you address the issue of an article covering evolution and creationism? What criteria determines the weight given to each.

I will quote from Wikipedia:Undue weight: "NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all. For example, the article on the Earth only very briefly refers to the Flat Earth notion, a view of a distinct minority.

We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views." -Nathan J. Yoder 06:36, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Right, we understand what undue weight means, but we need you to be more specific about how you think this article fails to meet the requirement. Pick a paragraph or section or so that you feel is problematic and give specific examples that you feel make it violate the undue weight principal. Only with that type of detail can we all work together to get closest to NPOV. - Taxman ^Talk 13:40, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Nathan, this article is the "except in articles devoted to those views". You will find very little on the FairTax in Taxation in the United States, Income tax in the United States, Sales tax in the United States, or even Tax reform. In regard to the views on the FairTax, what evidence do you have that the viewpoints published by opponents have significantly more prominence then proponent viewpoints? Several of the studies promoted by opponents are not even of the FairTax, but we include them anyway (this is almost bias in my view). You can't look at the entire population and say most people don't support and therefore supporting research should not be included. The vast majority are not even aware of such politics. John Linder is still trying to inform his fellow Congressmen about the plan. Lack of interest does not equate to opposition and opposition does not equate to undue weight. Undue weight is meant to help determine what is important enough to include in an article on that topic and to what degree to include it. The research and studies done by the proponents are significant to the topic. We've included opponent studies, research, and opinions that are significant to the topic as well. The evolution / creationism articles may be poor examples - I'm quite familiar with them and it's a war zone (as I'm sure that Sandy can attest to after the last Intelligent Design FAR where they started attacking her for some conspiracy against Raul654). Your dealing with a different topic over there that hits on science, pseudoscience, and religion. Morphh ^(talk) 14:32, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Nathan, on the criticism section, I entirely agree that it "should be discussed only on its particular merits for this specific article". And it has been, already. This exact point has been discussed on the article talk page, and consensus reached. Now, I'm not going to claim that a consensus decision cannot be re-discussed, and overturned if necessary, but I consider the fact that it's been looked at already to hold some weight. And in my personal view, the consensus reached was correct, and I would support it again. On the issue of weighting, I believe the previous two replies have covered any point I would make. J.Winklethorpe ^talk 19:24, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

And to follow up on your point about a lack of policy on criticism sections, please see Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid#Article_structure, part of the MOS and therefore mandatory for FA's: "Separating all the controversial aspects of a topic into a single section results in a very tortured form of writing, especially a back-and-forth dialogue between "proponents" and "opponents". It also creates a hierarchy of fact — the main passage is "true" and "undisputed", whereas the rest are "controversial" and therefore more likely to be false, an implication that may often be inappropriate. Since many of the topics in an encyclopedia will inevitably encounter controversy, editors should write in a manner that folds debates into the narrative rather than "distilling" them out into separate sections that ignore each other." J.Winklethorpe ^talk 19:40, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comments. I've taken advantage of the FAR to do some Manual of Style cleanup. Cherlin, if you have specific examples of poor writing or POV, it would be helpful to see them. So far, you haven't given specific actionable reasons for the FAR. For example, do you have some sources of over $320,000 income commentary that have not been included? Do you have some samples of the poor quality of the prose ? Do you have samples of criticism that is left out? The intent of a featured article review is to review and improve the article, so samples would help. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:12, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

• Minor image comments—The rationale for Image:FairTaxBook.jpg is not article-specific, and I don't believe it qualifies for fair use in this article. The article is not about the actual book, and I don't see how an image of the cover helps the reader to understand the subject. Morphh, it would be appreciated if you could change the licensing of the images you've uploaded from {{GFDL-self-with-disclaimers}} to {{GFDL-self}} to improve licensing compatibility with other sites, such as the Commons. Pagrashtak 16:59, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the suggestion - I'll make the changes to my licensing. The book cover is the most known image of the FairTax, since the book was a NYT bestseller. The article does discuss the book and the book topic. I'll take a further look at the fair use. Morphh ^(talk) 17:31, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
    • It's not "the most known image of the FairTax"—there's no such thing as an image of the FairTax, just an image of a book about the FairTax. The fair use rationale is still not article-specific, and there is no assertion as to what the image conveys that cannot be conveyed with text in this article. Pagrashtak 17:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
      • Ok... it is the most widely distributed and known image associated with the FairTax plan (being a NYT bestseller). I've tried to add rationale for each article that contains the image. See if this addresses your concerns, if not - we can remove the image until it is addressed. Morphh ^(talk) 19:17, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comments. Please note the FA lead here, the current lead was modified by Cherlin yesterday. I've added my comments at the talk page but I just wanted to make everyone aware of the change since I beleive it added bias language and poor prose. Morphh ^(talk) 18:02, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

• I've suggested on the article talk page that the best way to handle Cherlin's points is to restore to the prior version, and then discuss his desired changes. I'm confident that consensus can be reached. J.Winklethorpe ^talk 21:36, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment, reviewing the article and talk page history, there does seem to be a process issue here. Cherlin's first talk page entry was August 12 at 18:24 UTC. Cherlin's first article edit was to install an NPOV tag at 18:26, his/her second talk page entry was the FAR listing, and his/her third talk page entry was wording which didn't sound like an intent at resolution. ("I'm not accepting reverts. The next one goes straight to management. This is pure propaganda.") FAR is not dispute resolution; it doesn't appear that Cherlin attempted any resolution before coming to FAR. Some specific examples of the article's deficiencies should be provided. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

• The time since being made FA is also at the low end of the minimum time between promotion and review ("Three to six months is regarded as the minimum time between promotion and nomination here, unless there are extenuating circumstances such as a radical change in article content.") I see no radical changes in article content. J.Winklethorpe ^talk 22:01, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Because FAR is not meant for content dispute resolution, I'm a little leery of leaving this open. I'm struck by the fact that the nominator does not appear in the talk page history until two days ago; this indicates that there was no attempt to address the POV concerns through discussion. However, more than one person appears concerned about the content. We need to see:

• Evidence that article has changed significantly since its nomination; or
• Actionable examples of reliable sources that are being excluded and/or unreliable sources that are being included.

Without this, the review should be closed. We can wait a couple of days. Marskell 09:01, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Sounds eminently reasonable. - Taxman ^Talk 12:32, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

The only notable change made was to the section on "Revenue neutrality" in which we worked (myself, GeorigaTex, Cielomobile) to change it to a summary style that focused on the most recent and primary proponent & opponent studies and created a sub-article that expanded on the early and additional studies (before / after). GeorgiaTex (often using an IP) and Cielomobile are opposed to the FairTax. We reduced the prose in this section by about one-half. Morphh ^(talk) 18:27, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - I've been watching and monitoring this article for quite a long time now (since November 2006), and I fail to see any POV issues (and I still oppose the FairTax). When I first ran into this article, I sounded a lot like the nominator ("[t]he whole article is basically literature for supporters of the FairTax" and so forth), but the article has been improved significantly since then, and in my opinion, it represents all major views to the best of its ability, considering the sources that we have. The fact of the matter is that there have only been two reputable studies of the FairTax, the Beacon Hill and Brookings Institute studies, so there is not a lot to go on. If we had graphs and such for people earning $320,000 and over, I would be eager to include them, but sadly, no such graphs exist, as far as I know. The article truly is stellar; there's no need for FAR. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 03:37, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Closing. As the FAR nominator has yet to come back and specify concerns, I think this was a hit-and-run nom; we still haven't been told in any concrete way why this violates NPOV and others seem to feel that this process is unnecessary at the moment. Outstanding concerns can be taken up on the talk page, and it should only be brought back here if talk isn't working. Marskell 09:58, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept 10:02, 17 August 2007.

---

Flag of Hong Kong

ZScout370, K.C. Tang, Deryck Chan, WP Hong Kong notified Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 17:05, 31 July 2007 (UTC) WP Heraldry and vexillology and WP China notified.

Message left at Mcy jerry

Obvious lack of references, prose is rather weak as well. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 16:53, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

• Image:HK Japanese Occupation poster radio exercise.jpg has no source (its on Commons and mentions English Wikipedia as the "source"), so we cannot verify the copyright. Design and History sections totally clear of inline citations. The last paragraph of Desecration section does not adhere to MoS on currency. Resurgent insurgent 03:39, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Image has been removed[1] and currency format has been corrected.[2] Adding citations will take a little more time. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 04:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
• Forgot to leave a note here, but I've started working on the article, adding sources and doing general clean-up. I've left a message at WikiProject Hong Kong about this FAR and User:SandyGeorgia also left a message at WikiProject China. Some of the content might need some reconstructive surgery if we can't find sources to back them up. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 04:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
• The article, in its current state, is not up to the FA standard, which has kept rising over the years. The most valuable things in the article are the graphics. I won't be surprised if it is de-featured, which has happened to many a FA created during the earlier years of Wikipedia. Cheers.--K.C. Tang 06:03, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

perhaps I shouldn't've said "standard", but something like "paradigm". People just have different expectations these days.--K.C. Tang 06:07, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• It can be seen that the majority of information provided appear to be derived from one primary source at [3]. This may be the reason why referencing and prose becomes an issue, since the writer may not find it neccesary to insert frequent references to the same source, and much of the article's text are paraphrased from the source text. The graphics are definitely very well-done, thou.--Huaiwei 09:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
• The article is not long, it's absolutely possible to get it back to FA standard. So please help. I found a great source that has a lot of the information we need as references.[4] Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:46, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
• Inline footnotes are being added, linking to sources already cited in the article or somewhere else. Moreover, I suggest that Mcy jerry be informed and have him responded before this FAR comes to a close. Jerry was the primary contributor of the early stages of the article. He contributed at least half of the original text and nearly all of the external sources. --Deryck C. 02:03, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm afraid he's not likely to respond... he's made only 50 edits since June last year - "busy in real life", according to his user page. Resurgent insurgent 12:12, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
• It's been a few days since anybody has commented here, so I just wanted to leave a note here to say that the article is steadily being worked on. Here is a diff between the current version and the version that existed at the time this FAR was filed.[5] Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 08:03, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
• I made a couple of small fixes, but this phrase in section "Respect for the flag" really stumped me: "Furthermore, certain actions... may be considered flag desecration. An exception is the use of flower petals when unfurling the flag." If anyone knows how the flower petals are really being "used", please correct that phrase. Resurgent insurgent 12:07, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Yeah that section needs a bit of copy-editing and maybe expansion. It also needs some sources. The Regional Flag and Regional Emblem Ordinance Section 7 covers flag desecration[6], and Section 6 covers how it may not be used[7], specifically that it should not be used in trademarks and advertisement, as well as other uses stipulated by the Chief Executive. But the "Respect for the flag" section states other uses that are prohibited which I can't verify with the Ordinance, like using it as a tablecloth or drapery. That may be usages that were stipulated by the Chief Executive that were not spelt out in the Ordinance. We'll have to find sources for that. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:52, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Alright I've re-written the section. But I think I'll combine it with the existing "Desecration" section later. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:06, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
• Concerning Jerry's inactivity, I should be able to contact him from outside Wikipedia in a few days through the HK Wikimedians' networks. --Deryck C. 17:27, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
• Alright, all or most of the facts presented in the article should have references now. If there's still anything that needs referencing, please leave a note either here or in the article Talk page. I've either found sources for the content or have deleted content I cannot verify. The article still needs some general clean-up in terms of better prose and maybe some re-arranging of the sections. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:13, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
• Ok, please take a look at the article to see what else needs to be done to keep its FA status. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 06:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • On a quick pass, it looked OK: pls leave a message to Jaranda to revisit. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:33, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Ok. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:48, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
      • Sorry for the delay. Yea...have been very busy in real life of late, so I could not make any prompt responses for the time being. Thanks fo all your hard work anyway. :-) -- Jerry Crimson Mann 01:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
      • Everything seems fixed Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 01:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
      • Same feeling here. --Deryck C. 05:56, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept 10:02, 17 August 2007.

---

Cleveland, Ohio

Review commentary

Clevelandguy, PacknCanes, 69.173.200.21, Confiteordeo, 24.208.184.226, Beirne, Aivazovsky, EurekaLott, WikiProject Ohio, and WikiProject Cities notifed.

There are 10 cite needed tags, most of which date back over a month. The references aren't listed in a consistent format. There are copious redlinks in Tourism. Entire paragraphs are unsourced. I do not believe article to meet Wikipedia:Featured article criteria.--Loodog 00:43, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

• Most of the citation needed tags would be very very easy to cite. Most of them deal with basic facts that could be found in numerous sources. The absence of redlinks is not a criterion for being FA. --- RockMFR 04:35, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
• This article is awful. Main articles (economy ect.) need to be created, them summarized. More references needed. Suggest removal of status.71.116.61.6 02:16, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I would like to hear from the editors involved in the article that improvements will be made soon, as that might swing my vote. As of this moment, I do not believe the article meets featured article standards, for a variety of reasons.

• The lead could be a little better composed, and the first sentence is not appropriate; it should define Cleveland as a city in the United States and Ohio, and it does not.
• There could be a few more references, and it looks like most of the current ones are cited incorrectly.
• The article needs some general copyediting periodically throughout
• Several spelling and punctuation errors

The article isn't horrible, and I believe more time could have been taken before initiating a FAR. However, again, I would like to hear from the article's editors and see some genuine work being done soon, especially on fixing the current references. If nothing happens soon, I will support this article being demoted. Okiefromokla•talk 04:39, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Before nominating this article, I posted that the it needed serious cleanup lest it incur an FAR. The notice received no response in 5 days. In nominating this article, I did notify the dozen or so most frequent editors of this article.--Loodog 03:12, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Remove Specific problems with FAC:

1a) Examples:

• Strange writing and wikilinking of dates: "Like other major American cities, Cleveland also began witnessing racial unrest, culminating in the Hough Riots from July 18, 1966–July 23, 1966 and the Glenville Shootout on July 23, 1968–July 25, 1968."
• "the lake effect snow that is a mainstay of Cleveland" umm.. mainstay?
• Redlinks abound.

1c)The aforementioned significant lack of sourcing in the article.

2a)The lead rambles a bit, telling us that Columbus is the capital of Ohio.

I would be willing to change my vote if someone put some work into these problems.--Loodog 03:12, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment- I frankly disagree with many of these reviews because I believe that a better use of the nominating editor's time would be to fix the problems that s/he sees in the artcle. I'm currently very busy in real life, and don't have time to work much on this article, but if you have the time for this review, why don't you edit yourself? As it says on WP:Cite, one of the best ways to contribute to Wikipedia is to add sources to articles, and in my opinion, a lack of sources is the only real reason this article should be considered for review. Everything else you mentioned is cosmetic and would take very little time to correct. Confiteordeo 04:44, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment: I've also been busy, but took the time to address some of the shortcomings identified here. I added the requested citations, edited the lead, and did some other copyediting. I'll try to do some more work soon. Any improvements to the article made by the reviewers would be welcomed. - EurekaLott 06:39, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Much better. As soon as I get the time within the next day or two I will go through and give specific examples of more statements that should be cited. If you want to work on the article before I or someone else does this, A good rule of thumb is just cite any and all things that sound like they could be a fact (so pretty much everything), especially statistics. Also, just did a quick search with my browser and found instances of the word "many" that need to be removed (see WP:WW). I would love to see the article reach somewhere in the vicinity of 100 citations; at that point, I believe this article can be kept. Okiefromokla•talk 21:38, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

One more thing. Too many of the current citations show nothing but the title of the webpage and the access date. Add the date or year of each publication cited, as well as the publisher of the webpage, etc. This is still the main obsticle for the article at this point. Okiefromokla•talk 21:44, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, If the current references were fixed, I would be satisfied and vote to keep the article, as long as the other problems I mentioned were fixed some time in the future. As it is, it looks like most the references are incorrect or incomplete. Okiefromokla•talk 03:58, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are citations (1c), LEAD (2a), general copyediting (1a). Marskell 06:29, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. I spent a couple of hours cleaning up this article (diff includes one revision that's not mine) this evening. Sustained attention is still needed. I removed some editorializing touristy uncited hype, but there may be more. I replaced many, but there are still many dead links and uncited text. About.com (not a reliable source) is used to cite a lot of text. I hope regular editors can complete and correct the citations needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:01, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Status? Is anyone able to finish up the citations? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:56, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Worried that I've ended up citing this article; not sure anyone is watching it. There are a couple of citaitons missing. Google coughs up enough info that I know the text is factual, but the sources are mostly JSTORS so I can't access them. I wish someone else would have a look. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:08, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
• I've went and done a bit of work on it. Most of the citation needed tags I saw looked very petty, though the couple that weren't were taken care of. Really, I don't see anything wrong with this, and would keep as FA based on what I see. Wizardman 03:11, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

• I suppose the two or three cite tags left after I spent ten hours cleaning up and sourcing could look petty if you came in after the fact for a look at a clean article. Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:43, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - Well, my main concern wasn't so much the current citation needed tags as much as many of the refs already there being incomplete. I just glanced over it and it seems much better now, though I'm not sure what is up with ref 29. The article needs some toutching up for sure, but its not too bad. I'm willing to give the editors the benefit of the doubt. Hopefully it can get a good polish over soon, and I'll be sure to check back every so often to see if it gets any worse or better. As for now, I say keep. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Okiefromokla (talk • contribs) 04:03, August 10, 2007

I've replaced about.com. I could not source that the MOCA does not have a permanent collection and hid the info; their site doesn't mention one. Any other concerns? I think we're more or less OK here. Marskell 15:13, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

agreed. Okiefromokla•talk 15:39, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm satisfied; there are a few things which could be better, but it's within range. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:40, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept 08:47, 13 August 2007.

---

Geology of the Bryce Canyon area

Messages left at WP Geology and Mav.

I nominate this article to be reviewed or delisted because:

1. Its very very short  Done
2. Has far too many pictures Has pictures that make the article look cluttered
3. It has a complete lack of inline citations  Done
4. It is improperly laid out and in my opinion looks unprofessional

--Hadseys 19:15, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

• I'm going to disagree with you on the "too many pictures" part. The only problem I have with the images is that they should be hosted by the Commons rather than on English Wikipedia, which isn't a concern for FA status one way or the other. Jay32183 20:43, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Once I get another article featured, I'll work on this. As for size; even after I'm done this isn't going to be large article due to the fact that there isn't that much to say about the geology of the area. I also disagree about the images, but that will be less of an issue once a bit more meat is put on this article. --mav 21:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

• I think the images make it look cluttered; either way it doesn't detract from the fact that the articles claims are completely unverifiable —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.36.182.217 (talk • contribs) 23:58, July 9, 2007
  • That is completely incorrect; the article lists all the references used. Adding inline cites where appropriate simply makes it easier to verify. --mav 19:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm fairly certain that Mav's saying the images aren't a problem doesn't mean Mav will ignore the other issues the work begins. Jay32183 19:43, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
      • You are correct - the article will be fully inline cited very soon. Expansion will have to wait for the weekend. --mav 20:52, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Some inline cites added. More later. --mav 03:16, 11 July 2007 (UTC) _

Refs are from just one source.Rlevse 16:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not done yet. I'm in the process of reading a new long reference for this article along with all the other references previously cited for this article. --mav 01:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Inline cites from two sources now. I'm also using the new source as a reference while I add more text. First part of expansion complete. A few more parts to go along with clean-up. --mav 04:16, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Second part of expansion complete. The article is almost twice the original size now. A bit more later. --mav 00:38, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Expansion of the body is now complete; the article is now over twice the size it was before. I will now focus on article structure and proofreading. Looks like some subsectioning is now in order along with adding more images. The lead section also needs a modest expansion. More cites to be added by a 3rd book reference. Should be done by the end of this weekend. --mav 03:53, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm still working; article structure is much better now. My time has been more limited than I originally thought, but I'm getting real close to finishing. Stay tuned. --mav 03:31, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

More or less done. One more ref and copyedit pass should do it. --mav 02:17, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comments. Looks good enough for a Keep without FARC, but the parenthetical See below and See X, sending readers to and fro within the text, are a distraction. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:31, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. I'm working on a final ref and copyedit pass now. So please don't close this FAR yet. :) --mav 22:00, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I think I'm  Done now; much more detail added (prose doubled in size), citations added throughout, and article has been copyedited to conform to current MoS (thanks Sandy!). I think this is ready to be de-FARd since I feel it now conforms to current FA standards. Looking 'unprofessional' and 'cluttered' are not, IMO, actionable objections on their own. Even so, I think the expansion combined with the new article structure address those concerns as well. Compare: before and after --mav 01:20, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

OK then, that's all folks. Well done as ever, mav. Marskell 08:44, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept 07:55, August 11, 2007.

---

Austin Nichols

Review commentary

Messages left at Dev920, Stevenscollege, Actors and Filmmakers and Bio. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:39, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

The article is of good quality and I think it would pass a good article nomination, but it is not of featured article quality. I will give some feedback concerning all featured article criteria to improve the article to achieve FA status. – Ilse@ 21:19, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Well written, comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral and stable

• Not much information about what critics think about his acting performances, apart from his game of tennis
• Not much information about his roles for TV

Manual of style

• Lead text is not a good summary of the article
• Infobox contains almost no information (no notable roles, years active, residence, etc)
• Biography is a bad heading, the entire article is a biography
• The structure of the biography section could be improved
• Early life section also contains information on his personal life
• TV and filmography tables have no headers, which table is about TV?

Images

• No photographs that visually identify Austin Nichols

Length and focus

• Information about acclaim of John P. Aguirre should be on his WP article
• Too much detail about his game of tennis compared to his acting and other roles

Comment. Ilse@, please notify relevant parties with {{subst:FARMessage|Austin Nichols}} according to the instructions at the top of the FAR page. Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:45, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I already notified User:Dev920 and User:Stevenscollege, they are the users that contributed the most to the article. The other top 3 contributor was an IP. How many other users do you want me to notify? – Ilse@ 22:05, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I am currently on exam leave and have no solid block of time to devote to this FAR. As I was planning to update his article when I come back anyway (as Austin has now done a wave of publicity to promote John from Cincinnati and I have more to write about him now), can this FAR please be delayed until the 22nd? DevAlt 22:24, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

In the FAR policy, I read the following: "The nomination should last two weeks, or longer where changes are ongoing and it seems useful to continue the process." On June 23 the two week period of the FAR for this article will end, and I think this is the time to evaluate whether it is useful to continue the review period. – Ilse@ 00:29, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, given I don't intend to participate until the 22nd, and I wrote the entire article from this, and Stevenscollege, the next largest contributor, edits approximately once a week, it seems somewhat of a waste of everyone else's time to have this FAR open. 21:24, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

The article has indeed improved a lot, and I'm sorry you feel this way. There is always the opportunity the renominate the article later on. – Ilse@ 23:09, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

You're going to FARC an article simply because I can't stick to your absurd schedule for mitigating reasons I have already given? How silly. DevAlt 13:15, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

The practice at FAR has always been to allow extra time when someone notifies they can work on the article; the 22nd is well within the time the FAR would run. In the meantime, others may work on some of the issues, including Ilse, who brought the nomination ("Nominators are asked to improve an article that they nominate for review to the best of their ability".) Bio infoboxes are controversial, and not a WP:WIAFA requirement, btw. Ilse, have you notified yet the WikiProjects linked on the talk page per the instructions above? Please follow the example on other FARs on this page and include the notifications at the top of the FAR. Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:59, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I didn't think about notifying the biography project, thank you for the suggestion. I have made some edits to improve the article. – Ilse@ 17:22, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

There's no hard limit. We can leave it in the FAR period a week or two after the 22nd, if need be. Marskell 17:40, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree the review period should remain open as long as the article will clearly pass all criteria within reasonable time. At this moment I would classify Austin Nichols as a B-class article that will probably pass a good article nomination easily. I believe there is nothing wrong with a GA classification. – Ilse@ 18:13, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Note Per the main contributor's request extra time will be granted for this FAR. If the main contributor feels that he/she will not be able to work on the article he/she should inform this and the extra time will be waived. Joelito (talk) 22:02, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree and I think we have spent enough time discussing the review period. Please comment on weaknesses of the article and the possible improvements. And maybe you can help improving it. I believe the section on Austin Nichols' acting career needs to be rewritten or at least some serious copyediting. – Ilse@ 22:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I have one exam left: I will be ready to receive your suggestions in about four hours. See you then. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 05:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I'm going to start adding info from his recent publicity, if anyone would like to make constructive suggestions, bring it on. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 15:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Some days ago, I've spent considerable time on improving parts of the article, including the lead section which is now reverted by Dev920. Dev920 explains that the lead section is otherwise too short for FA status, which is in my opinion a bad argument because FA status is not about quantity but about quality. I believe several of the elements Dev920 has just put back in (parents professions, waterskiing as a child, lead actors of the films he played in) are not important enough to be part of this summary. I am willing to compromise on the waterskiing by leaving a short sentence about his waterskiing in (something like "During high school he was a trick water skier participating on a international level."). I also believe the style of writing of "...and is known for his film roles in..." should be changed into a more encyclopedic wording such as "...he had roles in...". – Ilse@ 21:11, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I have changed the wording as suggested. However, I disagree with Ilse@'s view on the lead and, suggest that if it was not FA quality, it would not have passed FAC with such support. The lead has not changed significantly since it passed (ie, the wording you just now suggested and an update about JFC). The contents of the lead are fairly standard for an FA and I am somewhat surprised that Ilse@ thinks removing the entire second paragraph improves it. What do others think? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:29, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I approve of the last change. For the rest, Dev920 uses an argumentum ad populum, which doesn't make this easier. I think the supporters didn't use the FA criteria as a checklist, unfortunately. Still, I hope the article will improve and I will continue to try and help. – Ilse@ 21:53, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

And you are making an argumentum ad logicam, wherein proving I am using a fallacious argument somehow makes you right. You are aware of the concept of consensus on Wikipedia, right? The very first sentence of WP:FA is "Featured articles are considered to be the best articles in Wikipedia, as determined by Wikipedia's editors.", so excuse me if I think your point is merely to needle me ("doesn't make this easier"? You are not obligated to participate, so why say that?) rather than actually contribute. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:04, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

No needling intended towards Dev920. With the word "this" in "which doesn't make this easier" I was referring to the discussion about the contents of the lead section. The reason why I think the lead should be altered is because I question the significance of the elements in this lead as a summary, as I stated before, and not because of your argument. – Ilse@ 22:24, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I have notified all users that voted for this article's nomination (and that were not already notified) about this review. – Ilse@ 23:51, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure they'll love that. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 00:08, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

• Some pieces of info in the header are repeated in exact form later on (his parents' professions). Since the header is supposed to be a summary of the article, those cases should be removed (especially since his parents' professions aren't related to his notability, unlike, say, Kate Hudson or Emma Roberts's parents) Mad Jack 06:23, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I have removed his father's profession, but etained his mother's, but she clearly influenced him in his water skiing career (which he was apparently majorly famous for before becoming an actor). How's it looking? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 09:17, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, it does seem kind of odd that you give more details about his mother's profession (her status as a champion) in the opening then you do later down... Mad Jack 21:32, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

How remiss of me. Extra details have been added. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:01, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I have now updated the article. I have a little bit more stuff to add on JfC and some info from interviews which he has done for it, but then I will be done. Does anyoen have any other comments they would like to add? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:07, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Status: How does everyone feel about this? Can we close as keep without FARC? Dev920 perhaps you can contact Ilse on user talk to see how s/he feels. Marskell 16:03, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns comprehensiveness (1b), MoS issues (2), images (3), and focus (4). Marskell 14:39, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment: I see work's been done but I'm not sure how people feel about the page, so moving it down. Marskell 14:39, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

The valid issues that were raised have been dealt with. I have repeatedly welcomed any and all opinions on the article and sought to address them. If anyone has any further issues they wish to raise at this stage, please go ahead, but also please note I am currently on holiday with my family, am writing this from an Internet cafe, and will only be on irregularly, so any objections may take some time to be resolved. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 09:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Dev920, the main contributor of this article, and I obviously disagree about the quality of the current version of the article. Although the article has improved on some points during the month the review is now open, I think that the article still needs improvement on all four criteria mentioned above by Marskell. I believe that the article should become a FARC. - Ilse@ 09:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Right, I'll just fly out to LA and stalk Austin Nichols until I get a free image of him. He's a living minor celebrity, it's very difficult, if not impossible to find a free image of him and believe me, I have been trying. I will keep trying, but I cannot magic up photos of a man who has few obsessive fans. I added two posters that had previously been removed and gave them fair use rationales - what more exactly do you want? I used the focus that has been given to me by the sources I used, I will hunt around to find some mention of his acting ability, there might be something in the JFC publicity I can use, but I'm not holding out hope; most of it seems to focus on David Milch.

And frankly, I flat out disagree with you on the prose. Someone else copyedited it for me when it originally passed and enough people have looked through it now, notably Sandy Georgia, that I think I can say you're wrong that the prose is not FA quality. The one point you raised I changed immediately. No FA can be perfect, but this is completely standard FA prose. The fact that only one other person has commented on this FAR would indicate that there is little wrong with it; if there were, I've no doubt someone would have brought it up by now (though I obviously welcome reviews even at this stage - I am a little surprised that no-one else has commented). I think to hold an FARC would be an injustice to this article, to the people who have contributed to it, and a capitulation to a whim. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 12:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

• Remove – I should have voted right away. My comments are above. – Ilse@ 17:21, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• Maintain - as stated above, numerous times. Dev920 (Have a nice day!)

• Fixes needed - an image would be really really nice but is not a total dealbreaker. I think the article can be fleshed out more as it comes across as sparse in places - mainly some more reviews of performances (go through and see if you can get any extra critical comments on roles or films not much elaborated on). Has he never been nominated for any awards yet? give it another week - cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:24, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

PS: The prose as such isn't too bad, (I gotta read these things more closely - agree with Tony below) I just feel the article could be more comprehensive. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:31, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

• Ah, he was the horn player in Six Feet Under! I'm disappointed to find problems in the writing. I lean towards Remove, but if Sandy comes out with a strong "Keep", I'm willing to be persuaded. At the very least, the imponderables that follow need to be fixed. And more.
  • "Nichols has stated he wanted to be an actor for much of his life." Um, "has stated", even though he's made it? It's a vague and awkward temporal notion.
  • "His acting career began when he gatecrashed a party at the Sundance Film Festival and was promptly signed up by a prominent manager.[9]" Provide a year, please. There are other events mentioned without a year. We shouldn't have to consult the references to find out.

So far as I know, no years were provided in the references.

• • "After his signing, Nichols originally wished to attend the University of Texas,..."—"initially", not "originally".
  • "... Nichols then simultaneously co-starred in two box office successes." (End of section.) Um ... what were those successes? We have to piece it together by reading into the subsequent section. Not kind to the readers.
  • This quote of the guy doesn't show him off well: very poor expression, even if oral mode: ""I ?really salute the players ?that go out there and can do that ?, they ?actually perform in front of these people for two or three hours. It's amazing." Better to paraphrase or quote less of his statement?
  • "... film. He keeps a film log for every film ..."—Ungainly repetition.

I'm not reading further. It could be fixed by a copy-editor, but I suspect it's too late now. Tony 12:15, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

It is simply too late to address this now. I appreciate you taking the time to review this, but, while having been willing to work on it for some time, I AM on holiday, and I'm not going to stress myself out about this anymore with such a poor workstation. I'd ask for another extension to work through it, but I intend to spend August working on the List of LGB people, and, realistically, Austin probably isn't going to get a look in. Remove it from the FA lists if you truly believe it is not good enough and I will resubmit it at a later date. Unless of course, Tony, you will save it by copyediting it yourself - as I have said above, copyediting is not my strong point and I usually ask other people to do it for me. Clearly they have not been entirely successful. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:24, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah, it's not too late given that hasn't been FARC all that long. We can leave it up a while longer. Marskell 14:29, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Dev, ping me if you decide to do further work, so I can look in afterwards. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:04, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I will return from holiday next week. I'll take a look then, then and evaluate the situation. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:00, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

• I don't have any problems with 1b or 4, he is only 27 so I wouldn't expect the article to be very long anyway. Although there are style issues, these are not sufficiently serious for me to contemplate delisting. The lack of images, however, is a problem. From the FAC it's looks as though there was an image on nomination, but it's since been removed? The only thing I can suggest is linking to one on another web-site maybe? DrKiernan 16:19, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

• Note that if people have made a good faith attempt to find images but they can't be found, then we can't hold it against the article. Not having images is a lesser evil than copyvio. Marskell 04:58, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

• In that case, my single objection is answered. Keep DrKiernan 08:03, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

The image I originally put up was deleted for not being acceptable under fair use (which was fair given it was a copyrighted image I had taken off a random site). I just checked the FAC and in it I mentioned some image that has now been deleted - I asked an admin to undelete it so I could examine it, but again, it was a blatent copyvio. The issue is that, although he attends some film premieres and stuff where we could get a free photo, he's not famous enough that people think "Oh, that's Austin Nichols!" and get a photo of him in the same way they do, say Kevin Spacey. I'm hoping that as JfC takes off he'll turn up to other things where we have Wikipedians snapping everyone as a matter of course, but until then, I'm really stumped. It's not like I did for Jake Gyllenhaal, the largest Austin Nichols website is largely full of screencaps and coyrighted images that we can't use. It would seem that none of Austin's fans have ever actually met him, and certainly not got a shot of him. Let me go check the Lj group. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 12:45, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, it looks like someone got a shot of him. It's dark and not great, but I'll contact the person who took it and ask. We might get some mentions of his acting ability as well in the stuff they have there. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 12:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh no, they're not free after all, look like pap. Damn, I really thought we might have something there. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 12:52, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

• For a 27-year old actor I think this is a very good and comprehensive article. So, I stick on my vote in FAC, and I am pro keep!--Yannismarou 14:28, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - I just tapped AustinMedia and the result was this. They tend to trawl for interviews so I'm thinking that there's no more new stuff since the beginning of the year that I haven't gone through now. Dates have been added for all events where they were available, and the specific issues which Tony raised copyediting wise have been fixed. I will now go ask someone else to copyedit it for me. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I've asked someone to copyedit it, I'm waiting on them to reply. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• I did what I could, and left inline queries. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:43, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I changed the thing about Deadwood, but as to the rest of your questions, I simply don't know. The references don't say. For example, you asked "what is the significance of a holding deal with HBO?" I have no idea, the source says "The deal is somewhat unusual for HBO, which rarely signs actors to holding deals." Does this cover the significance? All it tells me is that HBO rarely signs them, not why. What do I need to do with these "verification needed tags"? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 11:00, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that additional text would cover it for the holding deal. Verification needed; those sites go nowhere and don't contain the text cited. Some of them appear to be commercial cites. Is there a page in there somewhere that I wasn't able to find that references the text given? If so, can you find them and link directly to them? Verification needed means, when I click on the site, I get no reference to the text cited. The link does not verify the text cited. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:56, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I've partly fixed this. The site you're linking to is dead, Dev. It either moved url or expired. There is still an official site at http://www.paramountpictures.co.uk/wimbledon/. Here I managed to track down the Personal life info for ref 28. That leaves the quotes about learning tennis for ref 19. I couldn't find them on the new link but they might be there somewhere. Marskell 19:48, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Not really surprising that a company wouldn't keep up a site for a poorly received film that came out 4 years ago. I found it at Archive.org, will update in the morning. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 00:58, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah, small problem. Archive.org have saved the main page, but because it was a flash site, not any of the pages I actually used. How incredibly unfuckinghelpful. *sigh*. What now? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 14:15, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Replace the statements with info from durable reliable sources: Google (is your friend) coughs up these in the first ten.

• http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/tennis/have_your_say/3734138.stm
• http://www.variety.com/review/VE1117924838.html?categoryid=31&cs=1
• http://www.insidetennis.com/1004_centre_court.html
• http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article448409.ece

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:09, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I've gone and replaced the quotes with some new info from the links above. It's different, but I don't think worse. Assuming there's nothing else major, I'll keep this over the next day or so. Marskell 08:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Looks all set now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:39, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept 22:26, August 10, 2007.

---

Belgium

Review commentary

WP Belgium notified.

previous FAR

Note on closing: listed at WP:FFA as re-promoted.

Disputed neutrality. Felipe C.S ^{( talk )} 16:59, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

comment The disputed neutrality is well documented in the talk page. Many progress has been done since the POV label has been set. However several points are still to be addressed:

• In the lead: the choice of the "enclave" word is a Flemish POV. See article de Gordel to understand why putting this fact at such a position in the text is a political issue!

• The paragraph:

In 2006, the country's largest French-speaking university published a survey report calling Flanders' leadership in speaking multiple languages "undoubtedly wellknown", and showing this lead to be considerable : of the Flemish respondents 59% could speak French and 53% English; of the Walloons on the other hand, only 19% Dutch and 17% English; of the Brussels' residents, 95% declared they can speak French, 59% Dutch, and 41% the non-local English. Economically significant in an increasingly globalizing epoch, in their respective regions 59%, 10%, and 28% of people under forty can speak all three forementioned languages. In each region, Belgium's third official language, German, is notably less known than those.[50][51][46]

is still utterly Flemish POVed. Its only aim is to prove the reader that Walloons are not adapted to our "increasingly globalizing epoch". I agree with the content but NPOV style should be carefully used. Several reversed suggestion have been proposed in the past. Vb 11:05, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand why the word "enclave" is a problem and I know de Gordel. An enclave is in political geography "a (part of a) country mostly surrounded by the territory of another country or wholly lying within the boundaries of another country." The region Brussels is a legally defined region that is completely surrounded by the Flemish constitutionally defined region. In what way does the word enclave then constitute a Flemish POV? I can only think of a francophone POV as Brussels is part of the Flemish (and francophone) community and as a consequence Brussels is only a enclave in one way (region, not community). Sijo Ripa 12:21, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

The word enclave is not a problem. The problem is to put this word in the lead. This provides an emphase to this word which is not required by anything except POV-pushing. User:Marskell had already provided a simple compromise which had been refused by User:SomeHuman. Vb 06:20, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

• Vb should stop his continued deliberate misleading in order to push his POV: "not required by anything" is clearly and repeatedly contradicted on the talk page of Belgium: The presentation of Belgian areas does belong in the lead (that was never questioned), and all 4 areas of that sentence have their location mentioned; contrarily leaving only the location of Brussels out is ostentative POV-pushing and cripples the paragraph. Moreover, the sentence was modified before Vb's POV-tagging to express 'an enclave within Flanders and near Wallonia': how NPOV can it be? Here above, even Sijo Ripa who had started the former FAR, and Dionysos on the talk page cannot see anything POV in the paragraph — and the latter supports my rendering of the other by Vb disputed phrase:
• The other sentence is not flattering for Walloons but that does not make it a breach of WP:NPOV: the sentence is the very carefully formulated rendering of the words of a French-speaking professor (cosigned by an American Jewish professor) of Economics, published in French by the most highly reputed Walloon university, as expressed in the highly visible introduction of a report. Another academic criticized the report because the author(s) stick(s) to a pro-French-speaking bias, and deeper in the report things are worded more strongly than in the WP article. And the report was quoted by the major Walloon quality newspaper, Le Soir, as well as by a major newspaper in the Netherlands (all referenced, while the report had been cited elsewhere as well), thus certainly notable. See strong argumentation on the talk page of Belgium, and above all: do read the French-language source; WP does not allow "assuming" some false POV accusation to be possibly right, only because one cannot read and understand a French-language reference that proves otherwise. And for a sensitive statement like the disputed one, one cannot start tampering with what the scolars in the referenced source point out to be most important: the phrase could never show a nice balance between Flemings and Walloons, thus with a modified rendering, it would be WP that makes the claim, even if a footnote proves the claim to come from elsewhere. That would jeopardize WP's NPOV policy. WP:NPOV guidelines clearly state that in such occasion, one must explicitly attribute the phrase to its source, as here is done, but then it must also very closely follow that source (hence a close translation with in footnote the French-language quote). In cases where there are other sources expressing a different point of view, these can be mentioned (if notable); but no such 'other', relativating, POV can be found. Thus Vb just wants to falsify the report, and such was actually done by Marskell (even "attributing" something to the report, that its authors express to have been widely known before even the survey had started, while entirely wiping the conclusions of the report: both the apparent one from its introduction and the major one on the consequences for the future; see proof on the talk page of Belgium, in the section about this ridiculous new FAR).

Keep FARring till everyone runs away and hand the article to the extremist POV Vbs, will make all serious authors, and finally readers, run away from WP altogether. A FAR must be the judging of the intrinsic qualities of an article, not an instrument of POV-pushers. Apart from one phrase called 'bizarre' by Marskell (once again see the talk page section about this FAR), of which the 'bizarre' aspect escapes me, there is no discussion whatsoever regarding the quality. This FAR is utterly misplaced, especially as this is not like having a bunch of people arguing on reducing POV or on a need to attain NPOV; in fact the only logical and reasonable arguments that have been presented, prove this article to be highly NPOV, and many "suggestions that have been proposed in the past" to be clear breaches of it: all even very farfetched suggestions of breaches that might convince a few people, had been modified before the FA status was granted by the just closed FAR.

Any "compromise" between WP:NPOV and POV formulations or omissions for POV reasons, is a very clear breach of WP:NPOV. A quote from that major WP policy: "the neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints. It is a point of view that is neutral, that is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject. Debates within topics are described, represented and characterized, but not engaged in." Furthermore, "The principles upon which these policies are based are non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus." Hence this repeated FAR to obtain the unacceptable? It was removed, and then unduly reopened. Cancel it. (Casliber's demand on the talk page section, to remove FA and require consensus before it could regain FA status, directly violates forementioned WP:NPOV policy; SandyGeorgia did not appear to be eager in supporting another FAR, and neither was Marskell. And the article should not become FAR material within many months, rather years: One can maintain standards by improving new additions. I had accused Vb of trolling behaviour by starting the same discussions over and over again in other sections, when he found no support; do not keep feeding Vb.)

— SomeHuman 17 Jul2007 16:47–19:23 (UTC)

• Comment. Felipe, please follow instruction number 6 at the top of WP:FAR, notify all relevant parties, and leave a record here. Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:17, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concern is POV (1d). Marskell 09:30, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Other FA criteria concern is "well writtern" (1a) and "edit war" (1e). Vb 08:37, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I have doubts about the style of the following paragraph:

"Since the installation of Leopold I as king in 1831, Belgium has been a constitutional monarchy and parliamentary democracy. Initially an oligarchy characterized mainly by the Catholic Party and the Liberals, by World War II the country had evolved towards universal suffrage, the Labour Party had risen, and trade unions played a strong role. French as single official language and adopted by the nobility and the bourgeoisie, had lost its overall importance as Dutch had become recognized as well, though not before 1967 was an official Dutch version of the Constitution accepted.[13]"

The sentences should be cut in pieces. I have tried to inprove those sentences by myself but was all the time reverted the watchdog behaviour of User:SomeHuman makes the article very difficult to edit.

The table

Linguistic region	Authorities rendering services in the language of			Authority, limited to their respective competences, of
	individuals & organisations expressing themselves			the Communities			the Regions (and their provinces)			the Federal government
	in Dutch	in French	in German	Flemish	French	German- speaking	Flemish	Walloon	Brussels- Capital
Dutch language area	yes	facilities (12)	not required	×	-	-	×	-	-	×
French language area	facilities (4)	yes	facilities (2)	-	×	-	-	×	-	×
Bilingual area Brussels-Capital	yes	yes	not required	×	×	-	-	-	×	×
German language area	not required	facilities (all 9)	yes	-	-	×	-	×	-	×
	Facilities exist only in specific municipalities near the borders of the Flemish with the Walloon and with the Brussels-Capital Regions, and in Wallonia also in 2 municipalities bordering its German language area as well as for French-speakers throughout the latter area. Within parentheses: number of municipalities with special status, i.e. required to offer facilities for speakers of the column's language.

is following Marskell's words "gibberish" and is too detailed to stands here.

The wording "The Federal State retains a considerable "common heritage"" is POV. I know it is a citation of the federal goverment homepage but it should be rewritten (as suggested by Marskell) in order to be less POVed.

Vb 08:37, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps people might have a look through the edit history, how exactly you have tried to "improve" that sentence on political history. The watchdog keeps NPOV and reasonably good prose, against fanatics: What could be POV about the "common heritage"? It's a simple fact, and whose POV into what direction, could it be? Pro or anti what, contested by whom? Oh yeah, by Vb who keeps shouting POV POV POVPOVPOV against all reason.
It is you, Vb, who tries to force your extreme POV into the article over and over again, and who keeps bringing up the same things you do not like at multiple places (which is trolling), now showing that sentence and the table even here. "Too detailed"? No Vb: it shows the constitutionally defined "language areas" from which all the regions and communities of Belgium are derived, and the related 'facilities' for speakers of a different national language. It may help people to understand the system of Belgium. And you want people to think that the Flemings (all or most extremists of course) have caused an incomprehensible lunatic and overly complex situation in Belgium. For your POV the table must become mutilated. For NPOV the table must keep showing Belgium.
And as I have clearly proven Marskell to have been editing the article Belgium in a very POV way during a few days (see talk page of Belgium), including a deliberate falsification of a quote from a referenced proper source by shoving in wordings that bring doubt about an entirely uncontested statement and fact, I cannot believe that same Marskell taking part at this ridiculous repeated FAR. In case this FAR is further abused to fight WP:NPOV by gathering 'consensus' to revoke FA until the watchdog gives in as he already has been doing far more than is reasonable by WP standards, so as to have solely your POV about "Belgium" depicted, I think Marskell's adminship should come under scrutiny: the NPOV policy mustnot bow for other guidelines or consensus (which only needs about four people who say that they agree) and WP:NPOV states so very clearly. — SomeHuman 25 Jul2007 17:06 (UTC)

You have proven nothing of the sort. I have absolutely no POV on this. When I say that the table is gibberish, it's because I literally don't know what it's trying to say—that's not POV. I made sixty-odd edits to improve the prose. Any errors I made were typos, and given the state of some of the prose when I started, a couple of typos is a small price. I have no intention of closing this review, because I don't want to deal with your lack of AGF. The article is still broadly within criteria, incidentally. What you two need is dispute resolution, not FAR. Marskell 14:10, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Dear SomeHuman, I have no intention to prove that the Flemings (all or most extremists of course) have caused an incomprehensible lunatic and overly complex situation in Belgium because from my POV this is simply false: this situation is not lunatic nor overly complex and is not due to the Flemings only. I really just want to keep the article NPOV and understandable for foreigners. I am not suprised that Marskell does not understand the table above because there are much too many concepts in it which need explanations. I understand the table but because of my knowledge of Belgium not because of the table. I think it must be simplified. You have to think about what is the message of the table and how to explain it in a simple way before publishing it on WP. I think this message is quite obscure and should be simply skipped in this general article. Please convince me and Marskell of the opposite. With respect to the sentences of the history, my critic is the following: Initially an oligarchy characterized mainly by the Catholic Party and the Liberals, by World War II the country had evolved towards universal suffrage, the Labour Party had risen, and trade unions played a strong role. Too many things are mixed in one sentence only. The 19th century oligarchy is a concept which has only a few to do with World War II and the role of the trade unions in Belgium. My critic is similar for the second sentence: French as single official language and adopted by the nobility and the bourgeoisie, had lost its overall importance as Dutch had become recognized as well, though not before 1967 was an official Dutch version of the Constitution accepted. The official character of the French language in the 19th century has also few in common with the 1967 Dutch version of the constitution. I therefore simply suggest to split both sentences in two. When I did it you accused me of introduciong my POV, so I ask you to do it yourself so that a NPOV can be reached. In my opinion and in Marskell's "common heritage" has a POV taste because it assumes the "Belgique de Papa" is dead which may be true but is an opinion. Changing this wording is not difficult and Marskell did it in the past (being reverted by SomeHuman). Vb 17:03, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Do you have any idea about what POV and NPOV mean? The term "Belgique de Papa", dead or alive, is POV; that the federal level has a good deal of heritage common to Flemings and Walloons from its unitary time, is a simple fact that is shown by the important domains (to which the 'common heritage' phrase is the intro). Your idea that the "Belgique de Papa" might not be dead, is ridiculous POV: Belgium is a regionalized and no longer unitary state, the article mustnot pretend that such may not quite be the case. That is not an opinion but the Constitution (which was modified not like you wanted to present as a one-shot recent change instead of the series of modifications spread over several decades), and it is daily life. But the 'common heritage' still being important, on the contrary, means that unitary aspects are not as completely obliterated as the modern emphasis on regions might suggest: it makes clear that Belgium is not a confederal state, though some would prefer that. The article sticks with what Belgium is. And this is not the place to discuss your problems. If you think something in the article is 'POV' then find proper notable sources that corroborate whatever opinion you feel not sufficiently depicted, and only then discuss it on the article's talk page; WP is not a forum for your highly personal opinions. — SomeHuman 01 Aug2007 23:51 (UTC)

Please don't get once again insulting. Of course I know what POV and NPOV mean. I also agree with the fact that Belgium is a regionalized and no longer unitary state and this point is clearly made clear in this article. However the term heritage suggest someone is dead. I wanted to stress how the word heritage implies a POV by translating it in the very POVed way: the "Belgique de papa" is dead. I want to underline that the choice of the word "heritage" is biased and should be made clearer or more neutral (as did Marskell before getting reversed). Vb 08:03, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

The term could only, and still arguably, be POV, for someone who does not accept that the "Belgique de papa" is dead. Such imaginary person should then declare war to Belgium, the real country that survives, instead of to me. — SomeHuman 05 Aug2007 03:22 (UTC) P.S. For those less familiar with that phrase, it denotes the unitary (and mainly also the French-language dominated) Belgium. Even this work only asks whether the taboo question 'did the Belgique à papa survive?' had ever been raised, that is shortly after the 1970 constitutional change. Meanwhile there were three more constitutional changes amongst which the creation of the regions in 1980. From that time onwards, the question was no longer "taboo" and no "totem" either, but simply ridiculous, and thus this French-language source calls the old phrase "part of our collective memory". That is R.I.P. There are only aspects that survived (Belgium was not demolished), hence the 'common heritage'. May I point out that a heritage is normally considered a valuable thing, not something to be ashamed for (in this particular context: at least not for the aspects that form that 'common heritage'). — SomeHuman 05 Aug2007 03:39 (UTC)

• Comment. I am not in favor of delisting an article because of a content dispute between two people only. Please clean up or remove that table; it is gibberish and unintelligible to someone not familiar with Belgium. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:45, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Dear Sandy, I utterly agree with you about the table. Please have a look at Talk:Belgium#Linguistic_regions_table for a simplified version of the table.Vb 10:32, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Vb might just as well obliterate the last seven columns or try to stick these too in a single column, then the table would be even a lot more simple, and not present any information at all. Sandy, instead of eliminating, I realized that the presentation was too confusing because one did not know where to begin reading the table. It's a basic cross-grid table and it just now became visually presented the way that is normally done (headers on the left and headers on top of the cross grid, without the needless and confusing header on top of the headers on the left which firstmentioned might just as well appeared a left-header to the headers on top [yes, that even sounds confusing here]). The column groups are now also better distinguished by thicker border lines between them, and unneeded horizontal borders are gone.
Furthermore, I moved the table up, towards what is explained by it; thus reading the text and then seeing the table makes both much more comprehensible. The two short paragraphs that used to be on top of the table (but actually belong underneath the mentioning of 4 language areas (where) and the naming of the 3 levels of government (by whom) and the table showing where, for whom, and by whom these interact), are now distinguished from the paragraphs describing the competences of each level, by a subtitle 'Competences' (which also helps to immediately see what is meant by the phrase in the top right corner of the table). The result is that Belgium's subdivisions are properly described; if that would still be gibberish, the error is not made by the article. — SomeHuman 05 Aug2007 02:31 (UTC)

I think the table is not better now but I read this so many time in the past that I am far from objective about this. The question about "heritage": The objective of this paragraph is to express what are the competences of the federal Belgian government not to express any opinion about them. The competences of the fed gov are what they are. Nobody need to say here where they stamms from. This has been done in the section history. Here a perfectly neutral tone must be used. It is simple to do, Marskell did it in the past but any sentence phrased by SomeHuman must be considered as perfect and may not be edited. Vb 14:19, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment From a casual (ie 10 minute) view, the level of blue links seem overly dense. BC, Romans, province, Spanish, independent, Catholic, trade unions, Allied, political parties, engineer, soft drug usage. And others. The sentence "Belgium is well known for its cuisine", well what country would not make that claim. That said I would not have a substantive objection to make about its current form, its good, though I did not try and understand the table discussed above. Ceoil 02:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Dear Ceoil, it is difficult to draw a line between over- and under-linked. This article has made the choice to link a bit too many names. If you feel it is overlinked please be bold and remove some links. About the sentence "Belgium is well known for its cuisine", it would be a ridiculous sentence without explanation and references. However the article explains why: because it has many star restaurants (according to Michelin) because many typical dishes are internationaly reknowned (biers, chocolates and others). Vb 13:51, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment: For an article on a country with such complex linguistic and cultural relationships, this article has remained surprisingly neutral, unlike other controversial articles that have come up on FAR recently ;-). I guess the two main editors here see the details differently, but it does not seem to have a major POV (1d) problem. However it does have criterion 1a problems.

• An anglophone copyeditor is needed to fix the prose. For example, the word "competence" is used wrongly in this article due to the fact that it is a false friend or faux amis. In French, compétence means autorité (authority) or pouvoir (power), while in English, "competence" means possessing the skills, knowledge, or qualifications. Another example: the clause "Based on the four in 1962–63 circumscribed language areas,.." does not make sense. If you will permit me, I will try to fix some of these.
• The table really does need to be fixed or changed because it is not understandable.
• In the drawing showing the three language communities, the Brussels area is shown in a mix of red/grey. What does that mean? There should be legend with a definition of this colour. Also rather than having three pictures, why not use one picture with three or four colours (plus a legend)?

Another point not related to FA criteria is that I expected some content describing the difficult situation between the two communities. I saw the RTBF broadcast of the fake secession of Flanders so the subject must be important to the country. --RelHistBuff 13:09, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I have started working on the text and I just realise that a lot of work needs to be done. I just noticed that the article has a mix of British and American spelling. I will use British, unless there are any objections? --RelHistBuff 18:05, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I mentioned problems with the prose and with some of the references on the last FAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:59, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

To RelHistBuff: Not understanding the table and wondering about the three pictures and the colours, is probably caused by not reading the article as a reader looking for information and is closely related to not understanding "Based on the four in 1962–63 circumscribed language areas". Those areas form the exact geographical boundaries of the 'Regions' and 'Communities' and how these coincide or overlap. As the matter is complex, one cannot expect everyone to fully grasp it immediately. Most Belgians still have great difficulties after having lived through it. The section does explain the necessary details as much as can be shown in this article, and mustnot be 'simplified' precisely because of your concern "describing the difficult situation between the two communities": the complexity is Belgium, a compromise (as mentioned in the section) that is intended to allow the two major communities to live peacefully in one country — and perhaps in one WP. The controverse is furthermore shown in many other sections (lead, history, politics, language, culture, ...) and cannot stand getting more weight: Belgium is much more than your apparent interest, and in a general article this controverse does not allow depicting whatever 'actuality' happens to attract attention this season.
The so-called 'American' spelling is actually correct British spelling as still used by scolars and in many international publications: The OED is for Belgium and many other countries, also in the very first English lessons, the reference work; not The Times or popular newspapers. Hence this article requires minimize and organized. See the WP article on American and British English spelling differences and for instance this; to my knowledge, the article was consistent.
I'm still going over your good work. Please do not feel bad about a few modifications I'm making: the edit comments should largely explain why these are needed. Kind regards. — SomeHuman 09 Aug2007 21:24 (UTC)

To SandyGeorgia: When? Before or after Markell's copyediting? And you had found the references good enough (in balance with what they reference, there should be a limit somewhere). Close this FAR war, because that is what it is: the article was FA after the very recent FAR and has not suffered since. Yours cordially — SomeHuman 09 Aug2007 21:24 (UTC)

The spelling is not a big issue, so if it is kept consistently using the Oxford standard, no problem. But parts of the article are truly incomprehensible. The clause "Based on the four in 1962–63 circumscribed language areas" does not make sense. What happened in 1962-63? Do you mean the four areas as defined in 1962-63? Concerning the justification that the prose is as it is precisely because the situation is complex, this is not an acceptable defence. The prose (and grammar) needs improvement, full stop. I will continue to help, but as it stands the article fails on criterion 1a and does not represent our best work. --RelHistBuff 22:19, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I gave it a shot and it still does not look good enough. Here are some of the remaining problems from my perspective.

• The "Communites and regions" needs fixing, in particular, the incomprehensible clause and the table. In my opinion the table should be simply removed. It is confusing and does not add enough info for the interest of a general reader of the enyclopaedia.
• WP:MOSLINKS problems. I tried to clean it up by removing general wikilinks, but there are are also many duplications.
• The lead which should summarise the article contains items that are not described in the main sections ("the battlefield of Europe" and "the cockpit of Europe")
• Most importantly, prose needs improvement and a copyedit is needed.

It would be better if more people join in to help, but perhaps some have been scared off because of reverts. I hate to see this one go, but for the above reasons (specifically criterion 1a), I vote Remove. I will gladly change my vote if I see improvements before the end of this FARC. --RelHistBuff 11:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Just one more point. It would be good that the main editors take a look at the version that passed FAC. That version is clear and understandable, a very nice read. Perhaps if the editors will update the current version with the old version in mind, then this article will easily pass this review. --RelHistBuff 15:28, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

The "1962-63" clause has been altered, and the table as well (perhaps clearer for those who have difficulties in understanding, with the extra 'See also' at top of its section and the modified sentence immediately following the table). I'm not sure whether you checked those before your latest comment here. The article version you just state to be a proper sample, had "the Cockpit of Europe" in the lead and nowhere else either (and without a reference which became requested like most others at a later time).

Whereas I strongly agree on removing the links from 'fifth century' and 'eighth century', and can see reason for doing so with 'Latin', 'independent', 'parliament', 'chemical', 'petroleum', 'subsidized', for this country the link does not seem excessive in the "the country has a comparatively high number of processions".

For feudal, oligarchy, nobility, bourgeoisie, plebiscite, Blitzkrieg (which should be capitalized in the article), bicameral, Liberals, nationalist, dioxin, vocabulary, semantic, dialects, census, cartographer, anatomist, herbalist, mathematician, chemist, engineer, romantic, expressionist, surrealist, cycling, motocross, one can find only a far too incomplete explanation in a dictionary. Even that is certainly not possible for many other links that you removed and which cannot be assumed to be well understood by all readers, especially from other cultures: unitary state, proportional voting, compulsory voting, voter turnout, head of state, Prime Minister, political parties, political centre, right-wing,social conservative, Christian Democrats, Socialists (which links to 'Social democracy'), left-wing, environmental, per capita, open economy, "customs and currency union" (the first linking to 'customs union'), population density, regional language, postsecondary education, applied and pure science (the first linking to 'applied science'), Big Bang theory, Nobel Prize in literature, Formula One World Championship. Your removal of all four links from "Romanesque, Gothic, Renaissance and Baroque architecture" (each linking like the latter to '<term> architecture') appears to me as the work of a fanatic or a vandal, and removing it from saxophone in the sentence mentioning the inventor of the instrument is hardly sensible.

The phrase: "regionalisation of the unitary state led to a three-tiered federation: federal, ..." had highly specific links chosen to allow the interested reader to find more information pertinent to the topic of that section. That is the strength of an electronic encyclopaedia. The practical use for readers is far more important than your aversion of blue links and (apart from the few mentioned first) is not what is can be called overdoing. The existence of the linked articles on Wikipedia would not be justified, if the links to them would not be proper. There are other 'difficult' words in the article that can do and already did without a link, as the dictionary definition suffices. With a high number of blue links, readers automatically keep on reading unless a term catches them; it is not at all like an article with ten lines of text and only two links to articles that add little to already commonly understood words. It is not unusual and never considered disturbing to link units for properties having different units in the world like this: "3 °C (37 °F), and highest in July at 18 °C (64 °F). The average precipitation per month varies between 54 millimetres (2.1 in)" (and those on abbreviations can even be repeated when used further on). For the many readers who do not natively speak English, abbreviations like GNP, GDP, OECD are rarely understood without a link - hell, I hadn't recognized the latter two (OECD was linked earlier but only in a footnote, by me!). That proper article version that had passed FAC, had most of the links that you just removed, fully active.

Without the links, the article became unintelligable to readers with another cultural background than you or me (as Westerners) and, considering quite a few of the terms from which you removed links, to most readers of the same background with a slighly less profound and widely oriented education.

— SomeHuman 10 Aug2007 18:30–18:37 (UTC)

I tried to remove wikilinks that are not directly related to the subject and pointed to general topics on other matters. However, I admit that the decision-making is rather subjective, so if you would like to restore some links, please go ahead. But it would be good to remove duplications. --RelHistBuff 22:14, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept 06:24, 8 August 2007.

---

IFK Göteborg

Review commentary

Johan Elisson, Marsaskala, Raman7, Krm500, WikiProject Sweden, WikiProject Football notified

The article has a lack of inline citations, all the sources are in Swedish and there are some POV issues. Epbr123 08:04, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Inline citations, check and already working on it (this was featured before thousands of inline citations were needed). POV issues, can't do anything about it until you actually tell me where those POV issues are. Swedish sources only, I don't see the relevance in that. – Elisson • T • C • 11:32, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

For a subject where the amount and quality of literature available in Swedish greatly exceeds that available in English, using Swedish sources is entirely reasonable. Oldelpaso 11:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Note Nominator, please provide examples to back your claims. Joelito (talk) 18:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Examples of possible POV:

• "Idrottsplatsen fell into decline due to bad leadership"
• "No other major sponsors are seen on the kit which, together with the long time use, has made the kit a classic in Swedish football."
• "The last years before the new millennium were a disaster compared to the earlier success"
• "No one really believed that IFK would survive the group and enter the quarter-final stage" Epbr123 18:35, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I have citations ready for all of them, and they will be added as soon as I get to those sections. Anything more? – Elisson • T • C • 19:01, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I've now added the citations for the above four examples, but I haven't really finished the work of adding all inline citations yet. – Elisson • T • C • 22:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

"No one really believed that IFK would survive the group and enter the quarter-final stage" - even if there is a source for this, it unlikely to be provable that no one in the world believed they could qualify. Epbr123 22:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I just write what the source says. Please give a suggestion on what I should write instead. – Elisson • T • C • 13:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Isn't the source in Swedish? How about "Few people believed that IFK would survive..."? Epbr123 20:19, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Both sources (I added another) are in Swedish. The first (available in the net) says Än en gång hade man gjort det egentligen ingen trodde var möjligt. (Once again they had done what no one really thought was possible.). The second (old newspaper) says Inte ens den blåvitaste galning tordes andas nå't åt det hållet. (Not even the most Blue-white maniac had dared to even breathe something like that.). Rewriting it to "few people" would just introduce a weasel word that I don't even have a source for, as both sources state that no one believed they'd make it, not that "few" people believed they'd make it. Anyway, since the wording is taken from the sources, and they're noted right after that part, I don't really see any POV issues anymore. The sources might be wrong, someone may have believed they'd make it, but that's not our problem anymore, that's the problem of the sources.

The article should be written in the tone of an encyclopedia, not a tabloid newspaper. Epbr123 22:21, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Göteborgs-Posten isn't a "tabloid newspaper" in the "sensation newspaper" meaning. If you mean how the actual sentence is written, I see very little difference between my wording "no one believed" and your suggested wording "few people believed", except that the first is closer to what the sources use. Again, as said below, this is a very minor thing and should perhaps be discussed on the article talk page instead, while we should focus more on the review as a whole here. – Elisson • T • C • 22:37, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, this is just a very minor thing in a much larger article. I'm still not finished with adding inline citations but I've done quite a lot. How does it look this far? – Elisson • T • C • 21:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Something along the lines of: According to SOURCE, no one believed IFK would survive... If the source is biased or exaggerated, it will be repeated in the article. You know what news is like. Escape Artist Swyer | Talk to me | Articles touched by my noodly appendage 16:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Writing "according to [source]" is, IMHO, exactly the same as just adding the note at the end of the sentence. – Elisson • T • C • 17:11, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Not always; some kinds of statements need explicit attribution. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:47, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comments. The WP:LEAD could use work to make it a compelling, stand-alone summary of the entire article. Citations are incorrectly italicized. And see WP:DASH with respect to scores (example: However, IFK Göteborg was eliminated in the quarter-finals by Bayern Munich after a 0-0 draw in Munich and a 2-2 draw at home.) That's what I saw on a quick glance. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:51, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are citations (1c), POV (1D), LEAD (2a), and MoS issues (2). Marskell 15:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment, I've added a few more citations and I believe that won't be a concern any more (but please tell me of any sentences that you would like a citation for if you find any). POV has been discussed to death in the above section and seems to concern a single sentence (for which I've given two citations). LEAD, well tell me what is missing (most featured football clubs have almost the exact same type of lead). MoS issues, I've fixed the ndash issues, not quite sure what is meant by "Citations are incorrectly italicized" (point me to a specific guideline please?). – Elisson • T • C • 22:27, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Why are author names italicized? I don't recognize that biblio style; book names or newspaper names are italicized in several styles. Also, can you please add language icons to the sources? For example, {{es icon}} renders (in Spanish); that helps readers know not to bother clicking on a link they may not be able to read. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:33, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
    • I've used italicised notes for references that are available in full in the references section (both here and on a few other places). I don't mind changing them back to non-italicised though, even if I doubt there is a guideline against such usage. Also added language icons (which I don't like very much). – Elisson • T • C • 20:41, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Anyone else have any comments on the improvements to this point? Getting around to closing time. Marskell 14:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

• Can you stub the redlink in the lead, and find someone to make a pass through the prose? Here's a sample sentence:
  • Things started to happen to the Swedish football culture in the late 1960s, being heavily inspired and influenced by the English supporter culture, which flourished in the 1970s and 1980s, giving birth to some of the most classic Swedish supporter clubs, AIK's Black Army, Djurgårdens IF's Blue Saints (later Järnkaminerna), and IFK Göteborg's supporter club, Änglarna.
• SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm in the process of creating all the seasons in Swedish football (I've done around 100 out of 130 so far), and I will get to 1976, but I can't see the point in creating a stub just to get rid of the redlink (which is not crucial for the article in any way, and neither is it a FA criteria to have no red links). I agree about the prose though... I've had some help with the prose earlier but I'll get someone to re-check it as soon as possible. – Elisson • T • C • 14:19, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Redlinks are not a criteria concern; nice to fill them in, but they don't have to be. Let us know if you feel you've finished up with the article, Johan. Marskell 09:24, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

No, redlinks are not a criteria concern; it was just an aesthetics question, since redlinks in the lead aren't attractive. Not an object. I added two cite tags to one completely uncited paragraph that contained hard data and a statement about the club being bankrupt. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:11, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I've replaced the two cite tags with references, the bankrupcy stuff is cited earlier in the article (history section) but I've added the same note again just in case. – Elisson • T • C • 18:41, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure of the meaning here; is it in 1917?

IFK Göteborg won Svenska Serien—the highest Swedish league at the time, but not the Swedish Championship deciding competition—for the fifth time in a row 1917. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:18, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, in 1917. Changed. – Elisson • T • C • 18:41, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• • I am working on the prose. Is it particular sections which are causing concern, or the article in general? Oldelpaso 17:53, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Closing: I see Oldelpaso went over this some. The LEAD has also been slightly filled out. With a backlogged page, this doesn't need to hang around here for weeks and I think it's broadly within criteria though people should continue to work on the prose. Marskell 06:22, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was removed 12:39, 24 August 2007.

---

History of Russia

Review commentary

Messages left at the following WikiProjects and User talks: Russia noticeboard, Russian history, 172

Additional messages left at Ghirlandajo, Ben-Velvel, Irpen and Ezhiki

Nominated per 1c (the article has only 4 inline citations). Colchicum 17:00, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Unless there is a massive undertaking to properly cite this article, I say, by all means: Remove per 1c. Okiefromokla•talk 21:34, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Hold up with that idea, WP:SPOTLIGHT is going to give fixing this one a shot. Feel free to join and help us! —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 22:33, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

How long could/would this spotlight collaboration go on? Wondering if it would conclude within a relatively short time so we can assess if it improved enough during this review. But don't get me wrong, the longer the better... What ever it takes. Okiefromokla•talk 05:59, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

It gets done when it gets done, feel free to join us :), more hands make light work. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 06:16, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, this is exactly the purpose of FAR. Wikipedia is as good as it is sourced. Could you please give preference to academic sources (from Google Scholar, technically) and also pay attention to the sources that contradict others? Colchicum 11:08, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Really? This only works if you have a large enough group to do massive cleanup with it. :S I count at least 5 editors editing that page at some point as part of spotlight.... User:Danny is doing most of the work though. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 17:51, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Up to 70+ cites.... —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 05:01, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I will see if I can help with Poland-related cites.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  21:12, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! we are up to 100+ citations now. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 21:20, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Good job guys. There are still way too many citation needed tags, though. Maybe find some sources that can cite more than 2 or facts. I would also suggest shortening the article by getting rid of anything not in Summary style; There could possibly be main articles created for some of the longer subsections. Also, maybe shorten the lead a little bit too; it could be much, much less detailed. And once the NPOV concerns about the article are met I believe it would be kept as a FA. Okiefromokla•talk 21:31, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to help us, and yes we know about the citation needed tags :) we stuck them there. If you would go ahead and do one of the two a) Make a list of long sections on the talk page, or b) be bold and do it yourself :)—— Eagle101^{Need help?} 22:22, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Trying to shame me into it, huh? :) Well, I looked over the article in more detail and for its size, the lead is appropriate. And though I do feel the article is too long, I'm not sure if I consider this appropriate to bring up in a FAR because it would not be a real reason to demote the article. Perhaps this issue can be taken up after the FAR, and we should just focus on the references during this FAR. Don't worry, I'll help out with that within the next couple days, as soon as I get some more time. Okiefromokla•talk 04:18, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Hehe, more hands make light work. Since spotlight started on that page 280+ edits have been made to it, not all by the same person :). We still have another 200 citations to figure out. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 04:21, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. Prose size is currently 72KB per Dr pda's page size script; recommended maximum per the WP:LENGTH guideline is 50KB. Better use of summary style would also lower the need for citing this article. While adding citations, please keep the correct format in mind (see WP:CITE/ES). All sources need a publisher (I see the "Work" parameter is being used in the cite templates here rather than publisher), all websources need a last access date, and publication date and author should be provided when given. Page numbers should be given on book sources. Please post progress updates here, and don't be alarmed if the article isn't ready at the end of the two-week period and moves to FARC; extra time is allowed as long as work is ongoing and progress is evident (see the instructions at the top of WP:FAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:35, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Many facts refer to the classical academic works of Russian historians, such as "History of Russia from the Earliest Times", (ISBN 5-17-002142-9) by Sergey Solovyov and "History of the Russian State" (ISBN 5-02-009550-8) by Nikolay Karamzin etc. In these cases the multiple inline citations are absurd and the tag "fact" should be removed. I shall make this work in the near future. The article should be certainly kept. Ben-Velvel 11:21, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I am afraid that those 19th century historians are desperately outdated. Their point of view should certainly be represented, but it shouldn't be the only one. This is, by the way, one of the reasons why their claims have to be properly referenced.Colchicum 19:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Colchicum. It would be like having a History of France article sourced from Michelet or a History of England from Macaulay. See WP:V, especially this section [8]: "Because this is the English Wikipedia, for the convenience of our readers, English-language sources should be used in preference to foreign-language sources". There are several up-to-date general histories of Russia available in English and we should use them. --Folantin 08:27, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: put this FAR on hold and allow the editors to continue addingg the necessary in-line citations and other improvement. Much of the great work has already been done in this direction. --Irpen 18:36, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Much good work has been done indeed, although recently some editors have been advocating (and acting on that advice) to simply remove citation tags (as "ugly" or "common knowledge"). I hope, in the end, we will see the article properly referenced, not "prettied". I am also still waiting for my review on talk to be addressed...-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
    • I am afraid you misquote or misunderstoodd the editors who objected to incessant tagging. Anything taken to an extreme is ugly, including the tags, citations or lack of them. My summary of the problem seems to present one side of this disagreement more adequately. --Irpen 00:12, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment This article has gone downhill since this review was started. First it was indiscriminately bombed with hundreds of fact tags, many of them for the most obvious things like "Peter the Great won the Great Northern War" or "Napoleon invaded in 1812". Now it's been given a makeover by "Russia forever" types trying to put the best possible light on every action by Russian (or Soviet) leaders. All we need is some Mongolian or French nationalists ("in reality the Retreat from Moscow was a brilliant strategic move") to turn up and the party will be complete. A shame, since this was a decent article with a few problems that should have been easily fixed. --Folantin 07:47, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

  Comment Funny you should say that, Folantin. I was actually just thinking what a great job everyone has been doing finding references, which, by the way, was and is a major problem of the article and certainly isn't fixed easily. I am in favor of putting this FAR on hold. Work is getting done but it will probably talk longer than most of us want a FAR to go on. *:Okiefromokla•talk 06:27, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

  Your comment and Folantin's are not mutually exclusive. The article indeed has been greatly improved by the addition of many inline citations, as you say - but Folantin also has a good point that there seems to be some neutrality problems in recent edits. Overall, I'd agree that the article is improving, but the danger of being non-neutral is also increasing.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  21:08, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

  Yes, after I entered my last comment I went through and read most of the article for the first time since the start of this FAR. My apologies, the article is indeed getting a bit bias. There are parts that seem overly tilted in favor of Russia, while other parts seem overly tilted against Russia. Partly because of this, there are issues with tone changing rapidly and randomly, as I think has been pointed out by someone. Nevertheless, it makes the article confusing to read. We might even have to consider completely rewriting it in a more narrow summary style and with a better NPOV. Okiefromokla•talk 21:47, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Some information was shockingly inaccurate to say the least, for example that West Ukraine or Galicia was part of Russian Empire[9]. In reality it was part of Austro-Hungarian Empire[10]. This correct information was reverted several times[11]--Molobo 01:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Narrow summary would be good-right now they are too many complicated details that need to be explained are balanced in order to lose bias.--Molobo 01:35, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are citations (1c), size and focus (4). Marskell 06:08, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Inevitably, the more citations it has, the longer it gets. As far as I can see, you can choose conciseness or you can choose hundreds of references, but not both. Focus has gone completely askew with outbreaks of "whataboutery" among Russian and Polish editors over World War Two. --Folantin 12:39, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

It's just too long, and also suffers from imbalance issues. Large chunks of what's there should be creamed off to subarticles. This is supposed to be a summary, not an over-detailed battleground for individual incidents. Moreschi ^Talk 15:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. We should be careful not to lose any good work - move stuff to sub articles, don't delete. I'd however suggest adding another criteria for review - neutrality - per Folantin's comments above.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  21:08, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comments. Current prose size (per WP:SIZE and Dr pda's prose size script) is 67 KB. The wikilinked bolding in the lead doesn't conform with MOS. Please revisit the use of "The" in section headings per WP:MSH. Reference formatting is going to need cleanup (see WP:CITE/ES). All sources should have a publisher, websources should have last access date, and author and publication date should be listed when available. Date formatting is inconsistent throughout the footnotes, and different biblio styles appear to have been added by different editors—formatting should be consistent. Some have used cite templates, others use individual styles. There is incorrect use of dashes vs. hyphens, mixed reference styles (inline URLs), and lots of cite tags still. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:15, 11 August 2007 (UTC) Overlinked as well (see WP:MOSLINK and WP:CONTEXT). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:38, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, perhaps you'd like to go ahead and fix those minor stylistic problems you've noticed. There are still major problems with content. --Folantin 17:25, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

They aren't minor. First, I don't want to twiddle the section headings or the lead wording; that should be done by editors familiar with the topic. Second, correcting the footnote and date formatting will take many hours; if editors working on the article will adopt a standard style now, less cleanup work will be needed later. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:58, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

• Remove, significant issues not addressed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:56, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

• Folantin, it's not our article: you do the fixing, please. Remove unless significant refinement is carried out. Prose needs a massage throughout, not just a fixing of the following samples.
  • Ungrammatacal: "with the weaknesses of its economic and political structures becoming acute,"
  • Awkward, repetitive word order: "Russia attempted to build an economy with elements of market capitalism, with often painful results"—"with often".
  • "Even today Russia shares many continuities of political culture and social structure with its tsarist and Soviet past."—Unsure about the first word; would be more neutral without it. And a comma after "today", please.
  • MOS breaches in the history box—read up on en dashes and year ranges.
  • "Noted for their laws, tolerance, and cosmopolitanism,[17] the Khazars were"—Big, bold statement here about a long time ago in a very different cultural/ethnic setting. I hope your single reference is very authoritative.
  • "Eighth" then "8th". See MOS.
  • Caption "Yaroslav ..."—no final period, since it's just a big nominal group. Read MOS. Tony 00:23, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Update There's probably no need to deal with such cosmetic details in any case. This article is still seriously unstable and likely to remain so. There's no way we could put this on the main page. Delist. (Oh and Tony, this was no more my article than it was yours before this review, yet I - along with others - got my hands dirty trying to fix it, so spare us the "reviewers here have their time cut out just reviewing and trying to maintain standards", please). --Folantin 19:15, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I have to second Folantin. There are still citations missing and POV issues; unless they are addressed (and I'd be happy to change my vote then), delist.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:09, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Seems this went from four to 167 citations. Seems a shame to lose it after all this work. Is it really hopeless? Marskell 13:01, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, at the moment the POV problems can't be resolved satisfactorily so it fails criteria 1(d) and (e). I'm not sure we could feature this on the main page. Of course, it could be resubmitted as an FA candidate at a later date, I suppose. --Folantin 13:06, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Given all the trouble around this and related articles currently the instability is bound to continue. Also, I've never liked the lead - it's overheavy on the 20th century, but that's a minor point compared to the larger battle over the(se) article(s). DrKiernan 13:15, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

it's overheavy on the 20th century. Yeah, given that it's covered in its own separate article, I would have liked to have dealt with the Soviet era in a more summary fashion but I don't think that's going to happen any time soon. On the other hand, oddly enough, before this review there was no mention of the recent wars in Chechnya. It's a shame it's going to be demoted but it happened to History of Scotland too, no doubt for similar reasons. --Folantin 13:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

It's better. But it's not good enough.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:09, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

An experienced and committed user can derail any FA. The recipes are well-known.

• One: add to it some referenced but POVed stuff (WP:UNDUE) or referenced but irrelevant stuff for which articles already exist (paste from there is the easiest thing to do), or referenced but out of place stuff because of WP:ILIKEIT. Then revert war against "removal of referenced info". In case of WP:UNDUE followed by a rv war to keep it the other side failing to remove the stuff turns to adding the context to prevent the article from being misleading, thus further sacrificing the brevity, scope, smooth text flow and style. This has happened here.
• Another recipe: tag-trolling. 300+ "fact" tags (Hitler attacked in '41"fact". Napoleon attacked in 1812"fact) is a true disgrace
• One more: image games.
• more, you name it, we've got it all here.

Plus, POV-pushers from all sides came here anyway, not necessarily committed to destroy the article, but to "improve" it towards their worldview.

This article needed an improvement in the course of a slow and unobstructed work of knowledgeable editors. Instead some of such editors had to devote all their time to defending it, others went off the pills out of anger seeing the attacks like outlined above and "compensating them" with other unnecessary additions, yet others threw the hands up and left the article to the mercy of the attackers in disgust.

I am sorry, but I don't see the solution now. Thanks to all who tried to improve it. Good work but repairing vs destruction is always an uphill battle. Also, thanks for the awful lot of refs, although I think if something can be refed to EB or Columbia, chances are the ref is redundant. Pity the destruction element have prevailed this time. That the article got more refs does not compensate its deviation from the scope and branching. And, knowing from experience, once delisted this particular article will highly unlikely be able to get back the label. Oh, well. Let it be so. There are so many flaws in the FA process that it is long since inconsistent and much less relevant than it used to be. On the brighter side, unFAed it might be a less of a target. But at the same time, FA label not only attracts the wrong edits but gives some leverage in removing them. So, one never knows whether delisting helps or obstructs the real improvement of the content.

But what a pity! --Irpen 20:49, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Closing: I guess that's it then. If it can't be saved, it can't be saved. Marskell 12:34, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed 12:39, 24 August 2007.

---

Sverre of Norway

Review commentary

Norway, Norse history and culture, Milhist, Bio, Barend and Fornadan notified.

[Criterion 1(c)]. This article's lack of in-line references would probably disqualify it as a good-article candidate if nominated today. There are four in-line citations, in the Sverre and the church subsection, and none in the rest of the article. There's a few books in the references section but I have no idea if these were even used in writing the article (or were just appended randomly). It needs in-line references with page numbers. Simply put, its a dramatic example of the manner in which featured article standards have risen since 2005. Savidan 05:55, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose delisting. The common demand for ample and evenly distibuted inline citations is a criterion that I personally consider to be misguided when uncontroversial historical matters are concerned. In effect, FAC articles have higher demands on citations that scholarly publications. This is a tendency that IMHO should be *tempered* and not *encouraged*. There is little in the article that can not be found in any easily accessible book on Norwegian history.--Berig 06:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

A scholarly publication is an entirely different animal: peer reviewed, etc. Wikipedia is by design only as good as its citations. The article's intro makes clear that the main source for these events is Sverre's biography, with the (also uncited) claim that it is biased. If this is so, then the need to cite specifically where material came from is more important. Claims like "The saga and the letters mostly agree about the hard facts" imply a need for citation throughout the article which should be comparing the differing sources. Savidan 06:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think that these precautions cited in the article are rather sufficient. The reason is that the debate on the relative reliability of medieval Scandinavian sources is a matter that is more worthy of a separate article, linked from the intro, than a delisting of this one. The debate has been going back and forth since the late 19th century, and the debate is not about Sverre of Norway but on ideology. Some Swedish hypercritical historians have considered saga sources to be apocryphal when Sweden is concerned, and by inevitable extension also when Norway is concerned. It's simply too big a debate for this article.--Berig 06:42, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

• There's a few books in the references section but I have no idea if these were even used in writing the article Asking for inline citations is all very well but don't make bad faith accusations like that. Of course User:Barend used the sources he says he did, there is no reason to imply he is dishonest. Haukur 10:36, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Not what I was implying. As a reader approaching the article I have no idea in what way each work contributed to the article. It might all be drawn from one of them, with the others used only passingly. One of the could have been added by not the main author, etc. Savidan 17:51, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

• I for one fully agree that it needs more citations. As always, the best way to deal with this is to ask specifically for it, so I added some tags to the article. Punkmorten 10:45, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• As the author of most of the original article I have no objections to adding citations where they are considered necessary. However due to summer vacation I don't have the books used aviable atm. So if lack of citations is the only objection I kindly ask that you wait a couple of months before delisting. Fornadan (t) 12:54, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I've now added citations to most of places they were asked for. Of the remaing three, two are statements added by other editors (though I have no doubt at least the second one is true), the last one is a general statement I'll need to look around a bit more to find a specific reference. Fornadan (t) 11:46, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concern is citations (1c). Marskell 18:00, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Per Fornandan's comments, we could freeze the nomination until he has the books again. Alternatively, if it is removed, it can go back through FAC after September. Marskell 18:00, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

• Remove per 1c. LuciferMorgan 21:50, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment: I've dropped a note for Fornadan to give us an indication of whether work will start soon. Marskell 08:57, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Remove but with hesitation: This one is a tough call. The article is largely a straightforward reading/translation of the saga (I guess most of it from Jonsson?). I would expect some narrative in an encyclopaedia article, but also more historians' analyses of the events, the background, etc. What analyses that do exist in the article have {{fact}} tags on them and these are in my opinion the most important parts to cite. There are cites to a primary source, the Diplomatarium Norvegicum. Although this is not a major issue, it is preferable to use secondary sources as this would quote historians/experts rather than the original letters and documents. Of the remaining 5 secondary source cites, one of them, Bagge, is not listed in the References section. It is also unfortunate that the one English reference, which has a better chance to be used for verification, is not cited at all. I do believe the article is good, but if this article arrived at FAC now, I am not certain it would pass. --RelHistBuff 09:38, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Hold a little longer as it's just received some work. Marskell 12:34, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm off again, this time on a field trip so I won't be able to anything more for a couple of weeks. I'd just like to add that the links to the Diplomatarium Norvegicum were originally added mostly as curiosities and then they've sort of migrated where they are now after the invention of the current reference system. Fornadan (t) 14:24, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Closing: Well, it's been two months and if work is going to cease again this will have to go. I agree with Rel—good but not quite there. Fornadan, there's no stopping you working on it in September to take it back to FAC. You might even contact some of the people in this review to look it over. Marskell 12:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed 12:47, 23 August 2007.

---

Russian language

Review commentary

Messages left at the following WikiProjects and User talks: Russian notice board, WP Languages, Aeusoes1, Shetsen‎

Messages left at Mikkalai and Poccil

Nominated per 1b and 1c. The article is lacking inline references and is not comprehensive. Some important sections (notably, grammar) are merely stubs, information about studies of Russian language is lacking altogether. The further reading part of the references is inadequate. E.g. Ladefored & Maddieson 1996 is not about Russian; Востриков 1990 is a textbook from a Russian university without a good program in linguistics, covering a very special topic; Михельсон 1978 is a book for 10 year old children about early Russian history, which has nothing to do with the language; Filin is usually considered Soviet academic bureaucrat rather than reputable scholar, the short article by Filin published in the journal edited by him is not very illuminating and doesn't look appropriate; there are much better etymological dictionaries and grammars than those listed. It’s a shame rather than FA. Seriously, it should not even become a B-class article.Colchicum 18:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

The language is not probably not going to survive this FAR with its star intact and I agree that it fails several criteria. However, I'd like to defend the article on a few points:

• There is no further reading section. If it was, it would be called just that; "Further reading".
• Ladefoged and Maddieson are among the leading phoneticians in the world. For encyclopedic purposes, a reference to it can be quite informative.
• The grammar section is a stub, but links to a quite rather comprehensive (if not particularly well-written) main article. Content could easily be imported from that article.
• I don't know what "studies about of Russian language" actually refers to, but it sounds like some sort of general summary of the status of research of Russian. This is something no current language FA has and is not something stipulated by the Languages project.

Peter ^Isotalo 20:38, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

There is no further reading section -- Then what is the section? It doesn't source any claims in the article. Ladefoged and Maddieson 1996 is about all the languages of the world, without special reference to Russian. Because it is not specifically about Russian, it could only work there as an inline reference, regardless of how important this book is in general. Now it doesn't illustrate any particular point. Colchicum 09:46, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

The article needs some improvement rather than defense. I was not going to attack this page, but I think that Wikipedia shouldn't deceive its readers claiming that this article is definitive, outstanding, thorough; a great source for encyclopedic information; no further editing is necessary unless new published information has come to light. It is not. Colchicum 10:09, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I was only defending that which I felt needed defending. I've been thinking about FAR:ing the article myself for some time now, but I've been busy with other project, and I agree that it needs to be improved or demoted.

Peter ^Isotalo 13:55, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, demote it by all means. The article today is not even the one that was featured in 2004. As regards further improvement, others may care about it more than I. A. Shetsen 16:01, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

• And, indeed, reviewers here have their time cut out just reviewing and trying to maintain standards. Please fix them yourself.

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are citations (1c) and comprehensiveness (1b). Marskell 06:09, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

• Remove per 1c. LuciferMorgan 00:04, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• Remove unless it's fixed up. I'm glad work is still being done on this article. Here are random samples that indicate the need for a thorough massage.
  • First caption is "Countries of the world where Russian is spoken."—MOS breach WRT the period; and "of the world" is redundant. Of Mars? Can the note about Unicode go on the larger version you click to view, not the thumbnail?
  • "Russian phonology and syntax (especially in northern dialects) have also been influenced to some extent by the numerous Finnic languages of the Finno-Ugric subfamily: Merya, Moksha, Muromian, the language of the Meshchera, Veps etc." Two issues: the "especially" applies to one or both of the preceding items? "Also" suggests that phonology and syntax have already been mentioned. They havent'. Remove "also".
• Is it necessary to link all of the countries so that almost a whole paragraph is bright blue? I'd go with the first one (Commonwealth of ...), but heck, let them type in the names of the others if they really want to interrupt their reading to go there. And I see that quite a few are linked again further down—that would be sufficient. And then again!
• "Leveling"—no link, so explain this technical term, please.
• Citation tags ....
• "difficult to reckon"—no, "estimate".

This is definitely worth retaining, so I hope people are around to work on it. Tony 09:37, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

• Remove, cite tags, prose issues, doesn't appear anyone is working on it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:57, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment. The list of countries with "a sizeable number" of Russian-speakers needs a credible source for the countries and a sourced estimate is needed for each country. I was extremely surprised to find Denmark on the list and I've removed it as Russian wouldn't even be on the top ten of immigrant languages in Denmark. Several other countries look very dubious as well. What is "a sizeable number" btw? 500 people? 50,000? Ethnologue's list looks somewhat more credible [12] Valentinian ^{T / C} 16:50, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed 12:47, 23 August 2007.

---

Greco-Buddhism

Review commentary

Messages left at following WikiProjects: India, Greece, Buddhism and User talk:PHG

This article was promoted in late 2004 in the old days. As it stands, it is not in line with the requirements of an FA.

• (1a) - Many very long sentences with many commas. Many paragraphs are only one sentence.
• (1b) - The lead speculates on possible influences and changes to Buddhist doctrine due to interaction in the Greek. I don't really know anything about this topic, but the actual main body actually has little to talk about possible changes in Buddhist teachings or philosophy, but is mostly about military interaction with the likes of Asoka. Or perhaps the lead is a mistake?
• (1c) - Again I don't know enough about the topic to comment, but one thing I did notice was a comment about the virgin birth of Prince Siddhartha. All books that I have read about Buddhism talk about Queen Maya having a dream, and then becoming pregnant, but they did not say that the pregnancy was not a normal one or that the dream was not a coincidence. All the books I have read are ambiguous and do not rule out or rule if is to be taken as a virgin birth or whether it was a normal pregnancy which coincided with a dream. So I wonder if this fact is overstretched from teh refs, and whether other things have been stretched.
• (1d) - One part is tagged for POV. No personal opinion
• (2a) lead is two sentences.
• (2b/c) four levels of hierarchy may be excessive
• (2d) Insufficient inline citations

Examples of long sentences

The interaction between Hellenistic Greece and Buddhism started when Alexander the Great conquered Asia Minor and Central Asia in 334 BCE, crossing the Indus and Jhelum rivers, and going as far as the Beas, thus establishing direct contact with India, the birthplace of Buddhism.

Finally, after the reign of Menander I, several Indo-Greek rulers, such as Amyntas, King Nicias, Peukolaos, Hermaeus, Hippostratos and Menander II, depicted themselves or their Greek deities forming with the right hand a benediction gesture identical to the Buddhist vitarka mudra (thumb and index joined together, with other fingers extended), which in Buddhism signifies the transmission of Buddha's teaching.

Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:03, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Keep After almost 3 years since its FA, this article still displays a great richness of content, images etc... I will add more inline quotations in the next few days, as we could definitely go up to the 60-80 range.

• (1b)The lead refers to the influence of Greek thought on Mahayana, which is doucmented and references later in the article.
• (1c)The Buddha was conceived following Maya's dream of a white elephant entering her womb from the side. I added a Gandhara sculpture of the event to illustrate this story. The "virgin birth" of the Buddha is further described by Christian writers of the 2nd-3rd centuries (in article).
• (1d) I cleaned up the disputed story (I don't known where it came from).
• (2a) Lead was increased.
• (2d) Citations being increased.

Best regards. PHG 05:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Keep or Remove are not declared during article review; please have a look at the top of the WP:FAR page regarding the purpose of the review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:15, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comments. WP:MSH, WP:LEAD and WP:DASH review/attention needed. Some short, choppy sections result in a rambling TOC. Lacking citations. Incomplete ref formatting; see WP:CITE/ES. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:27, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are prose (1a), comprehensiveness (1b), citations (1c), LEAD (2a). Marskell 06:05, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

• Cleanup needed. Please visit WP:MSH with respect to repeat words and use of "the" in section headings. The prose needs attention, examples: For example, Herakles with a lion-skin (the protector deity of Demetrius I) "served as an artistic model for Vajrapani, a protector of the Buddha" (Foltz, "Religions and the Silk Road") (See). Example: the contrapposto stance of the upright figures (see: 1st–2nd century Gandhara standing Buddhas[17]), ... Image captions should have full stops only when they are full sentences. All of the date ranges need to be revisited per WP:DASH and WP:MOSNUM. Per WP:MOS#Images, text shouldn't be squished between two images. Mixed reference styles (inline and cite.php), example: one of the centers of the blossoming Buddhist culture (Milinda Panha, Chap. I). Example: the reign of Menander or one his successors in the 1st century BCE (Tarn, p391). WP:MOS#Quotations, author of quotes of a sentence or longer should be identified in the text, not the footnote. see WP:LAYOUT, See also templates are used at the top of sections. Per WP:MOSLINK and WP:CONTEXT, common words shouldn't be linked, and relevant words should be linked on the first occurrence. (For example, India is repeatedly linked in the article.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:26, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Remove, no progress since my list 11 days ago. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:54, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delist mainly because of 1a. Many of the sections have no references. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:34, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

• "The" is missing before "flourishing" in the first para. The lead is inadequate. "Several" is unnecessarily vague. Looks worth saving, but not without work. Tony 00:14, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed 17:14, 22 August 2007.

---

Electronic amplifier

Review commentary

Messages left at Light current, Omegatron, GRAHAMUK, Heron, Dicklyon and WP Electronics

Electronic amplifier is a brilliant prose holdover. It offers a menu of defiencies wrt WP:WIAFA. The WP:LEAD is inadequate, contains a list, and has no image (which shouldn't be that hard to obtain). The article has numerous listy and shorty, choppy sections. The article is largely uncited and is tagged as needing cleanup. It has WP:MOS deficiencies including WP:DASH and WP:MOSBOLD. Sample prose, "The different methods of supplying power result in many different methods of bias." SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

It certainly needs work. I don't think it should be a featured article at this point in time. — Omegatron 00:26, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are LEAD (2a), stub sections and MoS issues (2), prose (1a), and images (3). Marskell 13:44, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

• Remove Mostly uncited with stubby sections and overly listy sections. If the factual accuracy dispute has merit, then, based on the edit history, the incorrect information has not been removed and omitted information has not been added. Jay32183 21:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
• Remove per 1c. LuciferMorgan 00:00, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Remove—1c, 1a. For example, the first "It" is unclear. Hyphen in "real world amplifiers". Commas required. List as half the lead? Tony 00:12, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed 12:58, 20 August 2007.

---

Flag of the Republic of China

Review commentary

Wikiproject China has been notified

Messages left at WP Taiwan, WP Hearaldy and vex, Neutrality, Jiang, Darobsta and Roadrunner

I want this featured article reviewed because:

• No references
• Red links
• Uncompelling prose
• And an empty external links section

Cheers--Hadseys 00:58, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Hadseys, please note the instructions at the top of the WP:FAR page regarding nomination of one article at a time, and please follow the instructions to notify relevant parties on both of your nominations. Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC) Did it myself. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:27, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll tackle this. I checked the article; there is only one red link and that is to a building. I can just delink it. I personally think that many of the references there now should be the external links. I notice there is some (fact) templates running around, I can address those. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 02:36, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

It should be trivially easy to scare up tons of references via the LexisNexis news database, and Google scholar. It's just a matter of, who has the time?Ling.Nut 04:36, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I got the time to fix some things up. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 04:55, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Redlinks and lack of external links are not deficiencies per WP:WIAFA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:46, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Ok; but I removed them anyways and I think the three links we have now are good for now. While sourcing is easy to do, prose isn't my best attribute. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 05:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Zscout, please update your progress regularly, and don't be alarmed if you aren't able to complete work within the two-week FAR period; even if the article moves to FARC, extra time is allowed as long as work is ongoing and progress is evident. A lot of citation work is needed. I've seen other articles use {{ChineseText}} under the images in the lead, but I'm not aware if there are guidelines; it might be helpful to see that up front. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:41, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are citations (1c) and prose (1a). Marskell 13:40, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

• Status? No progress since nom; is anyone planning to work on this? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:44, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

• Remove per 1c. LuciferMorgan 17:11, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
• Remove—1a and 1c. Needs a thorough copy-edit to smooth out awkward wording. Tony 23:59, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed 12:58, 20 August 2007.

---

Goa

Review commentary

Messages left at Indian states Project, Goa Project, Goa, India related topics, and Nichalp.--Dwaipayan (talk) 08:33, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Messages left at Graham87, Aarozone and Fredericknoronha

I believe the article doesn't satisfy criteria 1(a) and 1(c)/2(d). The prose is not up to the standard it can be. There are plenty of one-sentence paragraphs. There is even a one-sentence section. Goa#Telecom. Furthermore, the article is quite weak on citations/references, especially when they are needed, such as statistical data. Fact tags are scattered throughout the article. Gizza^{Discuss ©} 05:32, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Last reviewed version: this is the version of the article that survived a FAR in May 2005. Although it has the same citation issues as the present one, it does seem less bloated. May make a useful reference. Abecedare 05:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

The article lacks inline citations, MOS, redlinks (though not a criteria), overall copyedit is necessary. To be frank, I will rate the article not more than a start grade article. This article must be improved or get defeatured. Remove the excess photos in Economy section.Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 11:48, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are prose (1a) and citations (1c). Marskell 07:32, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

• Remove, some work was done, but the article is not within 1c guidelines. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Remove per 1c. LuciferMorgan 23:58, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Remove—poorly written. In particular, tons of redundant wording (the first sentence, for example, could lose four words; the second, three words). Tony 23:57, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed 15:45, 16 August 2007.

---

Steve Dalkowski

Review commentary

Notices left at Zerbey, MisfitToys, Ta bu shi da yu (only editors with over 10 edits), WikiProject Biography, WikiProject Baseball--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 20:43, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

A cursory glance shows that this article has received little recent attention and has very substandard citations (violating WP:WIAFA section 1c).--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 20:22, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

• The article hasn't been updated lately because there's really nothing else to add at this time. I'll doublecheck and see if he's done anything recently. Citations are poor as they were not considered a big deal when this article was nominated. Tomorrow, I'll go through my notes and get some proper citations in there. Zerbey 21:21, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Fixed a few, more tomorrow. Zerbey 21:43, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll add {{fact}} tags to what needs to be fixed. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:01, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Now I'm looking at it, we also need to modify the following slightly, in conformance with NPOV and NOR:

On the other hand, a pitcher is generally considered wild if he averaged four walks per nine innings, and it's safe to say that a pitcher of average repertoire who consistently walked as many as nine men per nine innings would shortly be out of work. But such was the allure of Dalkowski's velocity; the Orioles gave him chance after chance to harness his stuff, knowing that if he ever were able to control it, he'd be unstoppable.

Shouldn't be hard to do though. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:03, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

• Update? Some progress has been made, but there are still citations needs, and refs aren't formatted (see WP:CITE/ES). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:04, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm still working on it, but I'm one volunteer with limited resources and time :-) Zerbey 03:44, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concern is citations (1c). Marskell 15:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comments. Lots to be done still. I did some cleanup. It looks like the sources are there in case others want to pitch in to help cite. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Remove, no progress, needs citations. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:28, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delist, this article needs some major fixing up. Wizardman 01:19, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
• Remove More work needed with citations. Jay32183 21:30, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed 14:50, 12 August 2007.

---

Ted Radcliffe

Review commentary

Notices left at TheoClarke (only editor with over 5 edits), WP Alabama, WP Bio and WP Baseball--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 20:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

A cursory glance shows that this article has received little recent attention and has very substandard citations (violating WP:WIAFA section 1c).--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 20:22, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

It has absolutely no inline citations. Aleta 00:59, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I have changed the inline citations from inotes to <references>. —Theo (Talk) 22:15, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

• Move to FARC, two edits since nomination. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:05, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are citations (1c). Marskell 09:22, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• Remove per 1c. LuciferMorgan 14:08, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
• Remove This wouldn't even pass GA due to lack of citations and lack of organizational structure. Pandacomics 17:59, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed 08:48, 11 August 2007.

---

Timpani

Review commentary

Messages left at WP Musical Instruments and Flamurai.

One of the few Featured articles left that has no inline citations, prose is rather weak as well. I left a comment on Wikipedia:WikiProject Musical Instruments as the main editor of the article haven't edited since March Thanks Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 03:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I leave messages even if editors aren't active; they may still be checking their talk page, or other editors interested in the topic may be watching the page. (250 = few ??) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Oppose FA status: as mentioned, needs inline citations. This is a crucial part of an FA, therefore in my view this article is a GA at best. Other points include

1. Too much bold in lead in my view. Perhaps a section detailing the different names used could be separated off - although is it necessary to list what the French and German's call it?
   • This seems to have been dealt with. I think the French and German names should be included, because they often appear in scores. There should be redirects from them and anyone who stumbled on it may wonder why it redirected there if it isn't mentioned. Rigadoun (talk) 15:36, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
2. Lead should summarise the article, not just introduce the topic - it is too short really. It looks substantial, but most of it is the nomenclature and audio examples, which should probably be elsewhere in the text.
3. The basic timpano - "(By one system of classification, it is thus considered a membranophone.)" - which system?
   • I added the mysteriously missing Sachs-Hornbostel. Rigadoun (talk) 15:36, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
4. A 33-inch drum can produce the C below the bass clef, and speciality piccolo timpani can play up into the treble clef. In Darius Milhaud's 1923 ballet score La création du monde, the timpanist must play the F sharp at the bottom of the treble clef. - suggest use Helmholtz system or other to accurately describe the pitches.
5. It doesn't actually say that each timpano can be individually tuned - not obviously anyway.
6. Timpani heads are sized based on the size of the head, not the size of the timpani bowl. - what? Isn't that obvious? I know what you mean but doesn't come across that well.
7. These are used as a special effect and in authentic performances of Baroque music. - link to Historically informed performance.
8. Perhaps less inline repertoire and effects mentioned, but a new section for repertoire including notable solo/concerto type pieces, or orchestral pieces with certain timp focus.

Hope this helps, –MDCollins (talk) 11:55, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Agree that FA status needs to be removed. Article needs some serious work. --Fang Aili ^talk 15:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Remove - The article has no in-line citations (this being the main reason) and also has various grammar issues. NSR77 ^T_C 18:38, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

(Wow, that's some sig line :-) See the instructions at the top of the WP:FAR page; Keep or Remove are not declared while the article is under review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:43, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

• I don't know how this got to be an FA; I certainly opposed on the basis of 1a. Tony 15:20, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are citations (1c) and prose (1a). Marskell 08:48, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

• Remove per 1c. LuciferMorgan 14:09, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
• Remove, no improvement in deficiencies cited above. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:19, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed 08:48, 11 August 2007.

---

William the Silent

Review commentary

WP Netherlands, WP Biography, WP MilHist, Iblardi and Arnoutf notified. DrKiernan 09:48, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Despite the FA status, the article has almost no references at all. It requires urgent referencing. --Drieakko 09:28, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concern is referencin (1c). Marskell 08:44, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

• Remove per 1c. LuciferMorgan 14:10, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
• Remove per above. The fewest references I've ever seen for an FA. -- Kicking222 17:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
• Remove Unfortunately, although work has been done on the page, there are insufficient inline citations to assess statements such as 'described by contemporaries as "ugly and ill-tempered"', 'legally disbanded…on claims of insanity', that he 'allow[ed] forgeries of messages', etc. These may well be true, but I'd like to see (both the original and modern edited) sources for them nevertheless. DrKiernan 07:58, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed 07:42, August 10, 2007.

---

Radar

Review commentary

Messages left at WP Telecommunications, WP Maritime Trades, Pierre cb, Heron and David R. Ingham

Radar is very old promotion that was reviewed and kept under the old FARC system. It needs a new review for:

1a—prose.

There are one- and two-sentence sections and paragraphs throughout the article (looking like text that has been added piecemeal) and the bottom of the article generates into numerous lists that should be prosified.

1b—comprehensive.

Added below.

1c—factual accuracy.

Largely uncited.

2—MOS.

A rambling TOC that reflects piecemeal growth and a lack of organization, as well as WP:MSH problems. A See also farm (external links may also need review). External jumps. Incorrectly or incompletely cited references and notes (see WP:CITE/ES), as well as mixed reference styles (inline and cite.php). Wikilinking in need of review per WP:CONTEXT (common terms like aircraft are linked, while many technical terms aren't linked). The WP:LEAD is inadequate. Terms are bolded within the text (see WP:MOSBOLD).

4—focus.

The article rambles from the main focus, example: Coolanol and PAO (poly-alpha olefin) are the two main coolants used to cool airborne radar equipment today.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:00, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I am sure it would fail FA nowdays.

1. Radar functions and roles is a big list. There should be a sentence about each one.
2. Radars for biological research is an external link list, and has dot points for surveillance and fire control systems - which must be out of place.
3. There is also only a fairly shallow theory section. Perhaps the more indepth material should be in another theory of radar article.
4. But there should be formula's for the noise level,
5. how much range can be expected,
6. time/range-distance resolution,
7. frequency-velocity resolution and tradeoffs.
8. Bistatic radar only appears in the see also, but should have at least an introductory sentence.
9. The concept of false alarm needs to be covered and tradeoffs with sensitivity and false alarms, and what can be done to improve it.
10. We need to cover the time on target idea.
11. Synthetic aperture radar is not explained adequately - there should be a whole paragraph on this.

So I think the article fails the broad in coverage also. GB 03:21, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are prose (1a), comprehensiveness (1b), accuracy (1c), MoS (2), and focus (4). Marskell 08:43, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

• Remove per 1a and 1c. LuciferMorgan 14:06, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
• Remove, unimproved per list above, nothing happening. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed 09:50, 5 August 2007.

---

Speaker of the United States House of Representatives

Review commentary

Left note at Wikiproject US Congress and User:Emsworth

This article needs citations, and a general copyedit to come up to current FA standards. Judgesurreal777 06:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Please notify the relevant Wikiprojects per instructions - being someone whose been on FAR for quite some time Judge, you should be aware of this by now. LuciferMorgan 21:36, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Done Judgesurreal777 23:35, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Cool. A lot of the Emsworth articles need an FAR. LuciferMorgan 19:49, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

• This should go to FARC. The first para shows why:

"The Speaker of the United States House of Representatives is the presiding officer—or speaker—of the United States House of Representatives. The position is elected in much the same way prime ministers are elected under a parliamentary systems."

• • Don't like the sharp em dashes, or "or".
  • Don't like the repetition—the phrase takes up 85% of the sentence.
  • Don't like the analogy with prime ministers—the party system is very different in Congress.
  • "a parliamentary systemS"? Very poor.
  • Too short to be a para.
  • Positions aren't elected; people are.

Yuck. Tony 15:24, 15 July 2007 (UTC)~

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are citations and prose. Joelito (talk) 18:12, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

• Remove per 1c. LuciferMorgan 19:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
• Ceoil has done some work here, but the article is still largely uncited. Remove unless Ceoil plans to work on it and wants more time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:09, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I found it difficult to track down sources for this, and its not an area I'm knowledgeable in. I'd ask that it is left open for another week so I can scope it, and I'll report back then. Ceoil 12:32, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. I spent some time reading the sources during the week, but some facts contradicted the claims made in the article. I don't have enough interest to disentangle, and in its current state I would say Remove. Ceoil 16:28, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed 12:52, 3 August 2007.

---

Trench warfare

Review commentary

MilHist, Meelar, Gsl, Trekphiler, and Philip Baird Shearer notified

The lead is far too short does not summarize the article well, and in-line citations are sparse. I have a hunch that it does not do too well on the "comprehensive coverage" criteria either.--Konstable 13:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you specified your concerns a bit more, especially concerning the coverage.

Peter ^Isotalo 23:25, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I won't comment on the coverage as I'm no expert on trenches, as I said it is "a hunch", more of an invitation for those more familiar with the subject to comment. I got that impression after finding the section I came to the article to read, Māori Pā, being positioned in a strange place in the article (neither logically tied in with anything, nor chronological) as well as being on the short side. The lead is very short - WP:LEAD recommends three to four paragraphs summarizing the main points, while the current one is barely one paragraph and does not sufficiently summarize the article. This is in violation of the 2a criteria. The 2c criteria is also violated in lack of in-line citations. You have some references at the bottom but with no mention to which parts of the text each one refers, quotes and statistics are used without citation.--Konstable 13:57, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. Konstable, pls follow instruction number 6 at WP:FAR, notify all relevant parties and the original nominator, and leave a record here. Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:19, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Sure will. However the top of the WP:FAR page is way too long for anyone to read, especially when it seems to change every week.--Konstable 13:57, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concern is LEAD (2a), citations (1c), and comprehensiveness (1b).Marskell 10:41, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• Remove per 1c. LuciferMorgan 21:53, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
• Remove, 1c and 2. Some prose and WP:MOS improvement, but the article is still largely uncited, and has MOS problems. Twice I went in to make WP:DASH, WP:MOSNUM and WP:UNITS corrections and got Wikimedia Foundation errors, lost my work. The article is confused on units; sometimes it leads with metric, other times with imperial. It needs a consistent style, and then the {{convert}} template can be used to convert the units and handle the non-breaking hardspaces per WP:UNITS. More importantly, the article needs to be cited. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:30, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.