Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article review/archive/June 2010

< Wikipedia:Featured article review‎ | archive

Kept status edit

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 by Dana boomer 01:01, 30 June 2010 [1].

Olivier Messiaen edit

Review commentary edit

Notified: Wikiprojects. Author inactive.

This article is lacking sources in many paragraphs. YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 05:42, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How do you work out the author is inactive? Please be more specific in your criticism. --RobertG ♬ talk 06:24, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm counting 46 references; could you be more specific? Also: in which way is the article now worse than when it was promoted in early 2006? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:05, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
With reference to the sources, could we get an indication of the precise problem? As far as I can see, the sources provided substantiate the content well. I think, perhaps, the nom may be confused since the footnotes provide reference for the overall paragraphs (which, in my view, is a better practice than footnoting every sentence from the same source). So, unless a specific problem is noted, I would say Keep FA. Eusebeus (talk) 12:16, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yellowmonkey is right, you know:
    • Last paragraph of "Youth and studies" — unsourced.
    • First and last paragraph of "Tristan and serialism" — unsourced.
    • First, third and fourth paragraphs of "Birdsong and the 1960s" — you guessed it, unsourced.
    • "An operation prevented his participating in events to celebrate his 70th birthday, but in 1988 tributes for Messiaen's 80th birthday around the globe included a complete performance in London's Royal Festival Hall of St. François, which the composer attended, and Erato's publication of a seventeen-CD collection of Messiaen's music including recordings by Loriod and a disc of the composer in conversation with Claude Samuel." and "Messiaen had also been composing a concerto for four musicians he felt particularly grateful to, namely Loriod, the cellist Mstislav Rostropovich, the oboist Heinz Holliger and the flautist Catherine Cantin. This was substantially complete when Messiaen died, and Yvonne Loriod undertook the final movement's orchestration with advice from George Benjamin." under Transfiguration are large chunks of unsourcedness.
    • "Much of his output denies the western conventions of forward motion, development and diatonic harmonic resolution. This is partly due to the symmetries of his technique—for instance the modes of limited transposition do not admit the conventional cadences found in western classical music." in "Music" is unsourced; what does "this" refer to?
    • Third paragraph of "Music" is unsourced.
    • Last paragraph of "Western artistic influences" — still unsourced.
    • Entire "Time" and "Time and rhythm" sections under "Symmetry" are unsourced, as is the "Birdsong" section further down.
    • Article overall feels very, very bloated and tl;dr at times. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 18:31, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My word. I hope the author of this substandard piece of crap doesn't show his face - you'd give him what for!
I don't think any of the information in the article is unsourced. I didn't make any of it up. The options for what happens next seem to me to be as follows. You could provide individual footnotes for each piece of "unsourced" information, which you could easily do by reading the references provided. It seems you are contesting some of the material in the article, in which case you could splatter {{fact}} tags on each item and add one of those pretty {{refimprove}} banners at the top. You could delete the "unsourced" information (which may not be perceived universally as an improvement). Or alternatively you could reduce the article to "crap article" status. You might even ask nicely whether anyone is willing to help, in the hope that someone might engage positively with this process - because its purpose is currently inscrutable. Best wishes. --RobertG ♬ talk 22:13, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: No alt text is provided; all online links are live; as noted above, there are many unreferenced passages - saying it is there in the cited works is not good enough, we need page numbers. Some of the statements in the uncited sections would constituite WP:OR if they remain uncited. The purpose of a GAR is to bring the article back to up to featured status. Sarcastic comments like those above don't help, please assume good faith and observe the civility guidelines. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 22:54, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have added alt text for all images, but not the icons, as I understand that that is not necessary. Please feel free to improve my alt text. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 23:47, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am in utter admiration of your descriptive abilities, those passages of alt text are wonderful.
After thinking about your other comments, I unreservedly apologise. It's the modern way, isn't it? Those who are offended must apologise to those who caused the offence because the latter's motives must be held to be beyond reproach. Be that as it may, I found TenPoundHammer's tone ("you guessed it...", "tl;dr" - is that a shorthand that I should understand, or was it careless typing?) snide, patronising and condescending. It is very easy to bring a catalogue of criticism to a page such as this. It seems transparently obvious that criticism is potentially disheartening to contributors. That is why TenPoundHammer's lack of sensitivity seemed calculated to cause offence.
There was no sarcasm on my part, I assure you, only sadness and incomprehension.
It seems I must be in the wrong place, a fish out of water, here. I respectfully withdraw from this process. --RobertG ♬ talk 08:24, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion of this review is not the first to raise questions about the credibility and value of such reviews. I have observed pretty much the same reaction from long-standing and knowledgeable editors at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Witold Lutosławski/archive1, Talk:Egardus#GA Reassessment and Talk:Music of the Trecento#GA Reassessment & ff. It seems that if an editor wants to avoid the frustration generated by a review, not nominating an article is the only option. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:04, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
PS: TenPoundHammer's "tl;dr" comment refers to Wikipedia:Too long; didn't read; I'll refrain from commenting on how such a remark reflects on those, reviewers especially, who make it. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:15, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My recommendation to anyone who cares about the article: let the FA squad delist it. It's a better article now that it will be if you add all sorts of irrelevant citations in order to satisfy a group of people who wouldn't know a piece by Messiaen if a little bird sang it in their ears. Article assessments by people who don't know anything about the subject aren't worth seeking out. If the Classical Music community satisfies the demands of FA now, will we give in again next year when they decide that the Fair-Use scores need to go? Or whatever the next, new criteria for FA happens to be? Since it was cited above, I wish I had said "delist" to Engardus at the GA to prevent a drawing of an 17th c. church from being added to satisfy the "image" criterion. Those of us interested in Wikipedia as a source of information know that the Messiaen article is one of the finest articles on the encyclopedia. And that should be reward enough. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 15:43, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Scrutiny is always welcome and I think we should appreciate TPH's efforts to make substantive and specific criticisms. It is true that he in all likelihood did not crack the spine of a single source provided in the article; it is also true that for those of us who are familiar with Messaien, his agoggery at certain statements may make us laugh out loud, but as this article is designed for lay-readers, the feedback is salutary. I would suggest that a judicious rephrasing of the sources provided, such as "for this and what follows, see ..." would resolve many of the problems identified. Moreover, TPH makes a good point with respect to certain sections. Yes, obviously it seems silly to have to provide close references for OM's fascination with ornithological soundscapes, but a lay reader likely has no idea, so overall a generic reference could be usefully provided. The existing bibliography is sufficient; it is merely a question of adding in a few more footnotes. Finally, if TPH feels the article is bloated and overly long, that is merely a personal caprice and has little bearing on its FA status. I feel the same way about most Video Game FAs. Eusebeus (talk) 11:31, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I wish I had been able to adopt Eusebeus's approach earlier; it is thoughtful and sensible. On reflection I would like to strengthen my earlier apology - I am sorry I overreacted. I still nevertheless have doubts about a lowest-common-denominator assessment process that requires no knowledge of the subject, and that marks verifiability by counting footnotes rather than looking at references. This is not scrutiny. --RobertG ♬ talk 08:54, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary edit

Featured article criteria of concern brought up in the FAR section include referencing. Dana boomer (talk) 00:18, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above discussion. I hope that's the last thing I'll say on the subject. --RobertG ♬ talk 06:04, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hold please I will have access to a libary in a week or so and will add the cites as necessary. This is a very stong page and only light work is needed by someone with books for a keep. Ceoil (talk) 21:57, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Update: On going work; I think the structure of the lead needs to be looked at. As I am now familiar with the page and the editors behind it, I can stand over the level of citations; adding page numbers to statements broken by para breaks is trivial. Ceoil (talk) 22:12, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How is work going on this? It would be great if we could get some editors in here soon to make declarations and get the article through the process... It's awesome to see work being done on the article! Dana boomer (talk) 01:19, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I still see a lot of uncited text. Has Ceoil been pinged? Tony1 might be willing to take a look-- it's up his alley if anyone wants to ping him in. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:20, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have pinged Ceoil and left a note for Tony to see if he's interested in working on the article. Dana boomer (talk) 23:00, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist. Lots of referencing problems throughout the entire article. Multiple portions of wholly unreferenced paragraphs. Not up to FA standards, not even up to GA standards. -- Cirt (talk) 16:36, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note. I have posted a request on the talk for additional cites. I think this ask will be very easily met, my impression is that RobertG has a very strong grasp of both subject and sources. I am now very familar with the page (less so with the music but have dallianced and been rewarded), and can attest to the fact that this is one of the best informed and inciteful classical music article we have. I think Cirt is expressing a drive by, on to the next one openion and is just wrong. If I wasn't such a nice person I would say "Cirt your opeion is lightweight and means nothing to me." But I am very nice, so I won't. Ceoil (talk) 14:42, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
RoberG has indicated that he will meet my demands, but is preoccupied for a few days - something about IRL, dunno. Hold once again pls Dana, with thanks for your appreciated patience. Ceoil (talk) 17:30, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be held for as long as you need it to be - we would always rather see the article improved and kept than hastily delisted. Reviewers should hold off on delist votes until Ceoil and company are finished. Dana boomer (talk) 01:19, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hold - Most of the paragraphs now have at least one cite and work is on-going to cite the others. --mav (reviews needed) 22:27, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This one is worth saving, IMO. I've looked through the lead, and added "one of the most important composers of the 20th century"—does anyone think otherwise? Can the pic at the top be brightened? Is the copyright tag OK? Can I fiddle with the brightness and re-upload? Tony (talk) 10:03, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • How is this progressing, gentlemen? From the history it doesn't look like much has happened over the past couple of weeks, and there's not much happening on the talk page. An update would be nice, and when the main editors feel they have completed the necessary work, it would be good to get some other reviewers on this so we can get it off the FAR page :) Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 03:09, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Closing note - This article has been at FAR for almost three months, and work has been completed to improve the article during that time. During the FARC period, only one fairly vague delist was entered and more work was completed, so this review is being kept. If editors still feel that there are problems with this article, they are encouraged to bring them up on the article's talk page. If there are still significant problems with the article after a minimum of three months, the article may be brought back to FAR. Dana boomer (talk) 01:03, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was kept by Dana boomer 17:29, 29 June 2010 [2].

Australia edit

Review commentary edit

Notified: Talk:Australia, WT:WikiProject Australia, PDH (original nominator).

I think that this article is very detailed and generally well-written. maybe some alt. text could be added to the images.

I am nominating this featured article for review because it is deficient WRT Criterion 3 (Images—no alt. text, aside from the one I did as an example; image placement needs auditing, particularly where text is squashed by left–right placement) and Criterion 1a the prose in places. Tony (talk) 09:07, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment There are copy-edit and citation needed tags. Some citations are missing bibliographic information, while others are certainly not high-quality (such as http://populstat.info/Oceania/australc.htm). The internation rankings section should be pruned and at least partially (if not completely) moved to a different article. There doesn't seem to be even a mention of the most recent decade in the history section. Despite the issues, though, I think the article looks saveable. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:49, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I say vote off a few images before providing alt text as there are too much YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 03:53, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't agree with that, although some could be moved around, and the sizing made more consistent. What are all these strange links above? Johnbod (talk) 13:42, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to sandwich both sides in a lot of places YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 23:25, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One particular peeve I have is the chocolate-box image of parliament house. Makes me want to puke, and I'm sure the architects recoil in horror. Either remove or find a better one? Tony (talk) 13:59, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
PS I have no idea why those links appear above. I did everything I could to follow the directions, but alas, things went wrong. Tony (talk) 14:01, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The toolbox picks up links to any FAC or FAR that has the word "Australia" in it, I'm afraid. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:20, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wel heh, they missed the Invincibles ones then....YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 23:24, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary edit

Featured article criterion of concern include prose, referencing and images. Dana boomer (talk) 19:14, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WikiProject Australia seems to be like a ghost town. It is hard to know why, but a great pity. Tony (talk) 08:04, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The main congregation point is at WP:AWNB, but even still it is very quiet there nowadays YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 10:03, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, alt text is no longer required for FAs. Dabomb87 (talk) 12:36, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"The population grew steadily in the following years; the continent was explored,..."—This seems to be an unsatisfactory (stubby) statement, in the lead. I can't work out what to do with it.
I am uncertain whether anyone is a "member of" ANZUS, which is a rather elderly treaty of which NZ's status is highly problematic. People wonder whether it's just a hoax. Perhaps it shouldn't be listed prominently alongside and ahead of APEC, WTO, etc. in the lead. Tony (talk) 08:14, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh dear. Some of the unreferenced sections need a bit of buffing (with refs), and I am not entirely sure they are correct. The prose isn't as bad as I feared. Will need a couple of weeks yet but this is eminently doable (just a bit bland - bit like eating McDonald's really and I have to really dig a bit to find the enthusiasm for it...) Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:03, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Healthcare is missing, at the moment it only says that aborigines are in a bad state. It also seems as though the list of names might cause a problem, as about 5-10 current actors are on there in contrast to 6 sportspeople ever. I would have thought that sport has a greater impact on the national consciousness, and although the film part talks of the industry, film must surely be much less economically weighty than a whole pile of things. The prose is rather ad hoc and runs into the back of itself sometimes but is fixable once the content is dealt with YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 23:33, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good observation about healthcare, and agree about ad hoc nature of bits. The unreferenced bits read the worst IMO. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:00, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Where's your patriotic spirit, Cas? :P —Dark 11:22, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the refs I've put the links in as raw, because apparently there is a tool that can do it for us; if it fails it can be done manually YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 06:57, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems quite limited to include education as a sub-section of demography in my opinion. The sourcing could be fixed within a week, the prose might take a while. —Dark 11:20, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would there be any objection to removing this photo from this history section of the article? It's low quality and is jingoistic in this context, particularly as there's already a photo which represents Australia's military history. A photo of a key part of Australia's post-war history would be more appropriate (the Sydney Olympics perhaps?). For what it's worth, I'm the editor who originally uploaded this photo to illustrate the Battle of Kaiapit article. Nick-D (talk) 10:47, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No objection YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 06:35, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Photo removed Nick-D (talk) 10:12, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment — Have I missed where it says that aborigines weren't allowed to be counted in the census until 1967. Surely they were previously counted as flora and fauna? I'm thinking this is very notable. Anyway, why in the WW1 bit does it not mention that Australia had the highest casualty rate, per population, of any Allied force? Just from glancing there is heaps of things that could be added. Why is the Largest cities in Australia table under the education sub-section? And what's the basis for inclusion for a sports person in the culture section? Aren't we adding any AFL players to this list because other countries wouldn't have heard anything abouth them? Same with Rugby League, I guess. Ted Whitten, Ian Stewart, Royce Hart, Dick Reynolds, Leigh Matthews, John Coleman, Graham Farmer, Ron Barassi, Bob Skilton and Wayne Carey could all claim to be part of the sporting persons list. I personally think it could get a bit ridiculous. Aaroncrick TALK 07:19, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've been tipped off that Daniel (talk · contribs) thinks that Tim Cahill, Rafter and Ponting should be on here. Well to pre-empt him, I don't think Cahill is world-beating (plays in a medium club blah blah) unlike the rest on that list, and as for Rafter, Rosewall and Goolagong won 8 and 7 individual grand slams. Ponting, well, apart from Bradman, the next cluster of cricketing greats are a bit closely matched, how do we pick them, although Warne is always in the top5 [in world history] of all polls YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 07:24, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Another person has added Pat Cash (1 grand slam). I say remove him YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 07:26, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Pat Cash? — don't think so... I think the list needs some sort of criteria. Warne — yeah; Ponting — no, unless being our most capped cricketer is notable? Aaroncrick TALK 07:35, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If we're going by the criteria of soccer club status, Harry Kewell will probably be considered more notable than Cahill (formerly playing for Liverpool and all that). That being said, soccer is hardly a strong sport for Australia; and our best soccer stars would probably be considered ordinary by world standards. Personally, I am reluctant to consider including any soccer players in the article. —Dark 10:29, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And yes, include Warne and exclude Ponting. —Dark 10:31, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To make things easier I think we should just use the Sport Australia Hall of Fame that is reffed and select from the "legends" class of about 20-odd. Although that doesn't seem to let people in until they are very old. Thorpe is not in the "legends" yet, although Lindrum is. As for possible undue weight on swimming, it is Australia's strongest sport. Been #2 very often in a fully global sport, Cash won one grand slam when many Swimming World Swimmers of the Year were Australian (given that the World #1 often wins 2 or more slams per year), which Cash did not. Leisel Jones, Hackett, Libby Lenton, Klim > Cash, and probably so does Cadel Evans ha ha ha. I think we should ignore AFL, they never win anything for Australia because only half a country plays it, and RL, well three countries play it. YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 00:18, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Valid point, but every state bar Tasmania has a team in the AFL. And AFL is easily the most popular sport in Tasmania and it still hosts 4 games a year so it's not just played in half the country. I know your meaning that in QLD and NSW it isn't very popular but they will soon have four teams between them. Aaroncrick TALK 05:53, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's AFL, 'nuff said :) In the international scale, AFL is not very popular but nor is English billiards. However I am okay with a brief reference to AFL's popularity (heaven forbid), as long as we do not include any AFL players as our stars. On the issue of billiards, the game was popular a few decades back, and Lindrum was the undisputed king of that "sport", therefore I would not oppose the mention. In swimming, Thorpe needs a mention. The Hall of Fame does have quite a bias against recent sportsmen though. In tennis, I would suggest that the Woodies are mentioned. —Dark 08:33, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The legends status seems to have a formal or informal exclusion of people until they are 2 decades old. Thorpey has to be the standout. 4X World Swimmer of the Year in a fully globalised sport. And most Olympic medals ever. As for AFL there are players from NSW/QLD but how many of the top 100 are from there? As for the media, what a joke, for them Travis Cloke is a superstar and Andrew Lauterstein is not. They used to play youth football together. Hauritz is so maligned despite being in the top 15 in the country, yet the 100th best AFL player is a great star. Lol YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 02:34, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • On another note, perhaps it might be worthwhile to expand on Australia's multicultural nature? I'm seeing negligible references here and there about how different cultures play an influence on society, but the points are half formed. The four-line literature paragraph is too short. Music is non-existent. —Dark 10:42, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  1. It all has to be severely rationed; that is the challenge. And naming people means excluding people, so one must be very careful of POV. Let's remember there are daughter articles, so summary style at this highest level is at issue.
  2. Getting rid of flag icons would be a good move. And on that topic, more authority comes from cool understatement, something Australians are not known for, regrettably. Just think: the British have Shakespeare, the Germans have JS Bach, the Russians have Tolstoy, and we've got ... WAAAAAAAARney.
  3. Let us also be vigilant against myth-making. Galipoli, however it's spelt, is interesting and important, but I quail with embarrassment when it's trumpeted as a turning point, some great tragedy: 20 million Russians died in WWII. The losses in Turkey were piffling by comparison, and the result of puppy-dogging to the British at that. Tony (talk) 09:35, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay - healthcare text:

Australia introduced Universal health care, known as Medibank, in 1975. Reworked by successive governments, its current incarnation, Medicare came into existence in 1984. It is now nominally funded by an income tax surcharge known as the Medicare levy, currently set at 1.5%.

Question is...where to put it? Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:44, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cas, it seems perfectly worded to me. Nice. Tony (talk) 14:19, 16 April 2010 (UTC) PS, I pay 2.5%. Tony (talk) 14:20, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(sigh) I know it's perfectly worded...question is, where to put it...in economics? Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:04, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh you brilliant thing, you. I think another subsection, "Health system", is required under "Education". One could expand the issue a little ... hospitals, the stupid private health insurance system, aged care: just a brief mention of which level of government does which (at the moment). Surprising there's no daughter article. I'd rather have the subsection on the supernatural industry under all of them. Tony (talk) 16:11, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — Could info on the climate be expanded? Aaroncrick TALK 23:00, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look. was musing on rewording the soil bit too. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:33, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Been thinking about this - in thinking of restricting this to really prominent folks - was leaning on leaving it out really. I suspect scientists are somewhat less nationalistc than are sportspeople (?) Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:55, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, you're research, content and prose are still needed sir! YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 02:59, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
groan - I know. Not too far now but still some stuff to do. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:51, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — Would a brief mention of Alec Campbell — our last surviving Australian participant of the Gallipoli campaign — be notable enough? And he was of course born in Launceston, Tasmania :) Seriously, he was also part of Australian Legends — commemorative postage stamps issued by Australia Post. Aaroncrick TALK 03:05, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Given the size of the article, I'd be inclined to leave it out. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:00, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article is okay. --Oei888 (talk) 00:48, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See Oei888 contribs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:35, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: Skimmed through the article. Some repetitiveness with words in the Demography section, a sample: "The Indigenous population—mainland Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders—was counted at 410,003 (2.2% of the total population) in 2001, a significant increase from the 1976 census, which counted an Indigenous population of 115,953." Maybe it could be rephrased so the subject isn't mentioned twice and another verb used to avoid repetition.

It's a short compact country article and follows the 100k recommended, but it may be lacking in detail. Australia is mentioned as an ally of the United States and also interested in Asia but there is no mention of the Korean War or the Vietnam War or SEATO. Perhaps ultimately they weren't important to Australians and don't need to be included but the absence is interesting. Also according to the article "Although agriculture and natural resources account for only 3% and 5% of GDP respectively, they contribute substantially to export performance." Then what represents the bulk of GDP? With the two pictures on the economy related to natural resources and exports, undue weight is possibly being put on those facets of the economy. Lambanog (talk) 16:38, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I reduced the sentence you pointed out. The Vietnam War was prominent, moreso than the Korean War or SEATO. Need to read up on my Australian export notes. BTW Agriculture/farming is strongly part of the Australian psyche, so is not all about fiscal input. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:10, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree about the overlinking. Most general words currently linked as of today are somewhat easter egg-y but valid. e.g. 'desert' links to Deserts of Australia and many similar. Agree about referencing needing an overhaul though. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:34, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The two Sandy specified were overlinks, IMO, and I removed them. I found very few items to unlink apart from these. Tony (talk) 06:18, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gentlemen, how is work on this progressing? I see that work has been happening on the article, but periodic updates here on the review page would be nice. It would also be great to get to a point where we can start to bring in some outside reviewers to start the finishing polish. Dana boomer (talk) 00:52, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I find these big ones really heavy going. I do feel we owe core encyclopedia articles like this one and Canada extra time to keep them featured though. I'll try and help some more. I do think it is not far off a keep. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:14, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Especially true for vital articles like this one. Very hard to get it right. --mav (reviews needed) 01:06, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
State of play deep into injury/stoppage time.....Okay, there are no cite needed tags left. The article is densely sprinkled with references except for paragraph 4 of Geography and climate section. As far as I know, all requests for further information on comprehensiveness grounds have been addressed to this point. The prose could proably do with some tweaking but I doubt any drop-dead clangers remain.
Needs a copyedit YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 04:22, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I find that less monotonous than hunting refs, so will have a play with the prose. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:47, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Australian cities rank among the world's highest in terms of cultural offerings"—what, rugby league is a cultural offering? It's not something I'd be harping on about right up there in the lead—Western European readers might be perplexed, or misled. "It" refers to "quality of life? Ah, no, "Australia".
I removed it as it is rather nebulous. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:53, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm a bit wobbly about this claim: "[Brown's] book was not instrumental in the adoption of the name [Australia]: the name came gradually to be accepted over the following ten years.[25]" Now, ref tag 25 leads to "Estensen, p. 450", but am I missing something? Estensen's book, article, whatever it is, can be found nowhere in the bibliography. How reliable is it, anyway? To claim that the name "Australia" was "gradually accepted", unlike a negative claim, needs greater justification, I think. Interesting issue, isn't it, so does anyone have access to Estensen? On the prose quality, we have "the name: the name"; and "over the following ten years" since what year? I'm confused.
  • "...and on 12 December 1817 recommended to the Colonial Office that it be formally adopted.[26] In 1824, the Admiralty agreed that the continent should be known officially as Australia.[27]" It's odd that we have a date for the recommendation but just a year for the official acceptance (seven years later!); but we can live with that. What does make me uncomfortable is that ref tag 26 leads to Weekend Australian, 30–31 December 2000, p. 16" (wasn't it "The Weekend Australian"?). This is the supplement the journalists to used to refer to as "the colour comic"; oh they can be cynical, can't they. Anyone got a copy so we can see what their sources were? Presumably, the acceptance year wasn't mentioned in that source, but only in the federal Dept. of Immigration's source. Sorry to be fussy, but I'm just trying to get my head around the whole thing.
  • "Human habitation of Australia is estimated to have begun between 42,000 and 48,000 years ago,..."—the ref tag is to "Gillespie, Richard (2002), "Dating the First Australians". pp. 455–72. http://www-personal.une.edu.au/~pbrown3/Gillespie02.pdf." Hasn't there been an update of this estimate in the past eight years, based on (i) genetic analysis, and/or (ii) more accurate estimates of the land-bridge window? The daughter article says "The consensus among scholars for the arrival of humans of Australia is placed at 40,000 to 50,000 years ago, but possibly as early as 70,000 years ago.[1][2]", with [1] a source from 2008 and [2] from 1998—presumably both sources came to the same conclusion, the same ranges?
  • "The Torres Strait Islanders, ethnically Melanesian, were originally horticulturalists and hunter-gatherers." Wow, this is a striking claim that may well be true: a clear distinction is made between the aboriginal people (not horticulturalists) and the Torres Strait Islanders (horticulturalists), by implication. "Originally", I presume, means on their arrival in the TSIs around 42,000–48,000 years ago. Is this true? It's hard to believe they grew crops then. BTW, the daughter article makes not one mention of TSIslanders. There is no mention of horticulture in the daughter article of the daughter article. BTW, there's a very iffy Timeline_of_Australian_history. Tony (talk) 14:51, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OMG Tony you're such a killjoy. I did read Guns, Germs, and Steel recently, and I think the conservative estimate comes out looking okay. The evidence for earlier is tenuous I think (?? - damn I wish I still had the book!) Yeah, teh TSI bit bugged me too and would be good to get right. (sigh) off to work....Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:49, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — The is used quite often in the lead and begins to become annoying. For the population figure in the lead, we should at least say when the figure was released. Also the more specific figure in the infobox could cause some confusion. Aaroncrick TALK 03:20, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I removed a couple of them. Hard when many thingies use it in their names (eg The Pacific...) Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:28, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, I feel climate needs explaining further. What about the comparisons in weather between northern Australia and Tasmania? The difference in humidity and how the northern cities gets a lot more rain than the southern capitals, ie Adelaide, Melbourne and Hobart. Aaroncrick TALK 03:16, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Added a bit - feel free to add some more from the BoM page, but remember this is a general oz page so there is a daughter climate article to deal with it in more detail. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:21, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's good, thanks. Aaroncrick TALK 07:44, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This really is getting stale, and I think we're approaching crunch time. Could we write out a list of issues that need to be dealt with? Then I will volunteer to leave messages at the WikiProject, the talk page, etc, saying that it's going down the gurgler unless there's action. Tony (talk) 14:15, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tony could you perhaps have another run through the prose? Aaroncrick TALK 07:44, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What would be great is if everyone could strike off issues they feel have been addressed. I have some material to look at again to look at some prehistory issues - Aaron are you happy with climate now? Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:48, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to have a look tonight. I'm surprised that some of the regular editors at this article vanished as soon as the review process began. Tony (talk) 04:59, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just looked at the lead, Ety and History. They're in good shape. Just one thing: "The final constitutional ties between Australia and the UK were severed with the passing of the Australia Act 1986, ending any British role in the government of the Australian States, and closing the option of judicial appeals to the Privy Council in London." Didn't the Act end the British role in the federal government of Australia, too? Tony (talk) 05:20, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Closing note - This article has been at FAR for three and a half months. No delist votes have been presented during the (long) FARC stage, and extensive work has been completed on the article. As such, the default close is to keep. If any editor disagrees with this, they are invited to bring further problems up on the article talk page and, if needed, renominate the article at FAR in no less than three months time. Dana boomer (talk) 17:32, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was kept by Dana boomer 17:29, 29 June 2010 [3].

Fundamental Rights, Directive Principles and Fundamental Duties of India edit

Review commentary edit

Notified: Shreshth91, Rama's Arrow (not notified as no longer active and cannot edit talk page), WikiProject India, WikiProject Politics

I am nominating this featured article for review because of the following concerns.

Use of primary sources. The vast majority of footnotes in the article send us to primary sources, mainly provisions of the Indian Constitution or amending legislation. Plainly, these are primary sources. Per WP:PRIMARY:

(1) "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources". "Primary sources are permitted if used carefully", but should not form the basis of an article's sourcing.
(2) "All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors".

Number (2) is the real problem here. The way that the article uses the primary sources involves analysis, interpretation and synthesis. One example:

The ten Fundamental Duties—given in Article 51-A of the constitution—can be classified as either duties towards self, duties concerning the environment, duties towards the State and duties towards the nation.

This statement is sourced to Constitution of India-Part IVA Fundamental Duties. Other than being a dead link (the Indian Constitution is downloadable here), the source is obviously a set of Constitutional provisions that make up Part IVA of the Constitution. The claim that the duties listed in Article 51-A can be classified into categories is obviously original research. Article 51-A certainly doesn't categorise the duties that it confers in the way that the article says. This kind of analysis requires a secondary source. This is one example among 60 or so instances of the use of primary sources.

Quality of sources. Other than the issues raised above, some of the secondary sources used are of questionable quality. Footnote 43 takes us to a secondary school textbook and another secondary school text is cited in the "References" section.

Comprehensiveness of use of literature. The article does not appear to use the full range of secondary source material that could be used for the article. I would have thought that this book, which has a large chapter on fundamental rights, would be a useful source. As would this chapter (admittedly written after this article was an FAC).

Verifiability. Some parts of the article hang out without any sourcing at all, and they do not appear to be uncontroversial statements, eg:

When a national or state emergency is declared, this right [to constitutional remedies] is suspended by the central government. How? Do they have a legal basis to suspend the right, and if so, where is that basis provided?
Efforts to implement the Directive Principles include the Programme for the Universalisation of Elementary Education and the Five-Year Plans have accorded the highest priority in order to provide free education to all children up to the age of 14.
A ruling by the Supreme Court on 15 December 1995 upheld the validity of such awards [honorary titles].
This entire paragraph: These include individual rights common to most liberal democracies, incorporated in the fundamental law of the land and are enforceable in a court of law. Violations of these rights result in punishments as prescribed in the Indian Penal Code, subject to discretion of the judiciary. These rights are neither absolute nor immune from constitutional amendments. They have been aimed at overturning the inequalities of pre-independence social practises. Specifically, they resulted in abolishment of untouchability and prohibit discrimination on the grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth. They forbid human trafficking and unfree labour. They protect cultural and educational rights of ethnic and religious minorities by allowing them to preserve their languages and administer their own educational institutions.

--Mkativerata (talk) 20:27, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing out these concerns. I've added two reliable secondary sources to the list of references, and removed the textbooks as well as a circular reference to Wikipedia. I'll continue weeding out unreliable sources and try and replace most of the over-reliance on primary sources with citations to secondary sources. Specific responses to other concerns will be posted here as they are addressed. (BTW, the broken ink is the result of a typo - the page is viewable here.) Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 17:38, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - There are two dabs and two dead links in the article. GamerPro64 (talk) 13:37, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary edit

Featured article criterion of concern are sourcing and original research. YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 06:38, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All concerns specifically mentioned above have been addressed. Please point out any further changes required to be made to the article, and any concerns that remain. Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 16:19, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the note - now that you've finished this (enormous) piece of work I'll go through it over the next few days. It would be fantastic if this is a save. --Mkativerata (talk) 18:41, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Obviously the concerns above have been addressed by an almost total re-write of the article which deserves a massive shiny barnstar. I have only one lingering concern which is whether the full range of possible sources have been used - the article now relies almost entirely on three books by two authors. I would appreciate any input from others on the extent to which this remains an issue, as I'm well aware that comprehensive use of literature is an important FA criteria. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:51, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The issues that prompted this FAR have been addressed, and I think the article now meets the FA criteria. Malleus Fatuorum 14:38, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was kept by Dana boomer 02:22, 23 June 2010 [4].

Roy of the Rovers edit

Notified: Seb Patrick, ChrisTheDude, North wales cestrian, DreamGuy, Tpbradbury, WikiProject Football, WikiProject Comics, Today's featured article/requests

On Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests, Roy of the Rovers was discussed as a possible Main Page article for the end of the 2010 World Cup; however, the article needs cleanup before it should make that appearance. Specifically, I have the following FA criteria concerns:

  • Criteria 1B: Comprehensiveness
    While the lead says that Roy of the Rovers "was the most popular [football comic] ever produced, with an estimated one million readers at the height of its popularity in the late 1970s and early 1980s. As such, it holds a unique place in British football folklore, demonstrated most clearly by the stock media phrase 'real Roy of the Rovers stuff'...", there is no greater discussion of the cultural impact of Roy of the Rovers in the UK except in passing.
  • Criteria 1C: Well-researched
    Whole sections have no citations, including the "Regular features" section. There are multiple [citation needed] and {{refimprove}} tags present. The vast majority of the citations present are to newspapers or the strip's own website, making it questionable if the article content is supported by high-quality reliable sources as required.
  • Criteria 2C: Consistent citations
    The citations are not formatted consistently. The interweaving of footnotes with references makes it difficult to tell when reading the article what statements are backed by references and which aren't, but I don't believe the FA criteria require the footnotes and references to be separated.
  • Criteria 3: Images
    There are five fair-use images of the article. This may be considered excessive fair-use and should be reviewed.

Thank you for your attention. –Grondemar 00:42, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly I'd have to say this article doesn't currently meet the criteria for FA. Supporting 1c above, in fact there are a significant number of other assertions in the article that haven't been flagged for citation but should be. In the first section alone - "Football-themed stories were a staple of British comics from the 1950s onwards" (we know that's true, but ...) "In February 2007, it was announced that a group of fans had obtained the rights to reprint classic strips" "this arrangement came to an end soon afterwards" (raised on the discussion page, but nothing done about it).

Several of the links don't work (#32 for example leads to search results on Channel 4's website for 'Roy'). The plot section weaves in and out of fictional continuity, and once again is without many relevant citations.

Finally, and possibly most significantly, I'm not exactly sure what the article is supposed to be about. If it's about the strip 'Roy of the Rovers', then what is the 'regular features' section in there for? That would only be relevant if the article was about the comic 'Roy of the Rovers'; in which case that section would be relevant, but other sections of the article would not be. Sorry Archiveangel (talk) 11:33, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did a little bit of work on this article waaaaaay back. To be honest I'm not sure the article can be easily brought up to what is now considered FA quality, due mainly to lack of easily-available sources. There's a new hardback book on the history of the character/comic that came out a while ago and would probably have plenty of good content, but I'm not going to buy it just to try and salvage the WP article....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:43, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would be very sad to see this delisted less than two days before the start of the World Cup. I'd rather see it on the main page, if not on the opening day, then on final day. There are clearly problems with the article, but I don't see them as being particularly difficult to fix. Archiveangel pointed out above what is perhaps the article's greatest weakness, its muddy scope. I propose to be bold and fix that by creating a new article about the weekly comic, in which Roy was just one of the features, and often not the featured one. That will have the additional benefit of removing a large section of uncited text. The prose is a little bit breathless in places, and the citations do need to be checked, and probably added to, but I don't see any reason to give up on this too quickly, especially not now. Malleus Fatuorum 20:19, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Malleus Fatuorum has done some sterling work over the last few days and I think has come close to satisfactorily addressing all the points raised above - what do others think......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:41, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Much better now it's more focused, and that should make it easier to improve. But the article is still short of a lot of citations in critical places (first statement in the collected editions section for example), and, as discussed before, is currently in the 'primary sources' trap. I suspect it could be lifted a LOT further if Mick Collins book "Roy of the Rovers: The Unauthorised Biography" was absorbed and sourced. Wish I could help, but I don't have a copy, although it's easily found. The article still falls short, but I think we still need to be non-partisan and not lose sight of the yardstick measures because of the potential World Cup milestone. This could be a great article (it almost makes me wish I read the strip and was interested in football!), there's no rush. Cheers! Archiveangel (talk) 12:23, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you that the sourcing and citations still leave quite a bit to be desired. I'm not so worried about the Plot section though; such sections are commonly very sparsely cited in literature articles, as the story is the source for itself. The glaring omission right now I think is the lack of some kind of Cultural impact (or similarly titled) section; I'll try and knock something up later. I'll see if I can get hold of a copy of Mick Collins's book as well. Malleus Fatuorum 12:46, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll have to bow to much more senior (in Wikipedia terms, not age :-) people on plot. It appears initially getting the plot into secondary or tertiary source is critical to the slow crawl up the scale, but, the better the article gets, the less the plot belongs - according to how things work; which I still have much trouble with as a concept - after all, what Roy did and when is probably as important to some as his historical/sociological importance, and the balance between an article which shows the historical background etc. and his 'history' may not work between what the searching public wants as compared to what the article requires under the rules. Put basically, if I look up 'Roy of the Rovers', its probably because I want to see what its about, a bit of the sociological background, but mostly what happened, why and when (both in-chronology and in real-life publishing).
Perhaps a case of Wikipedia should supply what people want, not what Wikipedia thinks people should want, perhaps not. Possibly the usual problem of committee-based decisions, partly a defense against pure anarchy. However, as a result, you have to realise the drive to some sort of common ground rules, to avoid the anarchic mess that many articles are. The beauty is when it all drives in one direction and 'something happens' - just look at this article in such a short time. Despite all that, sometimes its just got to be worth putting a useful article up that's simply worthwhile because it hasn't been covered yet and should be, even if it can't get those benchmarks right now. Better something that can be worked on than nothing. Keep on keeping on Cheers! Archiveangel (talk) 15:52, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Linking: why is "helicopter" linked? And "retconn" is linked, but should we have to divert to learn what its basic meaning is? I see a spaced em dash. "Father and Son"—should S be used? "one-another" hyphenated? "struck towards goal" ... no "the", or is this in-house lingo? The prose generally needs improvement. Tony (talk) 14:51, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
well in theory everything linkable should be linked - the idea is think encyclopaedia: anything explained somewhere else should be linked to that article (mind you, taken to extreme that could just be madness). If there's an article about helicopters, link it, if there's one about retconn, link it. Assume nothing in the way of understanding (ever played the 'describe to someone alien how to wash your hands' game? Drives people mad, although it's lovely to see the light go when people get the insight to how people think). As for general grammatical or spelling errors, just change them. Nobody's offended. Ditto with general prose. Though sometimes it's best to wait until the article's thrashed out, instead of a constant bit here and bit there which may get lost in later changes. Cheers! Archiveangel (talk) 15:52, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tony1's view, and one I agree with, is that only "high-value" links should be included, not everything that could possibly be linked. In the unlikely event that someone doesn't know what a helicopter is, they can easily find out simply by searching for it. The example Tony drew attention to before though, "retconn", is a case where a reader might reasonably want to know a little bit more about retroactive continuity, as a technique employed by the writers of the later strips. Malleus Fatuorum 17:04, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – I remember reading this article a while back and feeling so concerned about its state that I seriously considered nominating it here myself. What has happened here is a more stunning turnaround than U.S.–Slovenia. A lot of great, great work has clearly been done. The citations in particular have really been improved. Most of the areas without them relate to the plot, and as Malleus says cites aren't strictly needed there. I did notice two remaining areas that could use references. First, the part in the second paragraph that says the monthly version had sluggish sales, and second, a paragraph in Spin-offs and merchandise (though I guess you could argue that shirts source themselves too). Overall, I'm not convinced that this one even needs to go to FARC. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 15:30, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The remark about the "sluggish sales" was really to do with Shoot magazine, not about the Roy of the Rovers comic strip, so I've removed it. The shirts is a problem though, because the only source is the web site where they can be bought. Malleus Fatuorum 22:53, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I believe that I've dealt with all of the issues that quite understandably led Grondemar to initiate this review. If there are any remaining issues, then I'll be happy to try and tackle them as well. Malleus Fatuorum 22:57, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree that all of my concerns above have been addressed, except for a couple of places where I feel an additional citation would be helpful. I added [citation needed] tags to indicate the places. Excellent job fixing this article, and I will be happy to see it on the Main Page on the day of the World Cup final! –Grondemar 00:21, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've removed one tag, because isbns are given later in the article, but I'll try to address your other two tomorrow. Thanks for taking another look. Malleus Fatuorum 00:27, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Requested citations added. Malleus Fatuorum 17:03, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Perfect, thanks! In my opinion we can go ahead and close without FARC. –Grondemar 17:34, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was kept by Dana boomer 02:22, 23 June 2010 [5].

Canberra edit

Review commentary edit

Notified: Australia notice board, WP Canberra, WP Cities, User talk:Arno, User talk:PDH, User talk:YellowMonkey. -- Cirt (talk) 16:10, 5 May 2010 (UTC) [reply]

FA from 2005, the article has 1c issues throughout the page. It could use a bit of copyediting to address flow, and also problems of short paragraphs scattered in the article. There are twenty-seven images used in this article - these could use an image review for each. It probably might make some sense to trim some of these images to not have so many included on the page. -- Cirt (talk) 16:10, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments:
    • there are a few citation needed tags;
    • in the Urban Structure section there are a number of paragraphs without a citation at all;
    • some of the citations are just bare url chains which should be formatted;
    • some of the web citations are lacking access dates;
    • citation # 55 is a dead link;
    • the headings in the References section should be capitalised per Wikipedia:MOSCAPS#Composition titles. — AustralianRupert (talk) 09:01, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments Yellowmonkey has asked that I comment on this article. I think that it's in very good shape, and my only comments are:
    • It's over-stating things a bit to say that the "federal government moved to Canberra on 9 May 1927" - although the parliament moved to Canberra at this time, most government departments remained in Melbourne until well after World War II, with some departments not completing their move to Canberra until the 1980s! (this is identified in the next para)\
Yes! YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 04:24, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • It should be noted that only a relatively small part of modern Canberra was designed by Burley Griffin - statements such as "Canberra is a planned city that was originally designed by Walter Burley Griffin, a major 20th century American architect" overstate his influence on the city's overall layout
Need to change it so mean the inner-city centre, as the recent sprawl has nothing to do with him. Good catch YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 04:24, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • There was way too much information about Canberra's railroad history, which is a subject of little importance to the city given that it's never had more than a single train station and some temporary lines built only to move construction material around - I've trimmed this Nick-D (talk) 04:13, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary edit

Featured article criteria of concern brought up in the FAR section include referencing, reference formatting, copyediting and image concerns. Dana boomer (talk) 20:46, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was kept by Dana boomer 11:20, 10 June 2010 [6].

Halkett boat edit

Notified: Sadads, Nev1, Malleus Fatuorum, Ranger Steve, Iridescent, Hamiltonstone, Parrot of Doom, Johnbod, WikiProject Rowing, WikiProject Sailing, WikiProject Arctic

I am nominating this featured article for review because it strays far off the topic of the boat itself, and of any demonstrated special effect the boat had, but becomes a general history of the inventor and expeditions that (by chance) used the boat.

It has loose, informal, unattested language such as, "long been interested in the difficulties", "widely praised", "would serve any useful purpose" that amounts to essay original research.

The article caught my eye yesterday because it starts with a misconception that led me to suspect that the editors did not have experience with the subject, but were simply involved in synthesis. (Halkett's claims about the use of his boat as a cloak and an umbrella would not seem unusual to someone who has traveled in the wilderness in a small boat.)

The article was nominated by the editor who started it. Within five days editors who had had major involvement writing the article submitted it for Featured Article status, and then voted that they themselves had done an excellent job. This is inappropriate.

To fix the article, the off-topic content should be deleted, and the personal original speculation removed.

Truly, Piano non troppo (talk) 09:11, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reading the instructions above, I find these words: "Nominators ... should not nominate articles that are featured on the main page (or have been featured there in the previous three days)... . 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." Is there any reason why neither of these instructions should apply to this nomination? BencherliteTalk 09:40, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The FA nomination process happened in five days, and was voted into FA status by the editors who wrote it. This seems improper. Giving the article a grace period of months seems inappropriate. The problem is current. (The article was not called to my attention on account of its FA status, but because it displayed in MWT anti-vandalism. I did the same evaluation on it that I would do on any article.) Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 09:46, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I supported the article, and the extent to which I "wrote it" is limited to this single edit. I first saw the article from FAC and have not changed my mind in the last two weeks or so. Johnbod (talk) 10:02, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(e/c) OK, let's look at that allegation more closely, shall we? The main author and nominator was Iridescent. Parrot of Doom made four very minor changes and supported; PoD did not edit the article sufficiently to be disqualified from supporting it. Malleus made a number of minor copy-editing changes, as he often does on request before or during an FAC. I would not have thought that would have disqualified him from supporting. Hamiltonstone added one sentence based on the discussion at FAC; again, not disqualifying. Jappalang supported, and has never edited the article; the same goes for AnOddName. Johnbod supported, and added a category - are you seriously saying that this disqualifies him from supporting? To me, it looks as though the only major contributor of content was Iridescent, with polishing from Malleus. By far the majority of the supporters were editors with no disqualifying interest in the article's creation or promotion, some of whom I know without having to look it up are experienced FA writers themselves. So would you care to rephrase your allegation? BencherliteTalk 10:07, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dismiss. Absurd accusations. FAC was not rigged and article would seem to be of FA quality, and have yet to see any detailed and nopn-vague accusations against the article. Skinny87 (talk) 10:43, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I stand by my partial support, and reiterate my FAC comments, less the bulleted ones (they were either dealt with by other editors or answered to my satisfaction by Iridescent, and were minor anyway). I'm not convinced the parts about the boats' creator and their real-world use are "off the topic of the boat itself". On the contrary, an article on, say, a film or anime series would probably need info about its development (inspirations, technical info, people involved, ...), sales, and critical reception to even be on WP, let alone featured. Because the article touches on (analogues of) all of those aspects—as I think it should—I feel wiser about what inspired the boats and their maker, as well as whether people actually gave a shit about the boats back then (and they clearly did). --an odd name 11:04, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I’m afraid I don’t understand this FAR nom. The article is well written, well sourced and well illustrated. I don’t see where “it strays far off the topic of the boat itself, and of any demonstrated special effect the boat had, but becomes a general history of the inventor and expeditions that (by chance) used the boat”. The article combines as much supporting information about the use of the boat as I would expect in any article. How is including details and opinions of the explorers who used it “straying”? How are they not detailing the boat itself?
The “loose, informal, unattested language” is all sourced and makes perfect sense to me. “Long been interested in the difficulties…” is a referenced statement and doesn’t seem unusual for someone who used to live in Canada. “Widely praised” seems to be supported by the opinions and comments of 4 explorers notable enough to have their own articles. “Would serve any useful purpose” is again supported by a reference. Sorry Piano, but can you clarify exactly what your problem with this language actually is? Nor do I understand what you’re saying in your 3rd paragraph – can you please clarify the misconception, because I’m afraid I really don’t follow it.
In my personal opinion Iridescent has done a fine job of compiling probably all the information there is about an obscure, unknown subject in a good (nay, featured) article. The talk page mentions the lack of a photo of the surviving boat – the one easily accessible image is copyrighted and shows that the actual boat isn’t worth going to any trouble to get a free use one of (it looks like a raisin!). Cheers, Ranger Steve (talk) 11:29, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was kept by Dana boomer 16:13, 5 June 2010 [7].

History of the Australian Capital Territory edit

Review commentary edit

Notified:
Top 5 users in edit count: PDH, Martyman, YellowMonkey, Chrisfromcanberra, CJLL Wright;
WikiProjects: Australia, Canberra, Australian history, Politics

I am submitting the above featured article (orginally promoted in 2005) for review as I believe it falls short of the current featured article criteria. Specifically, I am concerned about the following potential deficiencies:

  • Criteria 1B: Comprehensiveness
    • Article seems largely comprehensive; however it has no information past about 2003. Did nothing notable happen in the ACT since 2003?
  • Criteria 1C: Well-researched
    • Large number of [citation needed] tags, some added by me in places I thought appropriate to add citations, but in other locations in place since 2008. 47 total citation tags in the article.
    • Also, 5 of the 12 general references, along with several of the websites, are apparently published by the Australian government (Australian Government Publishing Service or Australian Bureau of Statistics). Does this possibly create a WP:NPOV issue? Concur that this specific concern is addressed; however User:Fifelfoo does raise good concerns regarding overall coverage and article scope below. –Grondemar 04:19, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Criteria 2C: Consistent citations
    • Citations are not consistent in the general references.
    • Additionally, three general references are written by "Fitzgerald"; however, the detailed (referred to on the article as the cited) references list page numbers against "Fitzgerald", making it impossible to determine which of the three books is being cited. Concur this is addressed, User:YellowMonkey moved two of the three Fitzgerald references to a "Further Reading" section, eliminating the ambiguity. –Grondemar 04:23, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Criteria 3: Images
    • All images are tagged as freely licensed. However, when I initially reviewed the article they all lacked alt text. I took a stab at providing the alt text, but would appreciate an independent review of my efforts to ensure I did it right.

Thank you for your attention. –Grondemar 04:29, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing particularly notable since 2003, no. This shouldn't be terribly surprising in an article covering a period of more than a century. And - seriously, claiming that the use of government sources in a history article is an NPOV issue? Now I've seriously heard it all. The citations need fixing nonetheless, however. Rebecca (talk) 05:08, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The books I used that were printed by AGPS had the disclaimer that although the govt paid and commissioned the works for the 1988 bicentenary of Australia, the folks were free to do what they want and the books don't represent govt policy. They were by uni academics or PhD thesis adaptations, so I don't think they would have wanted to stuff up their career by disguising a govt mouthpiece. Also the Australian Broadcasting Corporation should be fine, like the BBC, and the Australian Bureau of Statistics is just the census, which hasn't been accused of rigging stats. Luckily Australia doesn't have govt propaganda in teh news, and the ABC is usually govt-sceptic; govts (Labor or Liberal) often denounce them. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 06:36, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I didn't realize the nature of the AGPS publications. I struck that concern above. Thanks. –Grondemar 04:19, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For comprehensiveness, the 20 yr anniv news feature I added mentions the civil unions law that got overruled by the federal govt and some school funding cuts. It may be similar to the feds overturning Euthanasia in 1995 in the Northern Territory. I don't follow LGBT stuff at all, so am waiting for someone who does to say something, because lots of AWNB people do pay attention to that stuff. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 06:36, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If we're going to add anything past 2003, those two issues are probably the two things I'd choose. The euthanasia comparison is apt on civil unions, and the school closures (and accompanying cuts to practically every other government service) was a genuinely massive local issue. Rebecca (talk) 07:37, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Contradiction? The 20 yr anniv piece says Labor had 4 seats in 1989 and a majority in 2001 and 2004. Antony Green's ABC election site, also cited, says they had 5 in 1989 and a majority of 9 in only 2004 YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 06:36, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strangely, they're both wrong. Labor had six seats in 1989; it was the Liberals who won four. Green is right on the majority question though; the 2004-2008 term is the only term of the ACT parliament to ever have had majority government. 2001-2004 was a minority with the Democrats and independents. Rebecca (talk) 07:37, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The text on both maps is ridiculously tiny. Can the text be boosted? The captions are not well written. The pic of the Senators needs to be larger, as does the naming of Canberra and others: perhaps 240px? Tony (talk) 11:42, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I enlarged the non-map pictures to 240px, and the maps to 480px so the text was readable. Let me know if this is too big. I also rewrote some of the image captions; please review. –Grondemar 05:14, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've dug up some sources which should help with the comprehensiveness issues. In the meantime, though, I'm starting work on the boring stuff: I'll try and get the references in a consistent format, per above. :) - Bilby (talk) 14:25, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Moved down, since it's stalled. I'd like to think I'm not being corrupt and doing jobs for the boys YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 00:46, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough - the new semester's been limiting my time, but I'll be continuing work on referencing. I'm feeling ok about this one, given time. :) - Bilby (talk) 03:59, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Switched the harvard for you. Good ol Find and Replace YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 05:43, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary edit

Featured article criterion of concern are referencing, comprehensiveness, images YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 00:46, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How is work progressing on this? Do the working editors feel that enough progress has been made for reviews and keep/delist declarations to start? Dana boomer (talk) 16:07, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bilby has always saved every FA he signed up for: Shrine of Remembrance, Waterfall Gully, South Australia, Dietrich v The Queen, Cane toad, so I don't think waiting a bit more will go astray. YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 00:35, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Work seems to have stalled for the past couple of weeks, so I'm just checking in again. It would be great if Bilby could post here with an update on where he feels the article to be. Dana boomer (talk) 20:32, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've finished with the reading - today I'll be able to clean up the missing references, now that research is out of the way. There should be some nice progress by tomorrow. - Bilby (talk) 21:06, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry - an emergency bit of coding kept me busy. I've freed up tomorrow, though - I would like to see most of this done by the end of the week. Things tend to go quickly once I've got the research phase done. - Bilby (talk) 15:02, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Everything that was marked as unreferenced, or which I identified as needing one, has been referenced. There's a couple of areas where it probably should be expanded a tad, and I'll see what I can do to fix them over the next day or two. - Bilby (talk) 09:28, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I thought you were going to expand it massively with all those books you dug up. Did you read a lot for not much gain? :( YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 09:31, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Still doing that. First problem is to make sure that there are sources for everything, as sourcing someone else's stuff is so much harder than writing your own. Three major areas of concern are the establishment of the location, the relationships with the indigenous population, and the law stuff. Location I'll make a shot at tonight, relying mostly on Birtles as the best academic source I could find. Indigenous population issues are a tad harder due to some discrepancies between works: hard to know if they represent recent research or changing sensibilities, so I'm hoping to have that clarified. Law stuff is easy, just dull. - Bilby (talk) 09:41, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As far as sourcing other people's stuff, depends on if the article follows or is a neat subset of any standard book. For this article, and Lake Burley Griffin and Canberra, the history didn't seem to match up anyway and the books were not written chronologically. The part of this article that I did took ages, but for Flag of Australia and Tom Playford it only took about 5-6 hours as they all matched Kwan and Cockburn quite seamlessly YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 07:33, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to be stuck on a boat somewhere of the coast for a few days, so I've taken a copy of the page and the readings. I should have most of this done by the time i return, but won't have internet access in between. - Bilby (talk) 21:20, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bilby, I see you're back and editing. How is work going on this article? It's the second longest running FAR, so it would be nice to be able to get some reviewer's eyes on it. Dana boomer (talk) 23:41, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've finished expanding the section on the selection of the site for the ACT - that was my major concern, as it seemed that this was one of the most important topics. I've got a couple of sections to do today, then I'll sit down and go through the remaining issues raised on talk. It should be getting close, though. - Bilby (talk) 23:56, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
YellowMonkey has been teaching me about that. :) I'll take care of it today. - Bilby (talk) 22:53, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Bilby, how is this coming? This is the longest running FAR at over 3.5 months - it would be really nice to be able to tell some reviewers that the article is ready to look at. The last serious work was over a week and a half ago... Dana boomer (talk) 02:18, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Uni started again, so I had to get my lectures ready. :) I've expanded most of the sections that need it. I've identified the last section that I believe needs work, and I've read through the papers related to that. Normally I let that sit for a few days after reading to make sure that I'm not overly affected by the wording in the sources, then I try and get that down. I've got a bit of time today, so I'll get back into it now, and we should have that done. This should allow it to be ready for more review, as my main concern is comprehensiveness, and this should finish that off. - Bilby (talk) 02:40, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have done a bit of work on the article, including adding some omitted facts and refs that i think are significant. I see two things that need to be fixed for this to be OK to close, a minor one and a more major (but editorial) one:
  • Someone added a source "Wettenhall 2009" but didn't put it in the biblio and I have no idea what it is. This needs tracking down.
  • That was me. I'll add it when I get home. - Bilby (talk) 03:59, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The section "Resumption and disenfranchisement" is given seriously undue weight and is overwhelmingly based on a single article in a local historical journal, and what appears to be an unreliable webpage. It needs to be slashed, probably to about a para. I'm willing to have a go, but just flagging it in case it causes protests. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:08, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have done the second point - but someone else will have to try and resolve the first - i have been unsuccessful. But generally I think this is now a keep. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:23, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • That section was to address the concern raised in regard to FAR that there was insufficient discussion given to what happened to the people who were there prior to the formation of the ACT. That said, having it shorter works for me. :) - Bilby (talk) 03:59, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unimpressive, to say the least.

  • Why is "Australia" linked a quarter of a second after "Australian Capital Territory". Should a link be bolded?
  • The link piped to "administrative division" leads somewhere underwhelming that is also tagged as low quality.
  • This is the FAR for History of hte ACT, not the whole encyclopedia. I may be unfortunate that that article is dodgy, but that's life. hamiltonstone (talk) 04:08, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1908, the region was cast into the national consciousness when it was selected as the site of the nation's future capital city."—the national consciousness is a little precious, isn't it?
  • "Pipe to "federal government" rather than "Government of Australia", yes? Isn't that clearer after federation was announced in the opening sentence? Comma before "and". Bin "also". Oh "Commonwealth" should not be used for an international readership, which will confuse it with the British Commonwealth, alive and well at the time. What does "It" refer to? A with + noun + -ing clumsiness. The last "Australian" in the lead ... we've seen that word enough, so remove it as redundant.
  • appears to have been dealt with, or i can't find the spot being referred to. hamiltonstone (talk) 04:21, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The city of Canberra developed and expanded to accommodate the Australian federal government, while the surrounding area has been developed to support the city,". A second before it's just "Canberra". Mixed tenses. Developed twice. City twice. This is a bombsite.
  • Why not round off the lead by saying that "with the Northern Territory, it has become one of the eight second-level jurisdictions in Australia, along with the six states"? Not quite "autonomous"—the federal parliament can veto ACT legislation in a way that it can't veto state legislation. Needs pointing out that the ACT was given a full Westminster parliamentary system (way over the top, but there you are). And we need to be told that previously it was administered by the federal parliament both directly and through a local government entity.
  • The map: yes, it would have been better to enlarge the text and keep the px width a bit smaller: it's larger than life now, and the text on my display is squashed to about two words a line. At the very least, "center" it in the syntax and start the text under it. The second map has similar problems.
  • Either you have the smallest monitor known to computer kind, or i don't know what you're referring to. hamiltonstone (talk) 04:21, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "km²" links to "square metre": oh dear. And shouldn't it be converted for US, Burmese and Liberian readers? WP:LINK says not to link. And then "kilometres" is spelled out. Then I see miles converted into km: other way around, please (unless a quotation).
  • Have delinked - don't know how to do coversions. Tony can you help? hamiltonstone (talk) 04:21, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refer to as "the Territory", or why not "the ACT", rather than rehearsing the full thing?
  • "Further south into the area that is now a part of the Namadgi National Park." Is that a sentence? And "into" is presumptuous of motion. Stubby sentence structure in places.
  • I think this is fixed. Sentence reads "Settlers moved further south into what is now the Namadgi National Park." I thinnk the "presumption of motion" is fine in this context, if not to everyone's taste. hamiltonstone (talk) 04:24, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "establishing Australia as a major global wheat producer"—global is a bit pufffy (no sales to Mongolia, I'm sure); surely "a major wheat exporter"?
  • ?? Seems fine to me. No-one would translate "global" as meaning "Every single country". And producer isn't the same thing as exporter.
  • NSW government, which I like, but earlier "Government of NSW" with G. Australians don't usually use the "of" terms, do they? Perhaps WP articles are named such for international consistency, but I'd pipe where linked.
  • My word search didn't turn this up, so i htink it's fixed. hamiltonstone (talk) 04:27, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • A few of those old pics: is their res so low that they can't be enlarged a bit?
  • I get confused about this stuff - i thought we weren't suppoesd to 'force' sizes below 300 px or something, and i don't think these should be bigger than that, but i'll take advice. hamiltonstone (talk) 04:29, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a pity. Why aren't these issues being attended to? Where is Rebecca? We quarrel, but she is a good writer. Tony (talk) 12:38, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gentlemen, how is work on this progressing? I see that some work has been progressing on the article, but there has been no response to Tony's comments in the past week. Dana boomer (talk) 00:49, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tony's points are generally valid, but some would seem to have been quicker to fix than to explain here. Rebecca is more-or-less retired, to answer Tony's last question. There's a couple of us tweaking away, but really, i don't see this as a delist. hamiltonstone (talk) 04:08, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, ceding the point to Tony. Just took a complete hatchet to the verbose section "Search for a capital city location". Let's see what others think of it. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:19, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I read/skimmed the whole article. Comprehensiveness, prose, images and referencing now all look up to FA standard. A couple dabs and dead external links need to be fixed though. --mav (reviews needed) 23:19, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep—as the original nominator, all of my concerns have been addressed. In my opinion, this article now meets FA standards. Special thanks to Bilby and Yellowmonkey for all their hard work in improving this article! –Grondemar 03:13, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

Removed status edit

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

The article was removed by YellowAssessmentMonkey 02:33, 30 June 2010 [8].

Genesis (band) edit

Review commentary edit

Notified: User:AreJay, Progressive Rock, WikiProject Musicians, WikiProject Rock music, WikiProject Biography

I am nominating this featured article for review because of the sourcing problems in the article. There are parts of the article that have no references, with one section, "1978–1979: And Then There Were Three", not having any citations at all. GamerPro64 (talk) 19:25, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary edit

Featured article criterion of concern are sourcing. YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 04:22, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist - No comprehensive work has been done on this article since it was nominated. There are still large unsourced areas, including many quotes and statistics, as well as several dead links and in-text external links. Also, I'm concerned if the "high quality sources" criteria is being met, as quite a few web sites of dubious reliability and quality are being used over book- and journal-based sources such as this and this. Dana boomer (talk) 13:32, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist - Per no problems were addressed in my review. GamerPro64 (talk) 13:35, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed by YellowAssessmentMonkey 02:33, 30 June 2010 [9].

Toilets in Japan edit

Review commentary edit

Notified: Yelyos, Chris 73, WP Japan

I am nominating this featured article for review because this is a 2004 FA that had its last review in 2006 and currently tops the FA cleanup list. There are numerous (justified) citation needed tags, as well as other untagged areas that need references. These areas include opinions and statistics that should not be without references. There are also many deadlinks, including some that appear to have been linking to information that was only available online, meaning the sections of the article are now effectively unreferenced. There is also information that appears only tangentially related, such as the (uncited) paragraph on Swiss toilets at the end of the article. A few references need to be combined used the named reference feature (such as 26 and 32) to match the other references that used that feature, and there are a couple of dab links. Dana boomer (talk) 18:12, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary edit

Featured article criterion of concern are sourcing and focus. YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 04:21, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist - Only a pair of bot edits since I nominated the article at FAR. All of the issues I listed still need to be addressed. Dana boomer (talk) 01:43, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I decided to mention this here rather then the talk page. IMHO the article goes into a bit too much detail on the advantages and disadvantages of squat toilets. While some detail is obviously useful, considering squat toilets are hardly unique to Japan a lot of the info isn't either, it probably should be reduced and further summarised (moved to the primary article if it isn't already there) Nil Einne (talk) 23:10, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed by YellowAssessmentMonkey 02:33, 30 June 2010 [10].

SkyTrain (Vancouver) edit

Review commentary edit

Notified: WP Vancouver, WP Canada, WP Trains, User talk:Emarsee

Also notifed User:ThePointblank, as they did some work on the article after a talk page notification several weeks ago. Dana boomer (talk) 15:09, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is the highest listing on Wikipedia:Featured articles/Cleanup listing. Tags indicate dead links and unsourced statements dating from November and December 2009.

  • Intro needs a slight rewrite. It shouldn't begin with a two-sentence paragraph.
  • "The Canada Line's trains are fully automated, but are of a different design than the existing lines' Bombardier-built fleet, and use conventional electric motors rather than Bombardier's linear induction technology." — unsourced
  • "Recently, the entire surveillance system..." — when?
  • Entire "Security" and "Design" sections need copy edit; short paragraphs abound.
  • History section has some [citation needed] tags.
  • Controversy section should probably be renamed, but I can't think of a more neutral name. Aren't we supposed to be avoiding the word "controversy"?
  • "ICTS Mark I fleet" section is almost entirely unsourced.
  • "Bombardier Mark II train fleet" section and "Canada Line train fleet" sections are largely unsourced as well.
  • Wildbot shows two links to broken #sections.
  • Very large number of dead links.

I do not feel that a reversion to the way the article looked at its FA promotion will fix most of the problems, as there are still issues with unsourced content, two-sentence paragraphs and several now-dead references. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 11:41, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please notify relevant users and projects. Dana boomer (talk) 11:45, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 11:48, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They should be listed at the top of the FAR, with links to the talk pages, so that others can verify notifications. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:05, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for making the notifications TPH. I just realized that I saw and commented on the FAR less than five minutes after you posted it, before the notifications appeared in your contributions. Dana boomer (talk) 13:40, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please note two things: dead links are not a reason for delisting (there is a guideline for how to handle dead links), and many FAs were improperly tagged by Mattisse. You should specifically list the problems and check the tags, as they aren't always correct. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:39, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I pointed out two whole sections that have only one source for the entire section. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 13:09, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is it controversial information that actually needs a cite, however? Even FAs don't need to have every sentence referenced - just "where appropriate" according to WP:WIAFA. Perhaps you should read Wikipedia:When to cite, which is the page linked from WIAFA that details the necessary spots for referencing. Dana boomer (talk) 13:40, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, here are a couple sections I have specific issues with:

  • "With the recent fleet expansion of 48 cars to accommodate ridership growth SkyTrain has reconfigured most of the Mark II’s (new and old) into 4-car trains to provide more capacity with the same number of trains (55) at the same headway (108 sec.). With plans for an additional 24 cars at some point (subject to TransLink’s funding capacity), SkyTrain plans to likely further increase the number of 6-car Mark I’s in the overall ripple effect of maximizing the number of cars in service and overall service to SkyTrain passengers." — When is "recent?" "plans to likely further increase" is an awkward split infinitive. "Ripple effect" sentence seems like it needs a cite.
  • "There had been plans as early as the 1950s to build a monorail system, with modernist architect Wells Coates pencilled in to design it; that project was abandoned." — existing [citation needed] tag from before I touched the article; this one seems like it does need a citation
  • "This seat is popular with rail enthusiasts." — Is this even needed?
  • "The system however caused passenger confusion as well as extensive train delays." — Not cited, should be.

I'm sure I'll dig up more. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 14:05, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - to be blunt, not every single sentence needs a citation. More amount of time was spent adding {{fact}} templates to the article than simple removing one or two words to fix the problem. I've looked over the nominators history of FAR and disagree with many of the reasons he chooses including some of the trivial ones here. It also appears that unnecessary excuses are being made to demote this article. Honestly, putting {{when}}, instead of removing the word 'recent' and looking at the very citation for that sentence and putting in the date, that was actually included in the citation template is really, counterproductive in terms of the work it takes to do that there and the come here and report the entire sentence in a quote. The article is informative and well researched. Mkdwtalk 05:00, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This isn't the part where you say "keep"/"delist"/etc. That would be if and when this is moved to FARC. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 16:34, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • If editors feel that the article should be kept, however, they are free to express that here. If a strong consensus is gained that includes uninvolved editors, the article may be kept before moving to FARC. It is true that keep/delist "votes" shouldn't be made in this section, but there is a very thin line between saying "keep" and giving a reason (as above) and saying "This article meets FA criteria and doesn't need to be moved to the FARC section" and that line is occasionally crossed by users inexperienced with FAR/FARC (and is not really a big deal if it is crossed occasionally). Dana boomer (talk) 15:35, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary edit

Featured article criterion of concern is sourcing YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 00:43, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist - nothing going on at the moment, needs more citations. Tom B (talk) 23:31, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed by Dana boomer 01:01, 30 June 2010 [11].

Half-Life 2 edit

Review commentary edit

Notified: Plumbago, Tom Edwards, Rehevkor, Nufy8 and WikiProject Video games
  • The Production Development section contains too much info about Steam. Info about the Steam application itself should be in the Steam article. Info that applies to Steam AND Half-life 2 and not any other games should be moved to the release section. The negative reception should be moved to the Release section. Fails 4. & 2b.
  • There is nothing about all the European players being unable to play the game, despite all the negative coverage it got.[12][13][14] Fails 1c & 1d.
  • The Expansions and modifications section goes in to too much detail and contains info about mods with only primary sources. This relate to the game itself or the engine it is on?. Fails 4.
  • Citations 14, 15, 16 are not complete, and are they reliable? Many citations are missing author names, publish dates and other applicable information, citations are not consistent. Fails 2c.
  • The Half-Life Fallout citations 34 to 41 all just go to the websites front page.(2c)
  • The last sentence of the Narrative section looks like original research. (1c)
  • And for such a notable game which has been released on so many platforms, it really seems underdeveloped. For example, there is nothing about how well it was received on the gaming console platforms.

The article became featured in 2006, but hasn't really stood the test of time and really needs a major revamp to continue meeting the featured article criteria.--Vaypertrail (talk) 15:24, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some problems are fixable (mostly the reference formating, bad links, and the like) but not fundamentally bad to drop it from featured. Some points:
  • This was the first major game that was tied to Steam on the PC. The fact that it caused problems (this is what you're referring to by the European issues as well) trying to play the game are necessary to document as part of the Steam tie in. The references you have for the European issues can be added there, but the problem wasn't isolated to Europe.
  • As far as sources say, the players being totally unable to register there game was in Europe only.--Vaypertrail (talk) 22:30, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • And that's part of the overall "problems with Steam and HL2 on launch" that are already in the article. There's no need to further clarify the details, though we can certainly add the BBC source you supply as another facet. --MASEM (t) 12:57, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Expansion section doesn't see to be that details (it calls out to two other articles). As there are sourced mods on the third-party mod page (and most of those are third-party sources separate from Steam or the mod developers), they can be easily added here. Fixable.
  • The narrative sentence is accurate - it is basically saying the story continues into Ep1 and 2. Maybe the wording change, but again, nothing difficult to correct.
  • As HL2 never got a standalone release on consoles, only through the Orange Box, there's not much that could be added there. I think a link to the OBox article would help.
Again, I think most of the points are fixable with attention but not to the degree that requires demotion. (I will try to fix some of them myself ) --MASEM (t) 16:17, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, these aren't all minor problems that any editor can just fix.--Vaypertrail (talk) 15:32, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed refs 14, 15, and 16 and fixed piped links to the best of my abilities. I'm gonna work on some other refs. that failed 2c. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 02:20, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can you guys take a look at my changes in citations 34-41? Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 02:46, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As for the WP:OR of the first sentence in the narrative sentence, there is an article in the January/February issue of GamePro that talks about silent protagonists, however, I never had the time to buy it but I did read it. Does anyone have anyway to access this issue? Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 03:45, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here are some articles talking about gordon's characterization, [15] and [16] Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 03:56, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary edit

Featured article criteria of concern brought up in the FAR section include referencing and content. Dana boomer (talk) 22:49, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • After looking at this article multiple times, it pains me to say that this article should be Delisted. Though I do think that it could be a Good Article with a little more work. GamerPro64 (talk) 00:07, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Could you point out some of the outstanding issues so they could be addressed. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 20:45, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Certainty. I see reference problems in the article, like un-referenced material. A bad sight to see. GamerPro64 (talk) 21:16, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist Very choppy prose yet; lots of one- and two-sentence paragraphs and a few unsourced sections. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 19:36, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: At this point, since there is a contributor who is obviously willing to work on the article, reviewers shouldn't be entering one-line delist declarations. Instead, they should be commenting on specific issues that need to be addressed before the article is kept, including giving specific examples. Dana boomer (talk) 20:50, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, that is exactly what I need. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 01:57, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Dana-- I'm seeing lots of uncritical delists lately at FAR. Uncontroversial statements don't require citation, and dead links aren't an automatic reason for delisting either. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:12, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist, agree with exactly everything in the above comment by TenPoundHammer (talk · contribs), who is right on the mark about deficiencies in the article. Might be best to try for getting up to speed first for current WP:GA standards. -- Cirt (talk) 16:45, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, to all reviewers, please give specifics!! We have a user interested in improving this article, but general comments like "very choppy prose" are not generally very helpful. Give examples of the choppy prose, outline exactly which sections you feel need references (remember, non-controversial statements don't necessarily need refs!), etc. You don't have to list every instance of the above, but a few examples are much more helpful than a one-line comment, especially when there is an interested editor. This process is about improving articles to the current FA status, not quickly rushing them through the process for an easy delist. Dana boomer (talk) 00:18, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Per request of Dana, I have listed the parts of the article that needs referencing. GamerPro64 (talk) 20:10, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The last paragraph of the "Setting" section.
  • The first, second, an last sentence in the "Narrative" section.
  • The last sentences in the second and third paragraph in the "Development" section.
Hopefully, I'm not nit-picking. GamerPro64 (talk) 20:10, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The last paragraph of setting, has some OR and it mentions an interview, so i'll reword it and reference that interview.
    • The 1st, 2nd, and last sentence part of the 1st paragraph of the narrative section? They seem pretty obvious, so I won't have trouble finding refs. for that.
    • Those last sentences of the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs of the development section are completely OR, and definitely are going to be entirely removed.

I'll update you when I get them. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 21:30, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well GamerPro, I've addressed your problems to the best of my ability, if there is anymore discrepencies needed to be fixed please point them out. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 03:27, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would give more examples of problems with the article, but seeing as most of the things I've said haven't been fixed, I don't see much point. So I'm sticking with my belief that it should be delisted.--Vaypertrail (talk) 08:30, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please strike through the statements of yours above that have been met and bold those that have not been met so I can understand your above statement more easily. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 00:09, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done.--Vaypertrail (talk) 06:28, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • Per the reviewontherun link, it links to the page that has the link to a video on that page which says "Best Games of 2004", you have to click on that to get the video you want. It doesn't automatically give ou the video. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 23:48, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Err, some of the issues you've stated aren't really issues. The Steam paragraph is elaborating on information about the release of HL2 on the PC, while also stating Steam information without the need to click the Wikilink. The european part is something I will address later in the reception section. The mods section is relating to the legacy left by HL2, however does not state HL2 but rather the engine HL2 popularized. The reception part about consoles is addressed in the Orange Box as a whole but, I think I could take some reviews from there and use the parts of the reviews that focus on HL2. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 03:27, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Subzerosmokerain, I will try to be a bit more clearer.
  • The Half-Life_2#Development section contains unnecessary detail on the Steam (content delivery) program which is already in that article.
  • If the game has left a legacy and caused these new 'notable' mods to be created, then they will need to be covered by third-party reliable sources. Currently they are only covered by primary sources.
I think that covers it.--Vaypertrail (talk) 15:57, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I really don't think that the information is unnecessary nor does keeping it in the text provide any detriment to the article, it's just an in-depth coverall for what's covered in the Steam article, but instead of the reader having to leave the HL2 article, they can just read what is there already.
  • I'll cover the mods too in the reception, along with the console ports.(With the secondary reliable sources you are asking for). Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 23:26, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • After looking at the article again, I believe that my referencing concerns have been fixed. That being said, I say Keep Half-Life 2's FA status. GamerPro64 (talk) 21:43, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by mav
  • Over-long sentence, please break-up: "The game's available arsenal consists of modern-day projectile weapons, including a ubiquitous pistol, shotgun, and submachine gun, though more elaborate, fictional weapons are available, such as a crossbow that shoots hot metal rods, a pheromone pod that guides certain previously hostile alien creatures, and a pulse rifle that can also launch "Dark energy balls," that disintegrate enemies on contact."
  • Another over-long sentence. I suggest adding a full stop after "theme" and replacing the semi-colon with a comma. "The environments in Half-Life 2, in accordance with the game's story, all have a distinct post-apocalyptic theme, yet in design they are varied, and include the Eastern European-styled City 17, the zombie-infested Ravenholm; the coastal Nova Prospekt prison and the alien interiors of the Citadel."
  • I'm pretty sure that full stops should always be inside quote marks at the end of sentences. But I may be wrong in cases where the quote does not end in a full stop.
  • Last three sentences of ===Awards=== should be combined into a single paragraph, IMO.

But other than the above, I think that the referencing, prose and content are now all up to FA standard. I'm leaning toward a keep, but the above really needs to be fixed first. --mav (reviews needed) 01:17, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Soundtrack section is a bit skimpy, and poorly sourced. What was reception of the soundtrack like? Who produced it? Some background info on the composer? Lots of small, one-sentence or just short paragraphs in subsection Distribution. The subsection, Critical response, is very small, this should be expanded upon further please. Awards subsection has some odd formatting and placement of cites, and a few one-sentence or short paragraphs. Expansions and modifications - this subsection could be expanded, with a couple paragraphs on reception of these mods. -- Cirt (talk) 21:23, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Closing note - Although extensive work was completed on the article, there are still several outstanding delists. The main editor has not responded to recent posts asking for updates, and the editors voting to delist the article have posted additional concerns that have not been addressed. When this article is brought back to featured article quality, it may be immediately re-nominated at FAC. Dana boomer (talk) 01:06, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was removed by Dana boomer 02:25, 23 June 2010 [17].

Israel edit

Review commentary edit

Notified: Talk:Israel(article), Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Arab world, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Western Asia, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Jewish history, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries(projects) User talk:Tariqabjotu, User talk:Gilabrand, User talk:Okedem, User talk:Jayjg, User talk:Telaviv1(top 5 contributors)
The following could also be notified if neccasary since they have commented recently: User talk:Paine Ellsworth, User talk:Ravpapa, User talk:Drork, User talk:Nableezy, User talk:Tiamut, User talk:FormerIP, User talk:JGGardiner, User talk:Dailycare, User talk:Ani medjool, User talk:Noon, User:nsaum75, User talk:Breein1007, User talk:RomaC, User talk:Sean.hoyland, User talk:No More Mr Nice Guy

I am nominating this featured article for review. I originally started kicking the idea around due to an edit war over three neutrality tags regarding how to address the capital. The capital issue has been back and forth for weeks(at least) and the question of how to address the largest city has also popped up. There has been ongoing discussion which so far has been inconclusive. Mediation was attempted but was not accepted. I noticed a handful of other issues while looking into it. My thoughts are that this article is fixable within a couple of weeks, but that a review is necessary to keep it on track and to hold it to the highest standards. Delisting also needs to be a possibility if issues are not taken care of. My concerns are:

  • The edit warring has declined but the tags are still back and forth as seen in the edit history. This conflicts with 1.e (stability). Some people say it is neutral while some say it isn't. This leads to a possible infringement of 1.d. This is an issue that might be better handled by mediation or AE, but it is not OK to be ongoing in an FA. How to handle "capital" in the lead and the infobox is the concern.
    • The first citation is like nothing I have seen, but I assume it is not acceptable. It looks to be a several refs combined with the quote parameter. Someone made this a note instead of an inline citation.Cptnono (talk) 06:55, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a sync template on the subsection "Conflicts and peace treaties". It may or may not be needed since I do not see a discussion initiated by the editor who placed it. I think there may be some weight issues with the section since it is in the history section but disregards most history not related to international affairs or the Palestinian issues. It could also be a concern with summary style or prevalence over other aspects. I really don't know on this one and removing the tag might be fine.
  • The original tagger is fine with the tag gone after he included: ""The position of the majority of UN member states is reflected in numerous resolutions which say that any actions taken by Israel to impose its laws, jurisdiction and administration on Jerusalem are illegal and have no validity whatsoever.". Another editor mentioned clean up o the section on the talk page but it no longer appears to be a major concern.Cptnono (talk) 00:10, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alt text is needed[18]
  • Dead links need to be addressed[19]
  • Tagged for citation needed for "Jewish presence in the region dwindled after the failure of the Bar Kokhba revolt against the Roman Empire in 132 CE." and again with "Emigration from Israel (yerida) to other countries, primarily the United States and Canada, is described by demographers as modest" (although the later is not clear why since there is a citation needed).
  • Some eyes on inline citations might help. The other day someone attempted to tag (incorrectly) and it was removed instead of being addressed. As soon as someone added a ref it was fine, so a once over by some new eyes might help to ensure nothing was missed elsewhere.
  • The "Transportation" section could use a couple more lines.
  • WP:NBSP. Non breaking spaces are needed in the measurements (figures and abbreviations). Cptnono (talk) 11:53, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Km->mi conversionsCptnono (talk) 11:53, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Minor ref clean up (Title case, date format, pages, link/not to link work and publishers, bare refs, etc) Cptnono (talk) 13:48, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cptnono (talk) 14:17, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see nothing here that warrants a review. Dead links can always occur. I don't know what you mean by alt text, since your link doesn't work. The sync template seems meaningless to me, and I will remove it, as no one has explained it. There will always be some conflict, but the mere placement or removal of a tag are not grounds for de-listing. Before opening a review, please raise these points on the talk page, or fix them by yourself - why is this the first time I see mention of dead-links or alt text? Even FAs require some maintenance. okedem (talk) 15:11, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only obvious issues I can see are that it's overlinked, has 13 dead links, and needs alt text. That could all be fixed without bringing it to FAR. If the content has deteriorated, it could be restored to the version that was promoted. [20] SlimVirgin TALK contribs 15:44, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've fixed a few dead links, and added some refs and tweaks, and removed some of the more obvious low-value blue. I'd like to do more, but the text is full of citation templates, so I won't be able to copy edit it. It's very slow to load for the same reason. I'd also like to add here that there are/were dead link tags going back to October 2008, which shouldn't really be happening on an FA. The people who wrote and nominated it might want to consider increasing their maintenance of it. :) SlimVirgin TALK contribs 16:16, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I actually was the one who proposed we focus on the lead which went from maybe working to strong opposes within the last couple f days with editwarring on the tags still continuing. I also brought up the first citation, the sync tag, and transportation on the talk page. The point of this FAR is not to have it demoted. I will make a effort myself in keeping it FA but desisting it should be a an option if improvements are not made. I added some image descriptions just now and will grab some of the alt text.Cptnono (talk) 02:00, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Image problems
  • (ec) Sorry, it's on a template, which is why it didn't show up in search. Dovi uploaded File:Israel-flag01.jpg in 2006, and the Flickr upload is 2009, [21] so it looks as though they took it from us. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 16:47, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I asked the Flickr uploader to change licence, and he's done that. Seems he was involved in taking the image. [22] SlimVirgin TALK contribs 11:28, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Herzl-balcony.jpg. Incorrect license. The picture was taken in Switzerland, not in the EU. It is in fact a doctored version of this image taken from the Bettmann archive, which is for sale. No evidence of first publication. No evidence that the image is in the public domain.
  • I was going to add these but I don't know exactly what they are. Is anyone familiar with what mountains these are or what Dargot is?Cptnono (talk) 01:39, 6 February 2010 (UTC) Figured it out. Adding now.Cptnono (talk) 01:48, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The source says that the restrictions are "undetermined" and does not say that it is a US government work. How do you know that the tag is correct? DrKiernan (talk) 08:35, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah. We don't. I have poked around the page but am not coming up with anything that will hep. Delete this one? Follow-up: I have nominated this for deletion at commons. The lack of a author made it to big of a question mark.Cptnono (talk) 00:16, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • And it is now back. It needs to be removed.Cptnono (talk) 01:42, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see GNU and Sharealike 3.0. Am I not understanding correctly?Cptnono (talk) 01:39, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The copyright owner of the image is Michael Mass, but there is no evidence that he has given permission for his image to be uploaded and used here under a free license. We need permission from the copyright owner, perhaps sent by OTRS or to permissions-en AT wikimedia DOT org. DrKiernan (talk) 08:35, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Understood. I'll shoot a message over to the uploader.Cptnono (talk) 00:16, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Follow up: OTRS was successful. Cptnono (talk) 09:07, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The external links should be trimmed, in particular the government links need not be duplicated. Some effort should be made to trim the page as a whole, currently the download time is very long, which reduces accessibility for people on slow connections/older computers/less advanced countries. DrKiernan (talk) 15:54, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree that the eternal links section is too long. It comes across slightly bloated with or without the page loading time. The external links I would remove are: The maps section (keep Wikipedia Atlas), Media section, and maybe a few others. Should the Hebrew cites be relinked to their English versions?Cptnono (talk) 01:46, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Made an additional inquiry on the talk page about this. I will more than likely remove a handful if there is not a response.Cptnono (talk) 09:56, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

None of the issues here are major or warranting an FAR. Aside from the capital point, none of these have gotten any attention, including from you, on the talk page.

  • I'm not sure anyone has a clue about what the sync tag is there for. Recently, someone inquired about it, but I don't think there was a definitive answer. It should probably just be removed because no one has explained its significance.
  • Okay, alt text, something that wasn't part of FA criteria two years ago, is needed. So fix it.
  • Yes, dead links need to be fixed. Not that difficult.
  • The thing about the two citations is a bit pedantic. FAs aren't automatically protected from further edits. Nothing stops someone from adding unsourced information or tagging sentences with citation tags. Surely, it would have been a bit less drastic for you to, again, just fix it or at least say "maybe we should take care of X" on the talk page.
  • The "Transportation" section could use a couple more lines. Okay... and why is this part of your FAR rationale?

Back to the capital issue: the capital issue will never be resolved to everyone's full satisfaction, but I think if there is an opportunity of reaching a relative peace, it is here already. The FAR is merely a distraction to a discussion that for the most part was going quite well. Unfortunately, I fear it will stymie the surprising amount of progress made over the last week with this review turning into yet another debate over the capital issue, but with the article's FA status used as leverage. The capital point is so minor a point to an article about an entire country that it should not be source of this article's downfall. -- tariqabjotu 17:13, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment One of the people notified as a primary author is topic-banned from IP conflict articles. They are therefore preumably unable to comment here. Do people have suggestions on how to handle this?--Peter cohen (talk) 23:16, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Or instead of arguing about bringing it to FAR you can start fixing it. Edit warring and unfulfilled criteria means it needs to be fixed. It would not pass FA right now if nominated as is. There is really nothing left to say about that.
    • In regards to someone being topic banned: There are plenty of people already involved and I doubt one less person will prevent the article from receiving an appropriate review.Cptnono (talk) 01:21, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • And activity on improving other aspects of the article not related to the capital issue has spiked since opening this review. Nice work on stepping it up.Cptnono (talk) 03:11, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, I think if there is an abuse of process, it should be noted. Yes, people are fixing things, but I think that's primarily because none of these points have ever been mentioned before. First time they're mentioned, first time they're fixed. -- tariqabjotu 04:18, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As I have said three times now, I mentioned several of the things. I didn't notice the alt text and dead links until using the toolbox above which is why I specifically mentioned I found other things. I don't think I have ever seen so much resistance to improving an article before. You should be embracing this opportunity. We won't even have to worry about delisting it if everything works out.Cptnono (talk) 00:06, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We don't need an FAR to improve the article, and to claim it's "an opportunity" is absurd. If there are issues - use the talk page or fix them yourself. This isn't the way to do things. okedem (talk) 06:34, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently we did. It is turning out just fine. I also do think it should be delisted if edit warring continues. think it should be discussed and considered if other clean up doesn't happen. It isn't a personal thing or "punishment" as someone alluded to. It is simply not FA and needs to be made so or should have the star for being the best of the best removed. We'll see what is up at the appropriate time. Right now you should focus on improving the article instead of being upset about it since we aren't even to the delist/keep stage.Cptnono (talk) 06:58, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Don't boss people around. Criteria for FAs change (like for alt text), and links die. Once you bothered raising these issues, they were quickly fixed, by several users, myself among them. This is what article talk pages are for, and it's a shame you didn't use it before starting this whole procedure. okedem (talk) 07:18, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not bossing anyone around. I did use the talk page. The problems weren't resolved. Being angry about it doesn't fix the article. It also isn't necessary. Reviewing an article to see if it is still FA is a good thing. People should stop being offended by something that is not designed to be negative. Cptnono (talk) 07:56, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This issue was fixed. okedem (talk) 07:18, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 03:28, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment
    • I noticed today that someone updated the number of satellites Israel has launched without updating the reference. I fact tagged this in expectation that the accurate number should be confirmable. I think people should use this FAR as opportunity to check through other statistics that are likely to have grown since the initial FAC to ensure that the latest available statistics from reliable sources are used.
    • Something that I raised some months ago was the claims of differences instatus of various ethnic groups. ISTR that Okedem said that Shas exagerrate differences between Ashkhenazi and Haredi Jews. I would however expect an FA to cover this and other claims of disadvantages suffered by Arabs and Ethiopian Jews using reliable sociological sources to reflext the real situation rather than the claims of oliticians ne way or the other.--Peter cohen (talk) 20:14, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I notice this edit] today. The editor has made a good faith change of Israel's GDP ranking from 44th to 42nd to match that shown in the wikilinked table of rankings. They did not change the reference. In the mean time the linked page has changed to show Israel as 41st. The description in our footnote is that the referenced page shows the rankings for 2006. However, the page now changed to 2008. Im prepared ot make the edit to the page to match these things up. However unless someone indicates that they are checking through all such similar links are up to date then I am going to vote delist' on the grounds that the evidence is that the referencing of data is steadily degrading due to edits that fail to upgrade the references at the same time as the fact is changed.--Peter cohen (talk) 22:03, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I think the major issue at stake here is criterion 1D:neutrality with regard to the claim in the lead, that Jerusalem is the capital city with no qualifications presented for this highly contentious point. Here the article isn't asserting facts about opinions as required by WP:NPOV, it's asserting Israel's claim to the city which is a clear violation. This has been discussed on the talk page, for a very long time, but no solution has been forthcoming. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 10:12, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, if it were to assert the claim, it would say "Jerusalem is the rightfully the capital, as it will always be, because it belongs to the Jews". It says "Jerusalem is the capital" based on the definition of the word "capital", as seat of government. Since Jerusalem fulfills this role for Israel, it's the capital. Also, plenty of sources call it the capital; many don't even mention the dispute in a single word, whereas we have a long and detailed footnote. okedem (talk) 12:13, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okedem, thanks for underlining exactly the editing attitude that is at the core of the problem. Concerning your point, it would make sense if you hadn't already opposed replacing "capital" with "seat of government" in the article. That the capital status is rejected universally outside of Israel is eminently verifiable (it needn't be mentioned by every source to be so) and we also have reliable sources saying explicitly that the issue is a major controversy, so per WP:LEAD we have no choice but to mention it in the lead. That, as mentioned above, is my issue with this article and the FA criteria (or Wiki criteria overall, since NPOV is a core policy that also non-FAs must comply with). Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 13:14, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your conclusion doesn't follow your argument. I oppose "seat of government" because our standard terminology for country articles is "capital". Everything about Israel is a "major controversy". Israel itself is a "major controversy". However, we'd like to have an article about the country, not the conflict; Israel is an actual country, where people live and work. Despite the view from outside, there's more to it than the conflict, and we can't turn every article about Israel into a conflict article.
I remind you that you have failed to present a single source explaining how international recognition is important in any way for a city's status as capital. You have failed to contradict the simple definition of capital as "seat of government". We are not the official UN encyclopedia, and so their position, or the positions of various governments, are of little importance.
As I've shown, a multitude of respectable sources have no difficulty simply naming Jerusalem the capital, so it seems the importance of this is much less than you claim. okedem (talk) 15:56, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okedem, repeating those talking points doesn't make them any more relevant. You can find answers to them from my comment immediately preceding yours (timestamp 13:14). Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 17:01, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly, I can find no sources there, and no meaningful replies. okedem (talk) 19:17, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Israel, Encyclopaedia Britannica: "Capital (proclaimed) Jerusalem; the city’s capital status has not received wide international recognition." We must have something like this in the lead and in the infobox. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 20:00, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the one source some people keep presenting, even though it's clearly in the minority, with so many sources using different phrasings. Britannica seems to be the most extreme of all sources presented. Just a few examples - Columbia Encyclopedia, Merriam-Webster's collegiate encyclopedia, and Encyclopedia of the Modern Middle East and North Africa all simply say it's the capital. Many more are sources are reported in the link. okedem (talk) 20:44, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The EB is highly regarded, probably the most highly regarded of the standard encyclopaedias, which is why I cited it, and it's very far from being in the minority. The lead and the infobox have to be neutral. I realize that's difficult with this article, but the Jerusalem issue is a very basic point. You're not doing the article's status any favours, Okedem, to be frank. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 20:53, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okedem, as you know over 40 sources have been presented, that you choose to repeatedly pretend that you've forgotten about them once more underlines the editing attitude that's the root problem here. --Dailycare (talk) 22:08, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, some 40 links were presented, most of them news articles about the conflict (naturally highlighting the dispute over Jerusalem), with some official government positions (like the EU position on Jerusalem). Not a single source was presented to show that lack of recognition means it's not the capital; not a single source to show that recognition is in any way relevant to a capital status; not a single source that says that if a city doesn't have recognition, it's not really the capital.
In contrast, plenty of sources were shown defining "capital" as seat of government, and plenty of sources simply state Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. These are not Israeli sources, but general, respectable sources, who don't have any problem saying Jerusalem is the capital. This fact alone nullifies your claim, as if calling Jerusalem the capital is just "asserting Israel's claim to the city". If Oxford, Merriam Webster and Columbia, among many others, can say it - we can too. okedem (talk) 07:26, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
SlimVirgin, I already explained the infobox and the fact that the general consensus on that was a change in the footnote format. Why are you continuing to push for more? Nobody seems to demand that but you; that matter is settled, insofar as everyone else is concerned. We are not going to change things solely because of you. -- tariqabjotu 22:13, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see evidence that it has been dealt with. People are still posting here, apparently concerned, and the lead still doesn't say that the status of Jerusalem is disputed; adding a footnote really isn't enough. I urge you to stop the hostile responses, Tariq, and the attempts to personalize, which is what you did on talk when I asked there too. I came here to try to help the article retain its status. Yours is an odd way to respond to that, I must say. :) SlimVirgin TALK contribs 22:20, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
People are still posting here... about the infobox? No, check again; the only person who has brought up the infobox since the footnote was changed on February 5 is you. The lead? Perhaps. The infobox? No, it seems to be settled; quit raising the issue. Yes, it's personal, if that's what you call talking to you. What do you expect me to do? Say Hey everyone, stop talking about the infobox when it's only you talking about it? Please... -- tariqabjotu 23:12, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
About the lead. People would like to see the issue dealt with in the lead. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 23:15, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay... so... what's the problem again? I said I already explained the infobox, and you told me to stop the hostile responses. First, if you think anything I have said to you in this thread is hostile, you're in the wrong area of Wikipedia; far more hostile things have been said in discussions on Israel-Palestine articles (specifically far more hostile things have been said that I consider well within the realm of civility). Second, again, please read what other people have said (and this sub-thread is further exemplifying the point), and instead of furthering the capital debate here (because it's really over-played now), I think it would be better if you tried implementing one of the options under Talk:Israel#On the Table. At least they have gotten broad levels of support from both "sides" (for lack of a better term). As you'll also see there, your idea of having something about non-recognition in the lead is far from original, but I'll allow you to still be the hero by being the one who implements a solution. -- tariqabjotu 23:26, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I must apologize to Cptnono for saying he ought to have sorted things out on the talk page instead of bringing this to FAR. :-S SlimVirgin TALK contribs 23:29, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Appreciated. I am on the "side" that is wary of giving it too much weight. Regardless, the reverting needs to stop (it has reduced to almost nothing over the last few days). A resolution needs to be found over there to keep the tags off. Hopefully, a solution can be found (maybe what we have at the time I'm typing this) that most people consider inline with Wikipedia's neutrality standards. The question has come up many times since 2003 so it would be great to reduce the likelihood of a future fire.Cptnono (talk) 09:16, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
SlimVirgin, it was obvious you didn't want to push the button -- perhaps because I'm too "hostile" -- so, in light of Talk:Israel#On the Table, I changed the lead sentence myself. -- tariqabjotu 16:31, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I support Tariqabjotu's edit of the lead. Okedem, you appear to be operating under an assumption that there would exist a wiki policy according to which a source can't be used if it's actually about the topic being sourced. That this is not the case is putting it mildly. I again refer you to my comment above (timestamp 13:14). --Dailycare (talk) 20:27, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And you do not seem to appreciate that I'm not contesting the fact (non-recognition), but the relative importance of the fact. Specifically, that recognition is generally important for a capital. That, you have not been able to show. Following Tariq's edit - is this the end of it, as far as you're concerned? okedem (talk) 21:14, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, your argument is, as discussed on talk:israel, not relevant to the content issue. As I explained in my edit (timestamp 13:14) what decides whether the material goes in the lead is simple: 1) is it reliably sourced? (yes) and 2) is it a notable controversy (yes). To this may be added 3) is it a notable opinion (yes, held by the UN and every country except Israel). Any musings on "true capitalness" are frankly a waste of time here, although they may be interesting in other contexts. As to your question, indeed as discussed on talk:israel I'm OK with the present wording following Tariqabjotu's edit, and won't raise the issue or support other editors raising it for a long while. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 08:57, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(undent) How are things coming on this? Do those editors who supported the FAR still have issues they would like to see resolved? Dana boomer (talk) 20:23, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is better for the most part. Images and sources could still use some work but the edit warring has stopped. Cptnono (talk) 01:38, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Alt text is present (thanks) but has some problems. I just now fixed some of these, but alt text is still missing for File:Coat of arms of Israel.svg, File:LocationIsrael.svg, File:Israel districts numbered.png, File:Is-wb-gs-gh v3.png, File:Temple Mount Western Wall on Shabbat by David Shankbone.jpg, File:Tabor068.jpg, File:Israeli sign.png, File:Israel Philharmonic Orchestra.jpg, File:Israel - Jerusalem - Shrine of the Book.jpg and File:Galfridman.jpg. Can someone please fix this? Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 02:45, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary edit

Featured article criterion of concern include stability, neutrality, references and image licensing. Dana boomer (talk) 21:07, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • What??? Is this really how FAR/FARC is done? The FAR basically started as a veiled attempt to rush a conclusion on the capital issue. It's been more than five weeks, and most objections -- all pretty minor -- have been addressed; heck, even that capital issue, which has been debated for years, has been resolved. Most everyone has either completely lost interest in the FAR and/or moved on to other things. But, wait! Some images don't have alt text! Oh, c'mon; this is a complete joke that warrants even less attention than I've given here. -- tariqabjotu 21:50, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tariq, this article was not moved to FARC because I believed it needed to be delisted. It was moved here because, as you say, the FAR had stalled. It had not been made unmistakably clear that everyone believed the article should be kept as a FA, and so it needed to be moved here so that definite declarations could be made. Please also note that alt text has been removed (at least for now) from the FA criteria. Dana boomer (talk) 23:20, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would appreciate it if you did not make accusations like that Tariqabjotu. If you notice the result of the edit warring was a solution that I was not a big fan of (it is fine though). At this point I completely don't know what the next step is. Another editor has started a separate FAR on the article [24] (we don't know what happened) with several points of interest. These might be better fixed on talk since the amount of thoroughness lacking should not necessarily prevent it from keeping its status. A couple of the refs still need formatting. As mentioned above, the Truman picture is still a potential copyright violation. A few dead links still. I am happy to see the edit warring finished and one of the editors that told me off up above has been rocking it according to the history so it is much better. Not perfect but there is always room for improvement.Cptnono (talk) 00:23, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I feel like such a dummy. I couldn't figure out where the page was but it says "talk" right up top.Cptnono (talk) 00:55, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have checked all the links, and fixed any dead links I could find. In any article with such a large number of links, this or that link are bound to drop dead at some point, and this should have no effect on FA status. Now, instead of complaining about a couple of mis-formatted refs or missing alt text, you could spend the same amount of time just fixing them. okedem (talk) 17:14, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I started trying to fix the article but all of the smack talk and edit warring really impacted any enthusiasm. So this is isn't complaining but gauging if it still meets the standards for FA. Sorry you still take offense to it since that wasn't the intention. Follow-up: Sources are still in issue as another editor mentioned above. Academy Awards were modified without a source, Jewish Virtual Library is used (I am under the impression that another editor recently took that to a noticeboard, and another Wikipeida is even used as a reference. I won't vote delist due to the recent accusations but these and similar sourcing issues need to be tackled.Cptnono (talk) 18:15, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Every article has unsourced changes, and it always takes a bit before someone fixes it. In this case you're talking about something that happened less than 48 hours ago, and you still bring it up as an "accusation". The "smack talk" and "edit warring" certainly shouldn't have prevented you from fixed formatting issues, or alt text.
Now, to the point - I added a source for Academy awards, and added alt text (even though it's not a criterion now, apparently). I see no problem with JVL being used as a source - it's not used for anything contentious anyway. I don't know where another Wikipedia is used as a source - if you want to improve the article, the very least you could do it give actual details for your claims. okedem (talk) 16:47, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's been almost a week, and no details regarding the new supposed problems have been given. I request that this review be closed, as the article fulfills all criteria. okedem (talk) 14:46, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And they atill aren't fixed. The Truman image is still used even afer removing it. References are still not up to par. Run the error check on the citation toolbar thingy if you use it. Here are a few: 103 (ref to Wikipedia article), 130 (in ref tags but is not a ref. Is it to be included w/ a ref?), 140 (bare), 199 (bare url going to the Gulfstream company). And I did go through after starting this with some edits to the refs and images. Stop asserting that I haven't.Cptnono (talk) 00:22, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A week ago I asked you for details about these problems, and got nothing but silence. I have ran the error check multiple times, which is how I fixed a whole lot of dead links. Surprisingly, I'm only human, and can't find everything alone. When you find something, you can either fix it yourself (took me about 20 seconds to fix the Wikipedia link issue, for instance), or at the very least explain where the problem is, so someone else can fix it. To just say "Wikipedia is used as a source somewhere" is extremely unhelpful; this article has 312 references, you know. The Truman picture has not been deleted, so there's no reason not to use it (it's used on dozens of other pages as well). If and when it is deleted, we'll have to replace it. Anyway, if I find something else, I'll place it instead. This is not a serious issue. Update: I've replaced that picture, so the issue is moot.
Ref 130 is a footnote (those also use ref tags, despite not being refs), but I've added a source. Ref 199 goes to the Gulfstream company website - because it talks about one of their aircraft. Anyway, I replaced that link with one slightly more informative, in my view.
Now, if you find other problems, and would like to improve the article, please share the (detailed) information here, or on the article's talk page. Otherwise, let's end this procedure. A few dead links or misformatted refs are no grounds for FA status removal. Pick any FA of comparable size and ref number, and you'll find a similar number of problems (I'm saying this because I have just performed this little exercise, though I've not been able to find an FA with quite this many references). okedem (talk) 08:11, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The formats of links are not in my view serious defects and they are fixable. The major rub in this FAR as far as FA criteria were concerned was the NPOV issue relating to Jerusalem as the "capital", concerning which there now is an agreement. The editing attitude around this article is of course unchanged, which probably will cause problems in the future but the editing attitude of concerned editors is not a FA criterion issue until it results in a specific NPOV problem. This is a "Keep FA status" comment. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 20:23, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist. Two obvious outstanding problems are the quality of sourcing and the prose. On the sourcing first of all, the Encyclopedia Britannica is cited six times, and Encarta three times. The article should be relying on high quality secondary sources, not tertiary sources like Encarta and Britannica. A few random examples of where the prose is weak:
  • From Antiquity: "Nevertheless, a continuous Jewish presence in the Land of Israel remained, with the Jewish religious centre moving to Galilee, establishing itself in Tiberias.[33] The Mishnah and part of the Talmud were composed during this period. At the beginning of the 12th century there were still about fifty Jewish families in that city." What city?
  • From Zionism and the British Mandate: "During the 16th century communities struck roots in the Four Holy Cities ...". You don't "strike" roots, you take root.
  • From Zionism and the British Mandate: "By the end of World War II the Jewish population of Palestine had increased to 33%." To 33% of of what? Or should that be "by 33%"?
Fixed. Frederico1234 (talk) 20:04, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • From Independence and first years: "In 1956, Israel joined a secret alliance with the Great Britain and France".
  • From Geography and climate: "The Israeli Coastal Plain on the shores of the Mediterranean is home to seventy percent ...". Used "%" in the example I gave above. Which is it to be? "Percent" or "%"?
  • From Occupied territories: "Inner control of Gaza is in the hands of the Hamas government." What does "inner control" mean?

In short, this article needs a lot less bickering over the minutiae and a lot more looking at the broader picture. Malleus Fatuorum 17:55, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sourcing - out of 312 refs (way more than most FAs, it seems), you mention 9 cites of which you disapprove. I know of no policy saying use of tertiary sources is forbidden, or that their use is problematic for FAs. In the places I checked, those sources are used for very general background points, nothing really contentious or not in the consensus.
  • Prose:
    • "What city"? Tiberias, the city mentioned a sentence before.
    • Actually, an idea "takes root"; "struck root" is the correct usage in this context. See, for example, [25] or [26].
    • "33%" - Obviously, 33% of the total population (Jews and non-Jews). I see no problem here; to say "33% of the total population of Palestine" would be repetitious.
    • "percent" or "%" - nitpicking.
    • "inner" - changed to "internal". As in - runs the internal affairs, though borders and the likes are controlled by others (Israel and Egypt).
okedem (talk) 20:24, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep listed - Every single article on Wikipedia can be improved, and that includes all FAs. Sourcing can always be better, the prose can always be polished. Sometimes prose which seems perfect to one, can appear clunky to another. The issues raised here ranged from minor to irrelevant, and this whole page feels like nitpicking. A featured article is not, and cannot be, perfect. Featured articles are the highest class here, the best of what the site offers; the best is relative, and is not an absolute standard. "Israel" is easily one of the best articles on Wikipedia, partly due to the constant (political) attention it receives. okedem (talk) 20:24, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I suggest that you take off your rose-tinted spectacles, and actually look at the article critically. Frankly I wouldn't even pass it at GAN in its present state, much less consider it "one of the best articles on wikipedia". I gave you a few examples of the kinds of things that need attention above, and there are many more. For instance, do you really think that insisting that a sentence such as "The Israel Defense Forces has been involved in several major wars and border conflicts ..." is fixed is merely "nitpicking"? If this article was at FAC instead of FAR it would have been slated long ago. It needs fixing, not excusing, and it needs to conform to the MoS, which it does not. If you can't fix it, and it appears that you can't, then it needs delisting pronto. Malleus Fatuorum 21:05, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I disagree with you. "it appears that you can't" - That's just insulting. If you look at the article's history, you'll see that I put in countless hours of work here, fixing everything from sources to formatting to images. I did my best to address any issue raised here, as you can plainly see from the above discussion. I've also specifically addressed every point you raised here, even though I disagreed with you on some of them. okedem (talk) 07:05, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist unless prose problems can be addressed, and tertiary source references replaced. Malleus has only scratched the surface:
  • Conflicts and peace treaties: "An internal inquiry exonerated the government of responsibility for the war..." This makes no sense to a lay reader. If there is a declared war, no-one needs to be "exonerated of responsibility" for it. There may be inquiries into legality of actions, or political debates about the war's prosecution. What is meant here?
  • same section: "agreed to enter negotiations over an autonomy for Palestinians across the Green Line." this phrase makes no sense.
  • same section: "On June 7, 1981, Israel bombed Iraq's Osirak nuclear reactor in Operation Opera, disabling it. Israeli intelligence had suspected Iraq was intending to use it for weapons development." no reference, and not clear why this is included in this top-level article.
  • same section: "more than a thousand people were killed in the ensuing violence, much of which was internal Palestinian violence." repetition of the word violence, and in any case, what is meant by "internal Palestinian violence"? clashes between Palestinians? violence within Palestinian territories?
  • same section: "At the end of the 1990s, Israel, under the leadership of Benjamin Netanyahu," proably need to have been told in the preceding sentence that Netanyahu became / was elected (which?) PM after Rabin's assassination.
  • same section: "Despite neither the Qassam launchings..." Who or what is Qassam? It hasn't previously been mentioned.

That is just a selection from a single section. A separate comment: I found the Religion section strangely brief and empty, when one considers the depth of religious diversity, history and indeed conflict in this country. Very wierd not having a single reference in the material about Jerusalem (and yet three whole sentences, with refs, about Baha'i), no mention of pilgrimage, prayer at the wall... I know one should not have too much detail in a top-level article, but one should also weight things according to their importance in the context of the article subject, and we are talking about Israel here. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:37, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • "An internal inquiry..." - This makes perfect sense when you read the sentence before it ("Egyptian and Syrian armies launched a surprise attack against Israel... Israel successfully repelling Egyptian and Syrian forces but suffering great losses"). I've clarified, however.
    • "...Green Line" - rephrased.
    • "Operation Opera" - Added source. A very important point in Israel's history, with the first long-range force projection, and an important precedent for all current discussions of a possible Israeli attack in Iran.
    • "Netanyahu" - elected in a special election, several months after Rabin's assassination (Peres was PM in the interim). I don't think this is a major point, and as Rabin's assassination is mentioned in the sentence before, there's no need to repeat it.
    • "Qassam" - You're right; also, there's no need for the name of the thing anyway. Fixed.
    • I'll address the other points later. okedem (talk) 07:35, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I raised a couple of points above and I want to clarify where we have reached on these.
  • #One was that I had noticed that a number of statistics had changed and that when some people had updated them, they didn't change the references. I know Okedem has done some work around this, but I don't know exactly what he has done. If it hasn't been fully addressed this would be a delist issue for me, but it might have been. Now addressed per Okedem comment and AGF.--Peter cohen (talk) 13:09, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    1. I also think that there should be some reference to various claimed inequalities between different demographic group. I don't think it should be hard to identify some sort of sociological research on this matter which would give basic facts. I haven't seen a response to my comment on this. It would also be useful if some previously uninvolved editors could comment on my view that this should be included, as this has been a subject of discussion between Okedem and myself in the past.--Peter cohen (talk) 17:48, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Peter, when you raised the statistics issue a while back, I went over every single number in the article, and made sure it's properly sourced. Hopefully, I didn't miss anything. (Just to clarify my position, as you mentioned me - I don't think the inequality claims have any place in the main article; their importance isn't that high. To properly address the issue, one would have to detail the claims, the facts, and the various possible reasons. This would be a long discussion, and would burden the article. Perhaps I'm being pessimistic - if someone can come up with a fair, concise piece about this, I won't object). okedem (talk) 18:46, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - How is work coming on all of the above comments? The objections by two experienced FA writers and reviewers (Malleus and Hamiltonstone) need to be addressed before this article can be kept... The editors should feel free to bring in help to resolve the prose concerns. Dana boomer (talk) 00:43, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
While I disagree with the level of importance the editors ascribe to the issues raised (and outright reject some of them), I accept that some things can be improved. If you check out the edit history there you'll see that a lot of work has been done in the last few days, and there's more to come. I'll post here when it seems we're done with this round of improvements. okedem (talk) 06:44, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hold - As there seems to still be significant improvements being done to address FAR concerns. --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs/PRs) 17:07, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for the time this is taking. I'm mostly alone in this, I'm afraid, so work is progressing rather slowly. I do think I've made significant improvements so far.
I think all the citations are okay now, but seeing as there are 336 of them, please let me know if you see something I missed.
According to WP:DASH, em-dashes should not be spaced.
Can you provide some examples of over-linking? I don't see any abundance of irrelevant links, but maybe I'm just missing them. okedem (talk) 14:43, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Some links *look* like overlinks b/c they are in fact Easter eggs. For example, socialist links to Labor Zionism. By itself, a link to what is expected by looking at that linked word, would be an overlink. But my question is this; why link to that word at all if you are not going to spell it out in the prose? I like more explicit linking than that. --mav (reviews needed) 01:28, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okedem, how is work coming along on this? Please feel free to ping the editors who have commented above to ask them to revisit once you feel you have addressed or responded to their concerns. Dana boomer (talk) 01:31, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Additional closing note - This article is being delisted because the main editor has not responded to requests for updates in over a week, and the article still has basic problems, as well as two outstanding delist declarations. There are still numerous dead links (see the link checker tool) that were not used as convenience links, meaning the information was therefore essentially unreferenced, and there is currently edit warring happening on the page. As this article has been at FAR for over four months and still does not conform to current FA criteria, it is being delisted. When and if the article's editors feel that it has been brought back to FA status, it may be immediately taken to FAC. Dana boomer (talk) 02:29, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was removed by Dana boomer 16:13, 5 June 2010 [27].

Henry James edit

Review commentary edit

Notified: WikiProjects

Article is unsourced in many parts. Many of these passages are not equivocal fact, but relate to critical analysis and classification. The whole legacy section is not sourced, most notably the summarising claim at the front. Various things are labelled as trend-setting or turning points but are not sourced YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 00:56, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary edit

Featured article criterion of concern are sourcing YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 00:39, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed by Dana boomer 16:13, 5 June 2010 [28].

S-mine edit

Review commentary edit

Notified: Listed Wikiproject MILHIST

Article picked from the top of WP:URFA. Many paragraphs have no citation. Six different footnotes used. Two are books with no page number, two are websites; both are amateur websites/one-man-bands YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 00:34, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments:
    • There are a number of paragraphs without citations and those that are there are a little unclear;
    • The last sentence of the first paragraph of the History section needs a citaiton;
    • There is currently a mixture of US and British English (armor and armour in the article; defence and defense, etc.)
    • there should be a section on design and production in my opinion, because currently it is really only mentioned in the lead;
    • the history begins when the mines were first encountered by the Allies, but that is not where the mine's history actually began;
    • there is a large amount of whitespace in the Usage section on my screen (although that might just be me). — AustralianRupert (talk) 11:58, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Sources and citations: many paragraphs and claims have no citations.
  • comprehensiveness: as Rupert pointed out, the history is incomplete (although that may be a source thing);
  • Prose: Prose is pretty good, and the minor problems of mixed British/American usage could be fixed without much hassle.
  • Illustrations, etc.: I didn't check the provenance of the illustrations, but it did seem suitably illustrated and documented. I liked the diagram of the mine.
Unless someone can be found who has the literature to fix this, it should be delisted. Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:04, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just did a minor ce on this, to fix some of the more glaring errors, and delete some of the repetitive material. Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:06, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Antieruth, see the FAR instructions, keep or delist are not declared in the FAR phase, whose purpose is article improvement and identification of specific issues that need to be addressed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:46, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary edit

Featured article criterion of concern are comprehensiveness, sourcing YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 00:38, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/archive/June_2010&oldid=371220943"