Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article review/archive/September 2009

< 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 YellowAssessmentMonkey 07:14, 22 September 2009 [1].

Penda of Mercia edit

Notified: User talk:Everyking, User talk:Urselius, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Middle Ages, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject England.

FA from 2005, a few 1c issues, the WP:LEAD is a bit short and could be expanded upon, and the article could use a once-over for copyediting and flow. Overall, should not be too hard to address. Image File:Britain peoples circa 600.svg checks out okay, but File:Penda of Mercia.jpg could be standardized using commons:Template:Information. Cirt (talk) 18:31, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Alt text is done; thanks. Images need alt text as per WP:ALT. Eubulides (talk) 18:35, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it would help those who want to work on this article if examples of 1a and 1c issues were listed. Thanks. Awadewit (talk) 18:54, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Examples of 1c problem spots include [2]. Examples of 1a problematic points include languages such as "Thus it may be that...", and overusage of "may...", "may have been...", etc., in a vague ambiguous method such that at times it appears that the Wikipedia editor rather than a secondary source is drawing their own WP:OR conclusions. Cirt (talk) 19:02, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is hard to tell if the "may's" are editorial or sourced without looking at the source, of course, but considering this is 7th-century history, I would expect there to be a lot of ambivalent language in the article. We can look all of these statements up, but I'm not sure this is an example of poor prose. See Æthelbald of Mercia and other related articles - they use similar language of "may", "appear", etc. Perhaps we should sort out which statements you feel are questionable? Awadewit (talk) 19:12, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty much most of the statements that use such language, especially those that use the phrase "Thus it may..." are problematic. Cirt (talk) 19:13, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is not really clear to me why you are doubting these statements but not others. Basically because the statement is presented as a "perhaps" statement, you are doubting it, but you are accepting all of the other statements in the article as being accurately copied from the source. Why do you not believe that these statements have been accurately copied from the sources, like, apparently, you accept all of the other statements in the article? I find this quite puzzling. Awadewit (talk) 19:23, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you examine the specific statements you will see that the wording is such that it appears the Wikipedia editor is drawing inferences and making their own conclusions from the sources, or even worse yet, their own conclusions by themselves. It would be best to fix the wording and ambiguity, and have inline cites, especially for these problem spots. Cirt (talk) 19:26, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I looked at each instance of "may" in the article and they easily looked to me like something a source could have said. We can't know for sure unless we look at the source (which raises the question of why you doubt these statements more than others) and we certainly can't fix the wording without looking all of this up. Let's look at some examples:
  • Many of these twelve sons of Pybba may in fact merely represent later attempts to claim descent from him.
  • Given the apparent problems with the dates given by the Chronicleand the Historia, Bede's account of the length of Penda's reign is generally considered the most plausible by historians. Nicholas Brooksnoted that, since these three accounts of the length of Penda's reign come from three different sources, and none of them are Mercian (they are West Saxon, Northumbrian, and Welsh), they may merely reflect the times at which their respective peoples first had military involvement with Penda.
  • The time at which the battle occurred is uncertain; it may have been as early as 635, but there is also evidence to suggest it could not have been before 640 or 641.
  • Presuming that this battle took place before the Battle of Maserfield, it may have been that such an expression of Penda's ambition and emerging power made Oswald feel that Penda had to be defeated in order for Northumbrian dominance of southern England to be secured or consolidated.
  • The question of what sort of relationship of power existed between the brothers prior to the battle is a matter of speculation. Eowa may have simply been a sub-king under Penda and it is also possible that Penda and Eowa ruled jointly during the 630s and early 640s: joint kingships were not uncommon among Anglo-Saxon kingdoms of the period. They may have ruled the southern and northern Mercians respectively.
These are the first five examples of "may" in the article - note how we have words like "most plausible", "uncertain", "presuming", and "speculation" along with the "may". That hints to me, at any rate, that the "may" is justified. If you want, you can check all of these statements, because they all have inline cites as well, but I'm not convinced that the editor is drawing independent conclusions here - there is nothing at this time that makes me think we need to go through the extensive trouble of checking all of these statements against the sources. Awadewit (talk) 19:36, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The more problematic points are the uses of "thus...", "may...", etc., where there is a lack of an inline cite. Cirt (talk) 19:38, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is a citation issue, not a prose issue. You raised the issue of 1a and pointed to these "may" sentences - I am responding to that. "May" sentences are sometimes necessary, when there is uncertainty reflected in the historical record, as we can see above. Awadewit (talk) 19:40, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, you were the one to first raise the issue of 1a on this page. I initially raised the issue of 1c. Cirt (talk) 19:44, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In your nominating statement, you said "and the article could use a once-over for copyediting and flow". I asked you to specify the 1a issues (as I assumed that is what you meant) and then you responded with "Examples of 1a problematic points include languages such as "Thus it may be that...", and overusage of "may...", "may have been...", etc.". Let's not be disingenuous here - if you didn't think 1a was a problem, you would have said "oh, you misunderstand me - I'm not saying 1a is a problem". Instead, you started listing problems. Awadewit (talk) 19:50, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was not being disingenuous. My primary concern with the article is 1c. But I do not think it is unreasonable to recommend copyediting during a FAR. Cirt (talk) 19:54, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll be glad to work on fixing any problems here. My Wiki time is a bit limited right now, but I should be able to get somewhere. I'll add a note about one tag below, and post more as I dig into the others. Incidentally, I agree with Awadewit that covering this period of history practically requires the use of "may", and it is not in itself an alarm bell. Opinions can sometimes be usefully attributing to specific historians, but it shouldn't appear that only one historian's viewpoint is being presented when the statement has wide acceptance. Perhaps some specific examples from Cirt would be useful?
    • For one of the fact tags it appears that a relevant footnote was present in the original edit, here. The book in question, Bassett's The Origins of Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms, is very hard to come by; if anyone has access to a University copy and can look this up I'd appreciate it. It's not completely clear that it covers this, and the reference doesn't give a page, but it does cite Brooks' essay so it should not be hard to find the relevant part of the source.
    • The first tag, on "Oswald’s moves toward alliance with the West Saxons, who occupied territory to the south of the Mercians, could be seen as an attempt to counter Mercian power", had no citation when added. It's a reasonable comment, but should be sourced. I checked Kirby and Yorke, who are pretty thorough on this sort of thing, but didn't find anything. Given that Everyking was using Bassett, we should check that too for support.
-- Mike Christie (talk) 20:29, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll attempt to look through my stuff also, but won't be able to get to this until at least tomorrow. If folks could definitively place fact tags on everything that they feel needs cites, that would help a bunch. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:06, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have also checked Zaluckyj, Stenton, Campbell's The Anglo-Saxons, the Blackwell encyclopedia, and I also looked at Walker's Mercia, forgetting that it doesn't really cover this period. I also checked Brown & Farr's Mercia; the only relevant-looking article is the one by Yorke, and there was nothing there. Mike Christie (talk) 21:11, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My library has the Bassett, so I can look up material in that book. Perhaps we could amass a list of items? Awadewit (talk) 21:15, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If anything else comes up that we need to check, then yes, but I have a decent library on this period and the Bassett is one of the few things that I'm missing. (Cheapest copy online: $146 dollars for an ex-lib. Bleah.) One other that might come in handy that I don't have is Higham's Convert Kings, but I think Ealdgyth has it. Penda was never converted, though, so Higham may not have much to say about him. (Nice to bump into you again, Awadewit and Ealdgyth; I've been offline so long I feel half a stranger!) Mike Christie (talk) 21:24, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For some reason I didn't notice all the tags; I will check on the other ones this evening. The one about Oswald's sainthood, at least, is going to be easy to reference. Mike Christie (talk) 11:26, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For the first point, I suggest we go back to original, sourced edit. That is clearly reflected in the source. I can't quite see the current information in the article in the source (however, that may be because I am unfamiliar with all of this material!). I have checked out the book, though, and can send a PDF of the "Penda" pages to whomever might request them. Awadewit (talk) 19:13, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For the second point, this seems like a clear implication of the essay, but I would rather someone else read it over to make sure. Awadewit (talk) 19:18, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't feel all that strongly about this, because I long ago chose to abandon the FA process, but I will say that I don't understand why someone would object to language that is simply designed to convey the uncertainties surrounding so many of the historical details here. We can't state things as fact when they are nothing more than the informed speculation of various historians. Everyking (talk) 21:42, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect when we dig into the sources, we'll find that the "mays" and such-like are required, because the historians themselves aren't sure. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:57, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is what you will find. Very little about this time and place can be considered certain. If someone has access to the sources I used, I think it would be a better use of time to use them as sources for the expansion of other articles. Everyking (talk) 01:34, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The period in question is not well covered by primary sources, it is not as amenable as, for example, the English Civil War to absolute statements of fact or chronology. Having an encyclopedia article reflect this paucity of sources and consequent levels of uncertainty is not a failing, it is a necessity. As in the case of particle physics an article can only reflect what concensus exists within the relevant scholarship, and highlight areas of doubt.Urselius (talk) 09:06, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have spot-checked a few references and they all conform with the sources. The sources are uncertain, therefore the language in our article should reflect that uncertainty. I see no reason to pursue this particular point further. Awadewit (talk) 19:07, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm currently sourcing what fact tags I can get out of my own works. There are a few spots we're going to need to acquire some of the specific works, especially Brooks' book/article on Mercia, as I don't have that. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:17, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have the PDF and can email it to you. Awadewit (talk) 19:19, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please do! Ealdgyth - Talk 19:20, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
there are four spots that I cannot source from my library. They still have citation needed tags on them. someone else will probably need to standardize the references, and if you need more information on the specifics of the books I used, drop me a note. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:20, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a ref to one, but unfortunately my edition of Kirby has different pagination, so I had to cite to the section and chapter. The remaining three tags are the ones I already checked against my sources; I'll take a look at the Brooks when I get a copy. Mike Christie (talk) 00:16, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Most likely, if something has a citation needed tag, it was already cited but someone misinterpreted it or altered it in some way. (This is sadly common: if I write "The sky is blue. The grass is green" both covered by the same source, someone too lazy to check the references might get confused and add a cite needed tag after "blue".) I am pretty confident that everything in the article was cited when it went through FAC, so I'd recommend looking at the earlier versions for that. Everyking (talk) 19:23, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I sent a copy of the Brooks article to Mike Christie and Ealdgyth today. Awadewit (talk) 23:46, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Received; thank you. I will read through and see if there's anything there that might address the remaining tags. Mike Christie (talk) 01:30, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see three cite needed tags currently in the article. I checked the old versions and see that they were not cited then, either; however, all three of them are end-of-paragraph summaries of preceding, cited speculation. There's nothing new in any of them. However, I can't really determine the best way to cite them now because I no longer have access to many of the sources I used to write this article. Everyking (talk) 19:23, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was able to source one of these from the Brooks article in Bassett (thanks to Awadewit for sending me that). The other two I've now cut, as I can find no source; the one about the southern part of Mercia seems as though it may have been an over-reading of what Kirby says -- I reread that section of Kirby a couple of times and he doesn't say quite what he'd need to to source that sentence. I started a section on the article talk page in case someone with an interest in the article is able to source the statements at a later date. Mike Christie (talk) 00:31, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's all fine with me. Everyking (talk) 01:16, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The article is much improved. Thanks much to the work of all involved, especially that already done by Ealdgyth (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 19:28, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is there anything left to be done? Great job by Awadewit, Ealdgyth, Mike Chrisie and Everyking to bring this up to standard. I think this can be kept without going to the FARC stage. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:24, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Alt text is done; thanks. The alt text still needs to be written. Only 3 images, so it shouldn't be that hard. Please see the "alt text" button in the toolbox at the upper right of this review page. Eubulides (talk) 06:19, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I've added alt text for two images; please review. Is alt text needed for the decorative image in the template? Mike Christie (talk) 10:37, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    ...although it appears that the Alt text tool can't see what I've done. Did I make a mistake? Firefox shows the alt text property correctly. Mike Christie (talk) 11:23, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The alt text viewer is working for me now; a caching problem? The 1st image is fine. The map's alt text is considerably too long: I suggest moving it to the file description page, and summarizing it more briefly here with more-general phrases like "the Angles are in the southeast". The last image still needs alt text, of course. Eubulides (talk) 18:49, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Have the alt text problems been fixed? Dabomb87 (talk) 15:23, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm afraid not. The alt text for Image:Britain peoples circa 600.svg is still too long and detailed, and the alt text for Image:Offa king of Mercia 757 796.jpg is a perfunctory placeholder. Eubulides (talk) 23:15, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • (outdent) I shortened the map alt text, but there is no image Image:Offa king of Mercia 757 796.jpg currently in the article, and the alt text for the other image in the article seems fine to me. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:56, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for fixing the alt text (including that image, which we discussed on my talk page). Eubulides (talk) 18:18, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, Ealdgyth; I'm sorry I was unable to clean up my alt text before you got to it -- it's been pretty busy. If there are any other issues with the article I will try to address them. Mike Christie (talk) 02:12, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Inconsistency in pages in citations ... some use page, others use p. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:12, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed that a while ago. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:34, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What's left to be fixed, if anything? Dabomb87 (talk) 00:34, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
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 Marskell 23:28, 21 September 2009 [3].

Cat's Eye Nebula edit

Notified: Main contributor and nominator Worldtraveller. Only one project attached to article, WikiProject Astronomy.

I am nominating this featured article for review because it currently lacks inline citations, criteria 1(c) - it was nominated 4 years ago. I've restored one section that got deleted by vandalism 2 years ago. Tom B (talk) 14:59, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Ruslik is making good progress on this. ceranthor 16:18, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
    • "and was the first planetary nebula whose spectrum was investigated by the English amateur astronomer William Huggins in 1864." - it is unclear whether it was the first nebula to be studied, or first nebula studied by Huggins.
    • Harvard citation looks awkward for journals. Shall I convert journals to in-line cites? Materialscientist (talk) 12:18, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I fixed problems with lack of inline citations and alt text. I also expanded the lead. I think, the article can be kept now. Ruslik_Zero 16:14, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • good job, hopefully this can be kept now, Tom B (talk) 19:29, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have reliability of sources and image licensing been checked before this is kept? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:06, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image review - Fine, no problems. Black Kite 00:37, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
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 Marskell 22:48, 21 September 2009 [4].

Augusta, Lady Gregory edit

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Theatre, User talk:Filiocht, User talk:Ceoil , User talk:DrKiernan.

FA from 2004. Primarily 1c issues. Image File:Augusta, Lady Gregory - Project Gutenberg eText 19028.jpg could be standardized using commons:Template:Information, same goes for File:Lady gregory.jpg, and File:Abbey1.jpg. Locally, image File:Lady gregory1.jpg could be improved using {{Information}}. Cirt (talk) 03:33, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Fixed. Images need alt text as per WP:ALT. Eubulides (talk) 04:29, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have jusr re-read this page for the first time in years, I can see no problems at all. Giano (talk) 16:29, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I never read this article before and found it to be very informative. If there are problems with the images, why not just make the necessary changes to them instead of nominating the article for review? This question is coming from an editor unfamiliar with the process, so please don't criticize me for thinking my solution seems like an obvious one if for some reason it isn't. Thanks! LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 17:13, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, SlimVirgin just did a wonderful job fixing the referencing problems since the article was nominated. It was filled with {{citation needed}} tags, whereas now there is only one, last I looked. —Mattisse (Talk) 17:57, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Mattisse, indeed it was [5]. You realy must obtain some reference books sometime, just think what even more of an assett to the project you would be. Giano (talk) 18:01, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think Lady Gregory has a "receding chin" as described in the alt text. —Mattisse (Talk) 15:08, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
She most certainly had not. I would agree with removing this. Ceoil (talk) 13:41, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Removed; in future please just fix problems like this directly. Eubulides (talk) 19:58, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
K. Ceoil (talk) 20:12, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see roughly 6 or 7 places that need citations at the end of paragraphs. However, that is a very easy remedy. If these aren't filled in after a while, I will do it myself so there should be no reason to delist it if it comes down to it. I will be checking later in the week. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:46, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe that I have done much of this. However, there is another issue and I wont discuss that here. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:05, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ottava, you have indicated in your edit summaries that there are copyvio problems. Have you checked the entire article? —Mattisse (Talk) 15:17, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That was a mistake. I thought I was looking at material that was added in 2007. I was actually looking at the original 2004 material. The source was from 2007. I have contacted a variety of individuals about the matter as the page was being used by an Irish literature academic that did not cite Wikipedia. I am currently trying to find out if there was a source that they both took from, if this was originally published somewhere else, or if the 2007 source did take word for word the Wikipedia source without attributing. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:28, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • We seem to be stepping on each other's toes here. Ottava, can you say why you removed some of the references I added? Also, what is the copyright violation you mention here? SlimVirgin talk|contribs 20:34, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We should be careful that the writing doesn't suffer when we fix citations. For example, the article said:

Her Galway home had long been a focal point for the writers associated with the Irish Literary Revival and this continued after her retirement. On a tree in what were the grounds of the now demolished house, one can still see the carved initials of Synge, Æ, Yeats and his artist brother Jack, George Moore, Sean O'Casey, George Bernard Shaw, Katharine Tynan and Violet Martin. Yeats wrote five poems about or set in the house and grounds: "The Wild Swans at Coole", "I walked among the seven woods of Coole", "In the Seven Woods", "Coole Park, 1929" and "Coole Park and Ballylee, 1931".

This was changed to:

Her Galway home had long been a focal point for the writers associated with the Irish Literary Revival and this continued after her retirement. Many of the writers connected to the Irish revival of literature used her house as a focal point. In particular, one tree contains the initials of many of the writers, including Violet Martin, George Moore, Sean O'Casey, Russell, George Bernard Shaw, Synge, Katharine Tynan, Yeats and his brother Jack, and many others. Also, Yeats used the home as the setting for many of his poems, including "The Wild Swans at Coole".

SlimVirgin talk|contribs 20:49, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Posted on your talk page. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:01, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Copied it below so that others will see it.
Please don't until we can determine which took the text from which. This source is an exact copy of what was on the page. It does not attribute Wikipedia and the writer claims to be a scholar who was working on this for a while. I have already contacted a few people about figuring out how to deal with the matter. She either took from Wikipedia without attributing or the Wikipedia page took from her without attributing. Or, they both took from the same third party. Either way, this needs to be dealt with. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:01, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Could we deal with it here, rather than privately? If the Sigillito was published in 2007, that might be a copy from us. But regardless of that, the writing of the replaced text was awkward. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 23:06, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The WP text has been in the article since September 2004. [6] Can you type up here the sentences that are direct copies? SlimVirgin talk|contribs 23:09, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yes, interesting. [7] SlimVirgin talk|contribs 23:14, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[8] and [9] SlimVirgin talk|contribs 23:51, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If this is a reliable method, then this from the lede: "is mainly remembered for her work behind the Irish Literary Revival. Her home at Coole Park, County Galway, served as an important meeting place for leading Revival figures, and her early work as a member of the board of the Abbey was at least as important for the theatre's development as her creative writings" is from [10] from a review comment for a book published in 1970, according to the publication date at Amazon.com. This may be crazy-making. Who knows what came first? —Mattisse (Talk) 00:12, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The ones you linked to are from Wikipedia, and say so. I'm guessing that the book cited above is also from Wikipedia, given that we predate it by three years, but it doesn't say so, and it ought to, unless it came first. The point is that it's unusual for anyone to copy word for word. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 00:37, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind! You are right. —Mattisse (Talk) 01:11, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mattisse, stick with searching at google books and not the full google site, as the google site tends to kick back a lot of Wiki clones. I tend to lump together phrases or terms when searching. I just happened to lump the list of names for the initials on the tree when I discovered the duplication. I lost internet before because of the weather, so sorry for the tardy response. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:28, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What's the status here? Dabomb87 (talk) 02:18, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussions are continuing about how a chapter in a book came to be a copy of this article, but as things stand, based on the history of this article and the timing of it, not to mention who it was written by, there's no indication that this piece was taken from elsewhere. As for the rest, in terms of FA criteria, it seems to be well-sourced, well-written and properly formatted. As I'm not really familiar with FAR, I don't know what else should be done. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 02:26, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mattisse seemed to be one of the few with outstanding issues, but she is currently blocked - perhaps a user talk page discussion could clarify if she has any more concerns. I am convinced that our Wikipedia article came before the clone, so I have no concerns. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:53, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the citations/references are missing accessdates, and date formatting in them should be consistent. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:08, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since this is close to Keep, has there been an image review? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:08, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Image review. All PD or free, no problems. Black Kite 00:38, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Are the various issues that popped up weeks ago still present? Dabomb87 (talk) 00:30, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
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 Marskell 22:48, 21 September 2009 [11].

Geology of the Grand Canyon area edit

Notified: User talk:Mav[12]

Four years ago this was one of the best articles at Wikipedia. It could use some help to keep up with current FA standards. Has had only 10 edits in the last four months, so nominating here in the hope of gaining more attention and assistance.

Specific criteria:

  • 1.a Prose: rough in places, could use substantial copyediting. For example, "Some important terms: A geologic formation is a rock unit that has one or more sediment beds, and a member is a minor unit in a formation." The article is list-heavy and contains single sentence paragraphs.
  • 1.c Well-researched: the list of nine sources seems thin by 2009 standards.
  • 2.c Consistent citations: Contains only 17 inline citations, multiple paragraphs and sections entirely uncited. The article would be more useful for student/research purposes if it were clear which facts are substantiated in particular sources.

Overall, a very good and encyclopedic article that would probably be rated B-class if it had been written today, mostly based upon its prose and referencing. Would love to see this retained. But needs a boost, because if we're honest it wouldn't pass GA today in its present form. Durova288 04:13, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'll give it a good copyedit/MOS/ref pass and flesh out the listy parts with a couple new book references I've obtained since this article became FA. But I must disagree that 9 sources is at all thin when several of those sources are books that cover the subject in chapter length (I'm not a fan of constructing an article from tiny bits from dozens of sources when good sources that have a more substantial treatment exist). Either way, the two new book sources I'll be using are soley on the geology of the Grand Canyon so should make up any deficit. However, this may take some time due to having to condense and sort through all that new detail to see what is appropriate for an encyclopedia article. I had hoped to be well on the way of such an update before a FAR (the plan was to flesh out related formation articles and update this article as a side benefit ; must do things backwards now). --mav (talk) 02:25, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Plan to start above work this past weekend were scuttled. Will try again this weekend. --mav (talk) 04:20, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Apologies if the comment about nine sources was out of place; not my field. It just seemed that this wouldn't be a tough subject to find more sources about. Quality matters more than quantity, though. Durova294 04:37, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • While there are plenty of field guides to the Grand Canyon, there are relatively few good sources that cover the geology in any detail. No reason to apologize. :) --mav (talk) 21:35, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ref pass for Harris 1997 complete. Kiver will be next. Once the article is fully referenced, I'll start the de-listify expansion and copyedit. --mav (talk) 21:35, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ref pass for Kiver 1999 complete. 31 individual inline cites now, many of which are used multi times. Starting expansion and reference work with Price 1999. --mav (talk) 19:24, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Still working on Price 1999. Almost done. Normally have only a few hours on the weekend to work on this but will try to work during the week to expedite completion. --mav (talk) 03:10, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No need to panic YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 01:40, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done with Price 1999. Now 48 individual inline cites with many of those referenced multiple times. Starting work on Beus & Morales 2003, which is the 400+ page book just on Grand Canyon geology I was talking about. --mav (talk) 00:50, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I went ahead and delistified the lists and added alt text. Article still has some uncited stuff and areas that could use a little expansion. Still working. --mav (talk) 02:08, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your work YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 02:22, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The alt text is a very good start; thanks. It has a few problems:
  • File:Red Butte, Arizona 2004-10-19.jpg is still missing alt text.
  • Some phrases cannot be verified by a non-expert just from the image, and need to be moved to the caption or removed as per WP:ALT#Verifiability. These include "the Grand Canyon from Navajo point", "in the Grand Canyon", "actual sample rocks from each layer", "the Colorado River as seen from Desert View on the South Rim of the Grand Canyon", "Vulcan's Throne basalt", "the Grand Canyon", "Glen Canyon Dam"
  • Some of the phrases in the alt text are not that useful and can be removed as per WP:ALT#Phrases to avoid: "Picture of", "showing", "Photo of", "Image showing", "A black and white photograph of".
  • The phrase "Different layers are noted and referred to in the text" is pretty strange. It partly duplicates the caption, but partly disagrees with it, as the caption talks about "Black numbers" but I see no black numbers in that image. I suspect that both caption and alt text need to be reworded; please keep WP:ALT#Repetition in mind.
  • The alt text for File:Colorado Plateaus map2.jpg doesn't really convey the gist of the image, which is that the Colorado Plateau boundaries circle the Four Corners region and is mostly in Utah and northern Arizona. Something like that should be in the alt text; please see WP:ALT#Maps.
  • "A bride is seen near the dam"? "Bridge" not "bride" (honestly, at first I started looking for a tiny figure in a wedding dress!). Please remove the redundant word "seen". Also, it'd help to say briefly where the bridge is, in relation to the dam.
Eubulides (talk) 05:08, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Although I'm no expert with alt text, will have a look at the captions and see whether they can be improved. Durova306 05:45, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another big push to fix remaining issues this weekend. --mav (talk) 00:13, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Somehow forgot about Chronic 2004. So went through that text to improve and expand the article a bit. Beus (the big book) is next and will take care of the remaining uncited thickness and age parts. Other than that all I think is needed is a good copyedit and the alt text/cite format fix. More work to come tomorrow and/or Monday. --mav (talk) 00:08, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If there are any remaining image issues please let me know. Also to Mav: the Library of Congress hosts historic photography that might possibly be suitable for this article and also featured picture-worthy. If you'd like to select a suitable image for an FP drive, please leave word. I'll handle the image editing; need input from an eye that's experienced with the geology. Durova311 01:52, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The images still have the alt text problems noted in my 05:08, 31 August comment above. Eubulides (talk) 02:19, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Another stab at the alt text done. Other images added as well. Please take a look. Still working on Beus 2003. --mav (talk) 03:51, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for doing all that. It's much improved. I fixed some of the obvious typos and have a few more comments.
  • "An exhibit that shows different rock layers" doesn't convey the essence of the image, which is that there are six major layers, that layers are numbered from bottom (oldest) to top (newest), that layers 1 and 2 are diagonal, 2 not visible on the surface of the canyon's sides, 3 and 4 are fairly vertical, 5 fairly horizontal, and 6 fairly vertical again. Something like that, anyway.
  • "An exhibit of actual sample rocks from each geological layer." still doesn't say much about what that image looks like. Perhaps the edit made to the caption was intended for the alt text?
  • Misspellings: "pebblely", "slopping".
  • "Annotated photo of different colored rock units on a cliff". That alt text looks like it should be the caption. Are the alt text and caption interchanged here?
  • "Indentations in tan-colored rock" The alt text should focus on what those indentations look like (roundish footprints with claw or toe marks), not on the color of the rock.
  • "... on each side. Seen downriver. An arching steel bridge ..." Sorry, I can't parse that.
  • There is still minor instances of "showing", "seen", "photo of" that should be removed.
Eubulides (talk) 06:39, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the pointer Durova. I looked but really could not find any color photos that show individual formations well. But the LOC certainly is a good source for the other Grand Canyon articles. I ended up adding low resolution PD images from the USGS and NPS. Will need to do some hiking to get better photos. --mav (talk) 03:51, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Only one more section to go for Beus 2003. Then a final copyedit and alt text pass will be needed. After that, I think we will be ready for a final look and (hopefully) closing this w/o going to FARC. --mav (talk) 03:43, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done?

Copyedit done, all ref passes done, expansion done, alt text done. I'm happy with the article now. Anything else need improvement? --mav (talk) 03:05, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fully meets my concerns. Thank you very much for all your effort. And Mav, in return for your excellent work and good spirits I'll extend a standing offer: if you locate a historic public domain image which you think would be suitable for this article, let me know and I'll do my best to restore it. Ideally I like to work with high resolution files (10MB or larger in TIFF or other uncompressed format), but if the best you locate is smaller I'll give that a shot too. Best regards, Durova320 03:18, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The alt text is all 1st-class now. Thanks for doing all that work. Eubulides (talk) 04:42, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
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 Marskell 22:22, 20 September 2009 [13].

Kylie Minogue edit

Notified: User talk:Rossrs, User talk:Eagle Owl, User talk:Getcrunk, User talk:MariAna Mimi, User talk:Plek, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography, Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Melbourne, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian television, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Kylie Minogue, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Doctor Who, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rock music, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies.

FA from 2005, a few referencing/1c issues - particularly in a couple spots after quotes from individuals, WP:LEAD is a bit short. A few short one or two-sentence paragraphs, and small subsections. Image File:Dr who christmas 07.jpg could be standardized using {{Non-free media rationale}}. Cirt (talk) 11:22, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm prepared to give this what time I am able to give. I agree with the comments above, and have a few observations myself.

  • Short sections like "Fashion" serve no purpose and need to go.
  • I have strong doubts about the "Personal life" section as it only focusses on high profile "romances". "Personal life" should rightly contain more than that - a personal life is actually a very complex thing and includes a range of relationships, not solely those that are sexual : parents, siblings, friends and interests outside of performing. I don't want to go into any of those things, but a section that is headed "Personal life" that deals only with those men Minogue has been in domestic relationships with, makes the header wrong. To me, it looks like a potted history of Kylie's boyfriends, though it is selective in not mentioning her first high profile relationship with Jason Donovan. The Donovan relationship is covered in the article as part of her chronology, and I think the others should be too. Hutchence and Sednauoi influenced her career, and that's where they should be discussed, not in isolation. Janet Jackson is a good example, in my opinion, of how the personal life can be integrated into discussion of the career. Will anyone seriously object if the relevant aspects of this section are merged into the article, and we dispense with the "Personal life" header?
  • Film and television work - Should it have a seperate section as it currently does? In my opinion it utterly fails to make any connection between her hugely successful singing career, and her considerably less successful acting career. Her acting career has been almost entirely dependent on the goodwill she's generated as a singer/celebrity. It could be integrated and the article would benefit from these points being given some context. After all, if we only want to know what she's been in, we have a filmography. In my opinion, the article would make more sense if presented with a continous time flow. It currently jumps - we get to the end of her singing career, and talk of an album that she hasn't even released yet, and suddenly we jump back 22 years to 1987 with her making her first film. Everything that she did before 1987, including her career as a child actor, and her considerable impact in Neighbours isn't mentioned. (Also there's too much detail about Dr. Who. Now that it's done, the lead-up isn't needed). So - do we keep it seperate or merge it?
  • Breast cancer section - another jump in time line. At the end of "1999–2005: Light Years, Fever and Body Language" she receives her breast cancer diagnosis and the next paragraph tells about her returning to work. It's very awkward, and to find out what happened to her, you have to scroll down to the personal life section, read about her boyfriends and her cancer, and then scroll back up to see her resume her career.

These points in my opinion prevent the article from flowing well. Rossrs (talk) 13:30, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I agree with merging the information into chronological order. I'm not degrading the importance of having breast cancer, but it is odd that the "personal life" section is overwhelmed by that information and only gives passing mention to a few boyfriends. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 00:23, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you. I also do not want to degrade the importance of the breast cancer section. I think it should still be a subsection, but located chronologically. Rossrs (talk) 07:44, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Importance" may not be the right word (I doubt anyone would consider it "important" to have) but rather "significant" in a sense of a life or death struggle in one's life should it unfortunately occur. Nonetheless, that should not be the primary focus of her entire "personal" life. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 08:38, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Done; thanks. Images need alt text as per WP:ALT. Eubulides (talk) 17:26, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree with Rossrs above, the Personal life section is choppy and patchy in coverage, and might be better threaded through the chronology - the Jason Donovan romance rumours paralleled neighbours and afterwards, and the characters and actors almost enmeshed in their description in tabloids. The Hutchence affair was also closely linked with a change in style and public persona, and disposal of 'girl-next-door' image. The Martinez relationship was notable in the frequency of its appearance in magazines, linked with paparazzi etc. Also there is little of her relationship with Dannii at all in the article. If others agree, we should make a start on threading I think. Yes, and some referencing needs fixing. The prose isn't too bad really. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:09, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, this is what I've done here
    • 1. "Fashion" section - gone. It's a minor point that was so out of context as to make it trivial.
    • 2. "Breast cancer" subsection, I've now merged into the chronology intact with a header "2005–2006: Breast cancer". It is a crucial part of her story, and was the subject of extensive publicity. It is as important to her story as any of her albums, especially considering that it came at a time that her career was "peaking". It deserves its due.
    • 3. "Personal life", removed section, and merged the relevant aspects. Michael Hutchence was important to her change of style in 1990, and that's where he should be discussed, around the release of Rhythm of Love. Stephane Sednaoui is mentioned in a few sentences in the 1997 part of the article. That's enough. His appearance in the "Personal life" section was redundant, given that nothing of additional importance was said about him. Olivier Martinez was a notable relationship. I have added a sentence in the 2003 section to note when they met. It could probably do with more, but I don't know what. I added a few sentences to the 2007 section where they announced seperation. Minogue's tribute to Martinez in the wake of media criticism of him says more about her character, his character and their relationship, than the silly gossip about them maybe planning a baby over lunch. So I've added Minogue's supportive comment, and deleted the baby rumour nonsense. I removed Andrés Velencoso entirely. Our mention of him was as someone "with whom she has been seen several times" and I think this sounds very weak. If this is an important relationship, or if it becomes important, it can be added back. Rossrs (talk) 14:44, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well done. ok, now the boring stuff...housekeeping...I did one alt image note, and some references need formatting. Anything else comprehensiveness-wise? Nothing is jumping out...Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:40, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added a toolbox to this review page. The toolbox indicates housekeeping problems with disambig links, external links, and alt text. Thanks for starting with the alt text. Some suggestions for the alt text added for File:KylieMinogueIShouldBeSoLuckyVideo.jpg: it should not say "Kylie" or "I Should Be So Lucky" or "video" or "singing", as none of these details are immediately verifiable from the image alone by a typical Wikipedia reader (most readers don't know what Minogue looks like). Also, the alt text shouldn't say "screenshot" (see WP:ALT #Flawed and better examples, example 2. (The "smiling" is good, though. :-) Ideally the alt text should say what's immediately obvious from the visual appearance of this image, and what distinguishes this visual appearance of Minogue from the other images in the article (youth, hairstyle, etc.). Eubulides (talk) 23:22, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've had a crack at the alt text, and I have to say it looked very easy until I tried to do it. Not so easy, but I guess it's just a different way of thinking. I don't know if what I've done is good or bad, but I think it's a start. I read through WP:ALT and it used Greta Garbo as an example and said basically that for the first mention it's not enough to just say it's Greta because the reader won't necessarily know what she looked like, but for subsequent images, where the basic appearance has already been described, it's ok. I hope I've interpreted that correctly. I used the name "Kylie" but I also described her. I have no idea how to do the "Wild Roses" images as they are in a table, and I assume that the infobox image can't be done either. I need some help please, if you could. Thanks Rossrs (talk) 09:33, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking this on. Your first cut is quite good, though a bit of work is still needed. Some comments:
  • Template:Infobox Musical artist does support alt text; please see its documentation. I assume the first image's alt text will be written assuming the reader doesn't know what Kylie looks like.
  • Two other images lack alt text. You can easily see which ones by visiting "alt text" in the toolbox at the upper right hand corner of this subpage.
  • The phrase "19 year old" is too precise to be easily verified by a non-expert who is merely looking at the image, and should be reworded to be vaguer.
  • This point is minor, but it's briefer if you use simple present tense, e.g., "are standing" → "stand"; "Kylie, wearing" → "Kylie wears", "She is holding" → "She holds".
Again, thanks for taking this on, and the work is mostly done. Eubulides (talk) 16:10, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments. I will fix the points you mention but you mention that there are still two images without text. I realize this, but as per my previous comment, I can't work out how to add the alt text because one image is in the infobox, and the other is actually two images in a table. (The "Wild Rose" dead-body-in-the-water images) I've tried to add alt text, but it doesn't work. Can you please tell me how to add to these. Thanks Rossrs (talk) 00:11, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Images in a table are just like images anywhere else, and you add the alt text in the same way. Template:Infobox Musical artist/doc describes how to do it in the infobox. To help out I added placeholders that you can fill in. Eubulides (talk) 01:16, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your help. There is now alt text for each image. Rossrs (talk) 01:43, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It looks good. Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 06:03, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thx for that - I think this FA is readily saveable. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:13, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The image for "Spinning Around" used in the Light Years section is unjustified and is getting undue weight for usage in the biography article. I'm sure some image from the commons is available for that era. --Legolas (talk2me) 06:06, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think we need to look at all images and see what is available on Commons. I don't think four unfree images is too much, but I'm also mindful we should use them with purpose and not merely as decoration. To clarify, because I was the one who added the "Spinning Around" image, it was never intended to simply represent that era. It was intended to demonstrate the particular care that Minogue and Baker took in modeling her appearance on the 1940s Varga Girl. It originally linked to a Varga Girl image from the 1940s, that showed a girl in an identical pose. Unfortunately that website is no longer active, so that link is gone, and the image becomes less relevant. That particular image, including the costume she is wearing, restarted her career, and I think it's stronger than a more generic image. I understand that not everyone would see the same importance in the unfree images that I see. If there was a suitable image in Commons, I'd be happy to see it replaced, but this period of her career is her "career height" and Commons doesn't represent this period. If we have images from other times in her career, but not this period, I think we are not providing the right balance. On the other hand, are any unfree images really essential in any article? (Just a side note : when the article was promoted in Feb 2005, there were 14 unfree images and 0 free images. Standards have certainly improved since then!) Rossrs (talk) 08:09, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly my point, FA standards have become too strict and orthodox. I understand your justification but in no way the FA promoters will accept a non-free image, and that too one that is purely demostrating her image only, for the FA status. Hence I believe its better that either we replace it with a free image, or its better to have no image at all. --Legolas (talk2me) 12:13, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. I understand your concern, but I think each image serves a purpose and each one supports text in the article, and has a specific fair use rationale. There are other unfree images in featured articles, including more recent promotions, so I'm not convinced that they wouldn't be accepted, and I'd rather not anticipate how people may or may not consider the image. It would depend on who commented - some would say yes, and some would say no. I would prefer to leave the images and see if anyone else comments, but after 4 years... nobody else has and it's a relatively high-traffic article. I find your comment contradictory - on the one hand you're saying the standards are "too strict and orthodox" and then on the other hand you're saying to remove an image in order to comply with the standards. As for the image itself - it is "iconic" in the UK and Australia - the two territories where she is most notable, and I think the image is used with a much more specific purpose than many images. I'm copyediting and sourcing the article, and there are a few points, including this one, that need to be reworded, so I'll keep your comments in mind and try to address them. Rossrs (talk) 13:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: My original reply to this nomination was that I would give some time to fixing this, but since then I've decided I will give it my best effort, but I would just like to note that my time is limited. I have looked at, and agree with User:Cirt's comments. It may appear that not much happening to address the problems, but I have decided to go through each of the cites to ensure there is standardisation in the way they are formatted, that the information in the article is accurately supported by the cite, (which basically means reading the external source pages), that weak sources are replaced with something "stronger", and that unsourced information is either cited or removed. As I go through, I am finding that the sources are generally good and reliable, but checking is proving to be more time consuming that I expected. I am doing some of the basic updating in a sandbox rather than making numerous small edits to the article, and then copying into the article. I am worried that someone may decide to close this while I am still working on it, because it may look like it's stagnating - it's not. I am busier with this than it may appear, so I would like to just ask that some leeway is given time-wise. User:Cirt also commented that the WP:LEAD is short - true. I think the article needs to be fixed first and then the lead worked as a summary of the article. For that reason I haven't touched the lead, but I agree it needs updating. Rossrs (talk) 13:54, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Checklist
  1. Merge personal life and film and television sections into article - completed.
  2. Add alt text for each image - completed
  3. Fix disamb links - completed
  4. Check all sources - about half way to completed. completed
  5. General copyedit - about half way to completed. completed
  6. Fix lead - leaving until article is fixed. Have not started. Rossrs (talk) 06:23, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Integrated material from the 3 sources suggested below by User:YellowMonkey Rossrs (talk) 14:18, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As long as work is ongoing or can be started in a reasonable period from now, the FAR will stay open. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:45, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It is ongoing, and I will make a note here when the points above have each been addressed. Rossrs (talk) 22:20, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Still ongoing. In line with discussion on Talk:Madonna (entertainer), I am going to remove the comments of Miki Berenyi and Ian Brown (one of which I originally added). If they have an axe to grind we don't need to give them a platform. Neither of them have anything to do with Minogue, neither of them are qualified to speak on behalf on the entire music industry, their comments do not help to balance criticism in the article as there is plenty of it given, in context throughout the article, and we don't need to add negative comments just for the sake of it. We don't know if they're jealous and if given half the chance they'd like to swap places with Minogue. They may be valid comments or they may be sour grapes. They aren't placed into any context, and as such they just don't add anything of value. Rossrs (talk) 13:15, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Newspapers are inconsistent in refs. Do we want italics or not? Do we want BBC or BBC News? YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 04:48, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've been going through from the beginning to standardise, so the first half uses one format and the second half another. I know it looks patchy but there are so many sources, it's taking time to update. Regarding BBC or BBC News (and other pages cited), I'd be inclined to go with what is on the source page. I'll go through and check. Thanks for your comments, by the way! :-) Rossrs (talk) 08:31, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
These are very good. Will continue fixing the cites and then refer to these for additional information. Thanks ! Rossrs (talk) 13:15, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary edit

Suggested FA criteria concern are citations, comprehensiveness, balance and focus, lead, structure, alt text. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. FAQ? YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 02:30, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Ref 17 is broken. There's a bit of overlinking of common terms (breast cancer, Latin America). Overall, though, this is looking loads better. Have YellowMonkey's sources been incorporated yet? Dabomb87 (talk) 02:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No. I've added one point from the first one listed, but I'm still working on fixing the citations/links. Almost finished, but I've been short of time lately and it's come to a halt. In the next couple of days, I hope that aspect is dealt with. I think it's looking better too, and it's nice to read someone else saying so.  :-) Rossrs (talk) 08:50, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, now I have. I've also updated the checklist above. I'm having trouble with the lead but it'll eventuate. Rossrs (talk) 14:18, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Sub-section titled 1968–1986: Early life and career beginnings tends to use Kylie for subject of article, whereas the rest of the article tends to use Minogue. Should this be resolved or is there a special reason for its use in that sub-section that I don't see?shaidar cuebiyar ( talk | contribs ) 11:40, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That section discusses the comparative careers of, and the relationship between Kylie and her sister, Dannii. They can only be distinguished by using their given names rather than "Minogue", which is used throughout the rest of the article to refer to Kylie. In later parts of the article Dannii is mentioned infrequently as "Dannii Minogue". I think it all fits per WP:MOSBIO. Rossrs (talk) 02:04, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see the point you're making, however consider Family members with the same surname sub-section of the WP:BIO page. I have two issues with the 1968–1986 sub-section in Kylie's article:
  1. Should we have Dannii Minogue and Brendan Minogue on their first mentions? They can be Dannii and Brendan thereafter.
  2. Kylie is referred to as Minogue in last sentence of first paragraph of this sub-section. This fits with WP:MOSBIO. The next paragraph could be slightly re-worded to start with "The two sisters began their careers as children on Australian television.[3] From the age of twelve, Minogue appeared in small" Subsequent appearances of Kylie in this sub-section can be Minogue and Dannii can stay Dannii. I believe this still differentiates the sisters sufficiently and fits WP:BIO better, however I can go with whatever you decide.shaidar cuebiyar ( talk | contribs ) 04:58, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. I don't think that would work. From MOSBIO - "Ronald and Nancy Reagan arrived separately" (is correct). Therefore I think "Kylie Ann Minogue was born.... her sister Dannii... her brother Brendan...." is correct. It would be incorrect to say "Ronald Reagan and Nancy Reagan arrived seperately" because the second use of "Reagan" would be redundant. I think if we said " "Kylie Ann Minogue was born.... her sister Dannii Minogue... her brother Brendan Minogue...." would also make the uses of "Minogue" redundant. They each have the same parents, and if they didn't we would then make a distinction. Just my opinion, but I think it reads better as it, and it does not conflict with MOSBIO. Using Michael Jackson as an example, the article says, "Jackson had three sisters: Rebbie, La Toya, and Janet, and five brothers: Jackie, Tito, Jermaine, Marlon, and Randy." The alternative would be "Jackson had three sisters: Rebbie Jackson, La Toya Jackson, and Janet Jackson, and five brothers: Jackie Jackson, Tito Jackson, Jermaine Jackson, Marlon Jackson, and Randy Jackson." I know there are only 3 "Minogues" but the principal is the same.
  2. You're right about "Minogue" being used out of place in the first paragraph. Maybe "The Minogue children were raised..." would be better. They grew up in the same house and attended the same school, so that would work. I believe you are technically correct in saying that by MOSBIO we should be using "Minogue" first and then Dannii subsequently and that is exactly how the rest of the article is done, but in this section, where both are being discussed simulantaneously and in relation to each other, 'technically correct' would still be more confusing than it needs to be. I think for simplicity of reading they should be "Kylie" and "Dannii" (and "Brendan") in this section only. Michael Jackson (again) is referred to throughout the article as "Jackson" except in some areas where individual family members are discussed, Michael Jackson is referred to as "Michael". It makes it easier to read. There is also one instance in Janet Jackson where she is referred to as "Janet" so that it's clear which Jackson is being discussed. I think in this section of the article, the Minogues are in a similar position. Rossrs (talk) 08:05, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification, as I said i'm happy to go with whatever you decide.shaidar cuebiyar ( talk | contribs ) 04:28, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'm glad you're OK with that. I'm also glad that you've looked at the article while it is being reviewed. The more people who look at it, the better. Rossrs (talk) 14:49, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have expanded the lead section. I think the article is now at the required standard, and I can't think of anything else to do with it. Rossrs (talk) 15:02, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect use of hyphens ( Showgirl - The Greatest Hits Tour ); unsure if the article prefers spaced endashes or unspaced emdashes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:15, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 06:38, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've reduced the ovelinking (lots of "chain" links, and "BBC News" linked in ref, where their site is the link target next to it?). Quick look through the prose: looks pretty good. "highest-selling" with hyphen (minor point). I've been bold and enlarged some of the pics: MoS does not impose the restrictions we thought it did, and if WP has free use of these, they should be viewable without squinting. See what you think and revert if there's a problem. Tony (talk) 11:03, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any thoughts about the "other uses" and "see also" bit at the top of the article. I think it looks like clutter, and considering that she has an album called Kylie and two (!) cleverly titled Kylie Minogue albums, I don't think it's particularly useful, and that a single "for other uses" serves the purpose. I've removed it, but I put it back because I'm really not sure other people think of it. If I could see its usefulness, I wouldn't bother, but I can't see it. Rossrs (talk) 11:03, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • This isn't really going anywhere. What else needs fixing? Aaroncrick (talk) 01:19, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since this was listed in July, there have been substantial changes, particularly in the updating and verification of sources, so it has definitely 'gone somewhere' and listing it for review was definitely a worthwhile thing. It seems to have stagnated now. If there's nothing new to be said, when can this be closed? Rossrs (talk) 02:36, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'll close it. Any last work can be taken up on article talk. Marskell (talk) 22:20, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
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 Marskell 23:30, 15 September 2009 [15].

City of Manchester Stadium edit

Review commentary edit

WikiProjects notified

Although fairly well written, the article fails 1c. A few paragraphs are entirely uncited and even though it's a fairly small article, there are just 30 references. I assume an article on such a large and well known stadium would have more. Aaroncrick (talk) 06:11, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alt text done; thanks. Images need alt text as per WP:ALT. Eubulides (talk) 06:30, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is the requisite number of references in your opinion?
What needs referencing (I would add CN tags but I despise them and know that others do too.
Structure: East Stand bit, Kippax etc
History: "The conversion cost £35 million, which was paid for by the football club."
and the paragraph after that sentence.
Transport: The first paragraph, particularly nearest station
Concerts: The last paragraph, particularly the one about the concerts being cancelled for 2009.
In terms of the rest of the article, it is well written, there are some paragraphs that seem to have been tagged on and they could do with a bit of "blending in." I do feel that this probably didn't need an FAR, a note to the talkpage would have sufficed. There is nothing gravely wrong here as there is with some of the other FAs. Woody (talk) 09:40, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd never heard of alt text until now, hopefully the alt text I've added is appropriate. I've done some of Woody's list, will do the rest in due course. Assumptions are rather less actionable... Oldelpaso (talk) 15:37, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alt text is a new requirement, the software has only just been changed to allow it. The text you added looks good to me, I fixed up the minor formatting issues. Woody (talk) 15:55, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for adding that nice alt text. However, two images still need alt text; could you fix those too, please? See http://toolserver.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/altviewer.py?page=City_of_Manchester_Stadium and scroll to the end of the page. Eubulides (talk) 18:40, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The viewer doesn't seem to deal with {{Double image stack}} It does have alt text functionality and that is shown in the tool viewer, but it doesn't seem to have a caption. The infobox image doesn't have a caption, and rightly so, but it does have alt text. Woody (talk) 21:13, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weird; the viewer worked for me; perhaps this was because of your recent edit to City of Manchester? Anyway, the alt text is done now, and thanks again. Eubulides (talk) 21:48, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Great, a wee purge and I was good. Woody (talk) 22:25, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Another bunch of references added. I've used footballgroundguide.com for a transport ref, which was left for consideration by Ealdgyth in this FAC, but the sentence is entirely uncontroversial. For concerts, I've not done much other than to remove mention that there are none in 2009, since that was of no real consequence. This is because more widely, I'm not entirely sure what to do with it. Previously, I've just mentioned a couple of examples of artists who have performed there, but the paragraph tends to attract edits adding more and more until it becomes an unwieldy long list in the middle of a sentence. Is there any value in providing a complete list? I'm minded to say no, but I'd welcome further opinion. Oldelpaso (talk) 07:56, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's necessary (or practical) to include a full list; a few examples perhaps of the most significant ones should suffice. –Juliancolton | Talk 15:35, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seems like this should be easy to rescue. I'll try to work on it in coming days. –Juliancolton | Talk 06:01, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I don't believe there are any specific number of references that need to be used. Just enough that cites every fact mentioned in the article. Aaroncrick (talk) 07:26, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments – Reference 31 needs a publisher. The lead is on the short side and could serve to be beefed up. Otherwise, I agree that it looks salvagable with a few more sources for light spots. The ends of paragraphs would benefit from cites in a few spots. Giants2008 (17–14) 01:14, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Dabs and dead links need to be fixed. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:27, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed those. I also found that link to the Mirror that is being used is dead; also the Mirror is a tabloid newspaper and not the most reliable of sources. ("Blue Moan". Daily Mirror. Retrieved 18 September 2006.) Woody (talk) 19:03, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Mirror isn't ideal, though after checking it on Newsbank, most of the part the citation refers to was a quote from then-manager Stuart Pearce. I could go either way with it, but given the nature of the source publication I think I'll remove it. Oldelpaso (talk) 15:09, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary edit

Suggested FA criteria concern are citations. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. FAQ? YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 02:27, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I decided to fix a few things so I won't be closing this. I can't get access to the MEN etc, but the dates of the paper need to be added. Also I think more information should be added to the planning and construction. Usually, these things are always the subject of protests and lobbying etc, expecially in western countries YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 04:31, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the dates are usually in the online sources, but I have access to the MEN and to Newsbank anyway, so I'll add any missing dates. I'll also have a look through for any significant planning objections etc. --Malleus Fatuorum 13:35, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because ISO 8601 should only be used for accessdates, other dates should match the date format used in the rest of the article. See here for instance. --Malleus Fatuorum 13:36, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know of any protests. I've read pretty much every source that discusses the stadium in detail, and I was a regular reader of the Manchester Evening News throughout the planning and construction period. Before the stadium was built the area was essentially waste ground, and had seen little investment in a great many years. The main local landmark was a gasometer. A minority of Manchester City supporters were unsure about the move for sentimental reasons. I have vague memories of a poll being conducted in relation to this, I see what I can find. Oldelpaso (talk) 16:41, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Newsbank only has the MEN from 2001 onwards unfortunately, so I'm struggling to find anything more. I have a pile of match programmes from the period which I haven't looked through yet, but since they are published by the football club, I doubt they'd uncover anything in this respect. Oldelpaso (talk) 11:04, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I copy-edited the lead and first section; I must say, it needed doing; perhaps the rest could be massaged too. Overlinking. In addition, I unlinked quite a few trivial dictionary words and simplified a cryptically piped item. I am mystified by this pipe, too: "The first public football match at the stadium was a [[exhibition game|friendly]] between Manchester City and ..." Another unsatisfactory pipe is this: "Entry is gained by [[radio-frequency identification|RFID]] smart card". Readers should not have to hit the link to find out what on earth it means. Tony (talk) 14:36, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Tony. Friendly match redirects to the AmEng equivalent exhibition game. The second one is probably down to too much reading of Slashdot on my part. I've replaced it with a more specific link, contactless smart card. Oldelpaso (talk) 07:09, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, provided the above issue about dates is addressed. Some niggles that could be improved:
  • "The track was removed and relaid at other athletics venues" Really? That makes it sound like a piece of carpet. Plus if it is one track, how can it be relaid in several places? This should be rephrased to make clear what is meant.
  • "...replaced with a permanent structure of similar design to the opposite end." This just doesn't scan right. If the article can specify in the previous para which end (north or south) had the permanent structure in its Games configuration, the sentence I've quoted can then be re-written as "...replaced with a permanent structure of similar design to that already existing at the [compasspoint] end." - which i think would be clearer.
  • Is a reference available for the capacities of the corporate boxes?
  • "Entry is gained by RFID smart card rather than the traditional manned turnstile." Does this mean you cannot purchase entry at the stadium??
  • "After the club were taken over..." Club is singular - should read "club was..." I think.
  • "In front of the stadium is the tallest sculpture in the UK, B of the Bang, built to commemorate the success of the 2002 Commonwealth Games". A couple of things - first, it has been partially (perhaps fully by now) dismantled following structural problems, and the article should reflect this. Second, normally the artist's name(s) should be included - yet even the article about the sculpture itself doesn't seem to have one. However, this article indicates the designer was Thomas Heatherwick Studio. I suggest this be included and the article used as the cite.
  • There is no reference for all the concerts that have taken place there, nor that Take That's DVD included stadium concert footage.

A lot of niggles that i'd like fixed, but a bit like an earlier editor, i'd rate this as mostly talk page stuff or DIY rather than FARC. I'm assuming good faith and rating this a keep. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All addressed I think. The part about the track was missing the key word sections. The process was more like carpet than you'd think. While undoubtedly true (I've seen them myself), I couldn't find anything bulletproof RS wise for the capacity of the executive boxes, only promotional material. Since it is an entirely trivial piece of information which adds no real understanding I've removed it.
You cannot pay on the gate at the stadium - it only hosts all-ticket events. However, I doubt I'll be able to find a source saying that since it is a case of trying to prove a negative. Oldelpaso (talk) 15:56, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, that's... wierd. OK, thanks for the fixes, happy now. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:35, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's still original research. Aaroncrick (talk) 03:27, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Normally I try to be a hawk on this issue, but in this case I'd probably let it go. I think the fact that the system operates by card-swipe might be legitimately covered under 'common knowledge' (a WP principle I usually hate to apply): I would suggest it is probably covered by being a "Plain sight observation that can be made from public property". Nit-pickers may wish to question whether this is de jure public property, but I think it should be accepted as de facto the case. The fact that you can't pay at the stadium is not actually stated in the article - it was a Q and A I had with an editor here - so the issue does not arise. hamiltonstone (talk) 04:00, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough... Aaroncrick (talk) 04:02, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In any case, the use of smart cards part is covered by the same ref as the sentence following it. I dislike calling the same ref repeatedly for consecutive sentences. Oldelpaso (talk) 06:58, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's the status of this review? Is there anything else to be fixed? Dabomb87 (talk) 03:11, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I have marked some links that don't check out. —mattisse (Talk) 01:04, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've been following the article, and if/when Matisse's tags are addressed, I'll be willing to support a keep. JKBrooks85 (talk) 02:39, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

<edit conflict>

  • <groan> This is the curse of the internet era. i have corrected one URL, and found an alternative source for a second. My view for the remaining four is as follows: delete the fact and ref for the claim that the poll showed it was UK's second most popular ground. I don't know how reliable the source was in the first place, and in the long run who cares about a reader poll in 2005 or whenever it was. The others: these were valid media releases from the Club, and their retrieval dates are shown. The Club appears simply to no longer retain old releases on its site. That doesn't make the release invalid. It was a real piece of info from a reliable source at the time. Remove the URL, and leave it as an offline source. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:49, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have fixed all the links, it really wasn't hard. Checklinks is very good for that as it does all the hard work! Regards, Woody (talk) 12:08, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still two problematic links {{failed verification}}. Please don't use link checker as final decision maker, as it is not always correct. —mattisse (Talk) 23:01, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • How are you defining "problematic links"? What's the problem you've identified? --Malleus Fatuorum 23:09, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wouldn't presume that it is, nor that it is a solution to all of the world's ills but it does helps to fix links rather than tag them. Instead of focusing on its shortcomings I encourage you to use the inbuilt tools to help fix broken links. Woody (talk) 23:16, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh and you were wrong about the Arup link: <Quote>:"2003: Institute of Structural Engineers, Special Structural Award; 2003: Structural Steel Design Award; 2003: Building Services Awards, Major Project of the Year; 2002: British Construction Industry Award "</Quote> Woody (talk) 23:16, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I define problematic links as links that go to a site that does not contain the referenced material. The link checker is often inaccurate, and often its suggestions for a fix are inaccurate. —mattisse (Talk) 00:15, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Woody, I'm not familiar with the operation of the tool to which you refer, but I'm with Mattisse I think - first, the Arup link is now OK because I changed it to a new address - I must have forgotten to remove an alert tag, sorry. On the others: they linked to valid web addresses, but the facts in the article were not found at that address, and my attempts to search the relevant site for them failed to turn up the cited media releases (as outlined above). hamiltonstone (talk) 00:24, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, it wasn't you, check the diffs. Matise added it after you had made your edits and I presume the website didn't update itself in the hour between that edit and my check. In terms of checklinks, I use to add links to the webarchive/wayback machine. Using it I have recovered those press statements that you talk about. It is quite easy to use when you get the hang of it. Regards, Woody (talk) 00:39, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, thanks for that, I hadn't realised the link checker had the capacity to make alternative suggestions for faulty links. My first attempt to use it (for a suspect link at Canberra) didn't work, but i will persist. Ta. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:02, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Checklinks does not provide suggestions it only provides information on what's going on with the link. Only tools for manipulation of links. The tool was originally designed mass link fixing and included analysis on how redirects behaved. An interface redesign has been sorely needed, but I haven't found a good design for it. Also, related to this article I've fixed a bug in commonfixes that cause Wayback links containing single '{' and '}' to be treated as the end of template when correcting url=/archiveurl= links. — Dispenser 22:14, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Significant work has been done on the article, and it appears that the problems raised in the FAR have been addressed. After reading the article, I don't have any significant questions about the subject, so I think it does a good job of explanation. Good work! JKBrooks85 (talk) 07:39, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as someone who has done some work on this. Frankly. I don't think it needed to get to FARC but that is my opinion. I think all of the little niggles with sourcing have been rectified now and this article complies with all of the FA criteria. Woody (talk) 08:59, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Wasn't in bad shape when the FAR started, and it still meets FA criteria with the recent improvements. One picky thing: two Gary James books are listed in the references, but only one is actually used in the cites. Giants2008 (17–14) 00:29, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like one got mislabelled when some ref formatting was tweaked. Now fixed. Oldelpaso (talk) 15:28, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – You're right, the article wasn't in bad shape to start with. At least now with some copy edits and a few tweaks, it souldn't be nominated for many years down the track. Aaroncrick (talk) 00:41, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I distinctly remember FAC candidate quite recently. Isn't it a three-month minimum? Looks OK. What is wrong with 30 refs? Keep. Tony (talk) 09:26, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tony you gave the article a copy edit over a month ago...? Aaroncrick (talk) 12:41, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there a reason this is still open and hasn't been closed as a keep?? hamiltonstone (talk) 10:41, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • YellowMonkey did a bit of work on the article and therefore has recused from closing this. We're waiting for Marskell or Raul. Dabomb87 (talk) 12:35, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "plans for this have since been abandoned." Ref for this? Surely not common knowledge, and without a source, it can't be verified if one doesn't live near there. Dabomb87 (talk) 12:51, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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 05:54, 29 September 2009 [16].

Invasion of Poland (1939) edit

Review commentary edit

Notified: Piotrus, Halibutt, Drichter53, Dapi89, Lysy, WikiProject Military history, WikiProject Poland, WikiProject Germany

This article was promoted in 2005 and it doesn't seem that a review has been conducted since then. Although generally well cited and well written the article has some elements that give me concern. The entire aftermath section is poorly cited (1c) and the inclusion of a myths section seems rather inappropriate (1d). In terms of referencing, it would be beneficial to employ notes when supplementary information needs to be included rather than employing long winded footnotes. The article also suffers from a bit of image overload (3) Labattblueboy (talk) 02:33, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Images need alt text as per WP:ALT. I agree that there are too many images; 38 of them need either alt text or "|link=". Eubulides (talk) 02:38, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question. Would the Invasion_of_Poland_(1939)#Myths section be considered appropriate for an FA level article? I think not but I would like some support before deleting it and attempting to incorporate the content elsewhere in the article.--Labattblueboy (talk) 19:38, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments I agree that this article needs work to stay at FA status. My concerns are:

  • The lead is much too short (2a)
  • The 'Description' section seems unnecessary, though it could be reworked to form the expanded lead section
  • A lot of material is uncited (1c)
  • The article isn't as comprehensive as it should be (1b). For instance, the discussion of the State of the German Army in the 'Opposing forces' section doesn't note that it was largely unmotorised (meaning that most infantry units weren't much more technically advanced than their Polish equivalents). The coverage of the German invasion seems surprisingly short and there could also be more on the German war crimes during the war.
  • I'm not convinced that the article is neutral (1d); its early sections seem to devote much more space to Poland's experiences than those of Germany or the USSR and are written from a Polish perspective. For example, the 'Opposing forces' section provides much greater detail on the Polish military than the German, and nothing at all on the Soviet military. Pinning the blame on the western Allies for Poland's deployments in the 'Polish defence plan' section also seems unwarranted; Steven J. Zaloga states that the French advised the Poles against spreading their Army along the border, and that the decision to do this was driven by political rather than military considerations (the Polish government wanted to be seen as willing to defend the border regions to guarantee that the British and French would honour their commitments).
  • There's some imprecise wording. For instance:
    • I don't think that the various British dominions were Poland's 'Allies', even if Britain was
    • The 'Prelude to the campaign' section states that 70% of the Polish military was mobilised prior to war breaking out while the 'Opposing forces' section gives a figure of 50%
    • The statement that "the Poles played a major part" in the Battle of Britain seems questionable - the Polish squadrons only made up a small part of the RAF's strength
  • I agree that the 'Nazi propaganda' section should be removed - most of its material is already in the article, there's no need to rebut propaganda distributed by Nazis in 2009 and it's a NPOV violation as it's basically devoted to defending Poland's reputation against unfounded claims (an accurate article does the same, so there's no need for a point by point rebuttal). Nick-D (talk) 11:17, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • As further comments, the 'See also' section includes links to articles which are already linked in the prose or which could be linked and several of the external links don't appear to be reliable sources (eg, [17] and [18] plus a few others) or provide any extra value (eg, the Nazi radio broadcasts). Nick-D (talk) 02:01, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary edit

Suggested FA criteria concern are citations, POV, structure. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 06:34, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delist Per concerns raised by Nick-D. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:40, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delist Clearly not an FA anymore. I hope that someone improves it in the future though, as this is a very important topic. Nick-D (talk) 07:22, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delist Per Nick-D. The article is strongly unreferenced. --Eurocopter (talk) 18:20, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
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 07:14, 22 September 2009 [19].

Parapsychology edit

Review commentary edit

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rational Skepticism, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Paranormal, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Psychology, and Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard (The other Wikiprojects do not appear to have significant recent activity)

I am nominating this featured article for review because this article has major problems with original research, tone, and verifiability. Several times, it seems to go well beyond, or even directly contradict what the references say, as well as using a large number of dubious references. Take Parapsychology#Contributions_to_other_disciplines [Edited to add: I've taken the liberty of deleting this entire section: See [20] if the deletion sticks --Shoemaker's Holiday Over 193 FCs served 19:02, 18 August 2009 (UTC)][reply]

Also, my I mention that the citations are very poorly done? They lack much of the information needed to easily find them a lot of the time, like issue numbers. I've had to click repeatedly on issues until I found the relevant one.

Claim Evidence Rejoinder --Rodgarton 06:08, 28 August 2009 (UTC) Comments (please sign)
"The practice of randomization and associated techniques such as "blind" administration of conditions were principally developed in the conduct of early psychical research, and have since become standard practice in scientific experiments." Claims about blinding actively contradicted by citation; randomisation claims overstated: The Bulletin of the History of Medicine does not say any such thing. Its discussion of blinding begins in the late 18th century, and, several pages of chronologically-organised examples later discusses that the first use of blinding in psychic research began after 1884. It does say "From this point [after Richet befgan using blinding sometime after 1884], blinding quickly became an essential feature of psychical research, as did Richet's random selection methods (au hasard), which he used as an additional precaution to ensure concealment. 71 When university-sanctioned psychical and parapsychology research centers were opened in the early twentieth century, blind assessment and early forms of randomization were also an integral component of their research protocols." - However, it does not credit this work with any innovation in the protocols, randomisation, or any other blinding technique.[1]


The Isis source's main statement on the matter is that Richet's randomisation methods were groundbreaking, but also credits various other fields as well, such as the later work of R. A. Fisher, and Pierce's earlier work with using playing cards to randomise a study on the perception of small differences in weights. Hence, "principally developed" is somewhat of an overstatement.[2]

Hacking's (1988) thesis is that randomization developed from tackling the challenges posed by psi research. This is clearly given in the title of the article - "Telepathy: Origins of randomization in experimental design". It is clearly given in the first lines of the article: "Psychic research may seem an implausible place to study the emergence of a new kind of experimental methodology. Yet it is there that we find the first faltering use, by many investigators, of a technique that is now standard in many sciences and mandatory in much sociology and biology" p. 427. This thesis is carefully argued throughout the article, by reference to correspondence by Fisher as well as published texts. Even Fisher's famous "milk-in-the-tea" example of applying randomization is attributed to his prior work on psi research. Naturally, in such a carefully argued thesis, it is possible to pull out some lines to demonstrate contrary points.

Randomization is not the principle topic of Kaptchuck's article, so naturally we do not see Kaptchuck repeating Hacking's thesis; hence we have a false attack. Kaptchuck yet does refer to Hacking's thesis without complaint. However, pointing to what both articles say re randomization, C. Watt (who the complainant quoted in another context) offered that "Historians have argued that the origins of the use of randomisation in experimental design can be traced to the early card-guessing experiments of the SPR (Hacking, 1988;Kaptchuk, 1998)" (Watt, C. A. (2005). "Parapsychology's contribution to psychology: A view from the front line." Journal of Parapsychology 69(2): 215-231.).

As for blind-administration, Kaptchuck identifies it as firstly developed to test the claims of the Mesmerists: "As far as I can ascertain, the first series of blind assessments and sham interventions for the purpose of scientific appraisal was aimed at mesmerism, the most popular and threatening unconventional healing system to appear in the late eighteenth century. ... The first blindfold experiment was performed at Benjamin Franklin's house. A series of women selected by the cooperating mesmerist as "good subjects" were physically blindfolded, with bandages (so that they "could no longer know anything respecting the conduct of the experiment". This information has also been dealt with by Schwartz (Proceedings of the PA, 2006), who, on this basis, argues that Benjamin Franklin should even be recognized as the first parapsychologist. Schwartz yet finds that tests of the dowser Aymar, preceding those by Franklin, introduced blind-administration. The original conference paper is abstracted here http://www.parapsych.org/pa_abstracts_2005.html ; and an online version, focusing on Franklin, can be read here: http://www.stephanaschwartz.com/PDF/blind_protocol.pdf . Most readers will recognize that such tests of dowsing and of being blindly influenced at a distance by another person are expressions of psi research. If there is an argument against that interpretation, then we should be happy to see it.

Accordingly, to say that randomization, and blind-administration, were principally developed in psi research, is true to the thesis of each of the above articles, respectively; and we may add to these the information from the articles by Watt and Schwartz.

This is typical of Rodgarton's sections: Where parapsychology might reasonably be given partial credit, he gives it all, and merely having some technique of parapsychology published in the journal of another field is enough to credit significant contributions to that field. Both are extreme hyperbole. On the specific claims he makes:

Since when was mesmerism parapsychology? It's pretty typical 18th-century vitalist medicine. Are studies of reiki now part of parapsychology? The Kaputchuk source quotes many, many different fields, and covers the history of blinding in all of them. He specifically discusses parapsychology by name in one section, and draws no claims as to any particular importance of parapsychology in blinding while discussing it. As for the randomisation, you're again using original research on the title of Hacking's paper, and ignoring the actual content of it. The Hacking paper shows randomisation was taken on by parapsychology, and that some of the work there was groundbreaking. It then continues to show that other fields then took it up, and refined and developed it. The Hacking paper is much, much too vague to support the inflated claim (giving parapsychology almost all of the credit) made; it would certainly be possible to use it to make claims for parapsychology, but not the claims you made. "Originated" is NOT THE SAME AS "principally developed" Shoemaker's Holiday Over 201 FCs served 10:54, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have clearly represented the core of Hacking's thesis, as I intended to do, in a phrase; and my representation of it is equivalent to that previously given by Watt. Please take note of the precedence that I have followed. The complainant appears to require that we extend this to include all the subtleties and nuances of Hacking's thesis, by a paragraph or two. By all means, then, let it be done. That is no justification, however, to distort the main thesis, nor to censor it, as has been done. The aside on blind randomisation that speaks of "mesmerism as parapsychology" is a non-sequiteur; it does not follow from what I have stated of my reasoning, which also follows the precedence of Schwartz. I can see that my attempt to succinctly deal with both randomization and blind-admin in a single sentence (given that they both deal with what psi research has contributed to basic experimental method), and so by a single phrase - "principally developed" - can create misunderstanding, and it would have been more appropriate to only describe randomization as "principally developed" (or, more strongly, originated) within psi research, and blind-admin as principally developed with the study of psiological research, as science confronted claims of the "paranormal" or similar. The objective of the experiments that I have referred to, of the Academy of Medicine's commission, after all, was to study the claim of "community of sensation," not Mesmerism in general.
I have no intention, by the way, to "inflate" the claims of parapsychology's offerings to science in general or particular sciences. That is not required to offer an account of what it has positively contributed to other sciences. I wish to represent what has been recognized by others. Naturally, there will be argument in how this represented. It does not, however, merit total censure and elimination, and misrepresentation. --Rodgarton 19:55, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am stating what you did, intentionally or not. You failed to produce a usable, encyclopedic section, and this is mainly because you throw everything in, and apparently skipped over the sections not about parapsychology, which meant that, while there is often a small amount of language in the source to back your claims, the source as a whole generally goes against them. Shoemaker's Holiday Over 203 FCs served 09:10, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have represented the substantive arguments and historical points, naturally as they are relevant to an article on parapsychology, and as they have already been re-represented (which the complainant ignores). The complainant is simply offering a personal interpretation of how they were represented, on top of a personal interpretation of the articles themselves. Essentially, the complainant wishes to justify elimination of description of the article's substantive points by complaining that how these points are developed and substantiated is not represented in the parapsychology article. The complainant is free to provide such information if s/he wishes. As s/he has chosen, instead, to eliminate the information altogether, it is clear that her/his objective has always been to eliminate the information, and to deny the readers of WP access to it, and then to come up with a spray of points - argued by adamant assertion and emotional appeals - to justify her/his autonomous actions. Instead of an encyclopedic process, we are offered a document of personal disgust. --Rodgarton 04:18, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
The field has also contributed to the advance of statistical methodology, with probability theory having been adopted by Charles Richet to the evaluation of card-guessing results, and considerably advanced by Rhine, Pratt and associates at the Duke University Parapsychology Laboratory from the 1930s. No citation. The Isis source (above, [3]) states "Richet hardly introduced probabilistic reasoning into psychology, let alone into science in general... But it remains true that, outside of astronomy and geodesy, probability had little role in scientific inference at the time Richet wrote" - and then goes on to credit Bioinformatics as a major influence in the further growth of probability in science.

It's also worth mentioning that the Isis source states that Richet's experiments, in the end, had wholly negative results. This is another problem with the article: it has a habit of mentioning studies as having been done, but not mentioning they were deemed negative in the end, e.g. the statement removed here: "...and research trials conducted under contract to the United States government to investigate whether remote viewing would provide useful intelligence information." (They decided it did not)

I have not relied on Hacking for this statement, as the complainant implies, so showing what Hacking does or does not say on this point is another false attack. Whether or not Richet's experiments were positive or negative is also beside the issue of the value of his study in methodological terms. The complainant's argument is reminiscent of that often attributed to Rhine that there is no value in studies with only negative results. Citations were collectively provided to this and the following statements to articles in statistical journals and others, for example, to Stevens, W. L. (1939). Tests of significance for extrasensory perception data. Psychological Review, 46, 142-150. I cite some more below. Note that there is not, as the complainant goes on to argue against, any statement here that Richet was the first person to use statistics (!). I did not say you relied on Hacking, but he does directly contradict you. You cited no source whatsoever, unless we're supposed to have read your mind, but the information still appears to be wrong. Furthermore, as, at the time, the article constantly mentioned tests that came out negative that sounded impressive, without mentioning their results (we've been editing much of this out), that this was yet another example of this behaviour was important to pointing out problems with the article. Finally, I do not say that you say Richet was the first to use statistics. I was pointing out what could reasonably be said: If the article had used the Hacking source to discuss Richet, it could have made valid claims for parapsychology and statistics, but, again, the claims made were not the valid ones, but ones I can show at least one source goes against. Shoemaker's Holiday Over 201 FCs served 10:54, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have trouble following the complainant's argument here; given the emotive spray and ungrammatical reasoning. And the illogical reasoning: To say that "The field has also contributed to the advance of statistical methodology, with probability theory having been adopted by Charles Richet ..." is not contradicted by the statement that "Richet hardly introduced probabilistic reasoning into psychology". In any case, it seems necessary to repeat that I have provided several references in the original paragraph, and have since provided additional ones. Another non-sequiteur. --Rodgarton 19:55, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NPA, please. That's a half-quotation. The actual quote is "The field has also contributed to the advance of statistical methodology, with probability theory having been adopted by Charles Richet to the evaluation of card-guessing results" Since he did not introduce probabilistic reasoning into psychology, and card guessing is not important to other fields, how is this suitable for inclusion under "Contributions to other fields". There's claims that can and should be made for Richet's work in this article, but you have completely sidestepped them. Furthermore, the quote continues "and considerably advanced by Rhine, Pratt and associates at the Duke University Parapsychology Laboratory from the 1930s." and that seems to be an entirely misleading phrase: I believe you were trying to say they improved experimental techniques for card guessing, but as, I remind you again, the section's title is "Contributions to other disciplines". All you can say about improvements in card-guessing experiments is that they represent a tightening of te experimental techniques of parapsychology. That information could go into the article (if well-sourced) but could hardly count as a contribution to any other discipline. Shoemaker's Holiday Over 203 FCs served 09:10, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The complainant fails to reply to what I noted of the illogicality of her/his argument; this is not changed by completing the sentence, which of course is available in a blink to the reader. Instead, s/he introduces some new points - principally, that the card-guessing method is only relevant to parapsychology. The complainant does not even try to justify this assertion, and that is to be expected for it is simply not true. Card-guessing is a procedure of forced-choice identification, which is a paradigm used throughout psychology to study perception, visual recognition, visual memory, among many other processes. If the statistical methods developed in parapsychology - which involve more than what the complainant now novelly presents as "tightening experimental techniques" - were not relevant to other disciplines it would not have been possible to cite articles on the methods as published in Science and general statistical and psychological journals. In order to rebut this evidence, and, say, the arguments of Stokes that I have also quoted at the length, the complainant is obliged not merely to continue to assert her/his own opinion, or give us ever novel variants of it, but to cite at least one academic source that represents her/his argument. Otherwise, we have only original POV, and nothing of reliable merit. --Rodgarton 04:18, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
A monographic review of the first sixty years of organised parapsychological research has been identified as the first meta-analysis in the history of science, and a similar effort was offered by parapsychological researchers in the journal Nature immediately prior to the now common practice of statistically generalising over independently conducted experiments. [ETA: Provably completely false, and the author knew this.. See [21] which identifies loads and loads of previous meta-analyses, and Rodgarton was fully aware of the earlier ones, as he added in a very different (but equally false) claim to meta-analysis just after a discussion of a 1904 meta-analysis. It's becoming obvious that Rodgarton doesn't care about accuracy in the slightest. Shoemaker's Holiday Over 204 FCs served 21:27, 10 September 2009 (UTC)]] Only relevant cite not reliable - it cites the Nature review, but the review itself cannot, of course, demonstrate that it itself was innovative or influential - that depends on others' reactions. The main cite for this is to the "47th Annual Convention of the Parapsychological Association" - and the Parapsychological Association is not a reliable source, nor are conventions peer reviewed or otherwise reliable for such major claims.[reply] We should want some explanation for how academic papers are not reliable given their presentation at one or another conference. The author of the article I mentioned was first author of a paper on meta-analysis in the leading journal of the American Psychological Association, Psychological Bulletin, which must certainly qualify him with some expertise to write on the topic [Bösch, H., Steinkamp, F., & Boller, E. (2006). Examining psychokinesis: The interaction of human intention with random number generators - a meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 132(4), 497-523.]. In this article, in Psychological Bulletin, there were no less than 51 citations of papers presented to the Annual Convention of the Parapsychological Association; which is the source that the complainant calls unreliable. Obviously, these papers were copiously admissible by the editors of the Psychological Bulletin - why should they then not be admissible by the editors of WP? Conference papers are not peer reviewed, and are generally subject to a fairly minimal level of scrutiny. They are essentially no better than self-published sources. Does the Psychological Bulletin paper back your claims? Was it on history of meta-analyses, or on technique? Shoemaker's Holiday Over 201 FCs served 10:54, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have tried to offer an objective basis for meriting citation of PA presented papers; viz., the precedence of citing them in articles in a very mainstream journal. I believe this stands well above the personal opinions and subjective estimations that have now been explicated as the basis of the complainant's concerns. --Rodgarton 19:55, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You said that other papers were cited. Show this paper was cited. Shoemaker's Holiday Over 203 FCs served 09:10, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever the complainant is now insisting on, it does not appear to be substantive. There has been no claim, nor even requirement, that the article by Bösch in Psychol. Bull. (concerning meta-analysis of a PK database) was referenced in my original note of his meta-analysis of the early card-guessing experiments. The complainant is seeking to obfuscate the issues with trivial points of rhetoric and non-sequiteurs. --Rodgarton 04:18, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Improved analysis of multiple responses to individual targets was inspired by the occurrence of the challenge in some group tests of ESP, and similar challenges inspired the development of other statistical techniques Some studies discussing the analysis of such results are analyses, but this section is supposed to demonstrate that Parapsychology generalised to other fields - and there is no evidence provided that the statistical discussions linked ever became widely used. The section concerns the contributions of psi research to other fields. There is no statement or implication in the section that "Parapsychology generalised to other fields" (again, a false attack). The fact that papers, as I cited, have been published in various non-parapsychological journals on issues of general interest, but principally developed in psi research, is the evidence of the contribution.

We could add to this estimation of the statistical contributions of psi research from others, e.g., Stokes [Stokes, D. M. (1991). Mathematics and parapsychology. Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research, 85(3), 251-290] writes that "It is perhaps safe to say that parapsychology has had more impact on the field of statistics than on any other orthodox discipline and that parapsychologists have made more important contributions to statistics than to any other orthodox field" (p. 280); and "Due to the statistical nature of the most rigorous evidence for psi, parapsychologists have not only found themselves drawn into debates regarding fundamental statistical issues, but have also had to develop certain areas of statistical theory themselves in order to deal with the unique problems of parapsychology. Also, in several instances, parapsychological situations have provided the inspiration for the development of statistics by the statisticians themselves"(p. 281).

The complainant also takes issue with the reference format. These are offered in the APA style, for which issue numbers are provided only when relevant (i.e., repagination of each issue in a volume); see http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/instruct/guides/apastyle.pdf

It's not a contribution to other fields if the other fields never use it. You still have not provided any evidence of it ever being used outside of parapsychology. Shoemaker's Holiday Over 201 FCs served 10:54, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I would rather rely on objective criteria of contribution - such as publication of ideas, techniques and data in non-parapsychological journals - rather than the subjective and ever arguable measures that the complainant appears to be requiring. --Rodgarton 19:55, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, you have not shown any use of the parapsychological techniques by mainstream fields, until you do, there is zero objective evidence of any sort of "Contributions to other disciplines" - the title of the section. The section is neither "Publications in the journals o fother fields" nor "Uses of other fields in parapsychology. This is basic referencing stuff, and if you don't understand this, you probably shouldn't be working on any sort of controversial article. Shoemaker's Holiday Over 203 FCs served 09:10, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The complainant simply provides further statement of her/his personal criteria for the bases of interdisciplinary contributions. Naturally, the information can always be expanded, but the complainant does not invite this. S/he eliminates the information altogether, so again demonstrating that s/he is primarily interested in eliminating the information, and then coming up with a spray of emotive reasons - with a good deal of ad hominem attack - to justify her/his actions. It could well be said that such approaches disqualify her/him from "working on any sort of controversial article".--Rodgarton 04:18, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

|} We could go through the rest of this section; however, I think it's more useful to look at some others:

Parapsychology#Rhine_era primarily comes from a single source: Berger, Arthur S.; Berger, Joyce (1991). The Encyclopedia of Parapsychology and Psychical Research. Paragon House Publishers - One might question the neutrality of this, but let's let that pass a moment. More problematic is this paragraph:

The parapsychology experiments at Duke evoked much criticism from academic psychologists who challenged the concepts and evidence of ESP. Rhine and his colleagues attempted to address these criticisms through new experiments, articles, and books, and summarized the state of the criticism along with their responses in the book Extra-Sensory Perception After Sixty Years.

What is the source for this very weak criticism? The people being criticised: Rhine, J.B. (1966). Foreword. In Pratt, J.G., Rhine, J.B., Smith, B.M., Stuart, C.E., & Greenwood, J.A. (eds.). Extra-Sensory Perception After Sixty Years, 2nd ed. Boston, US: Humphries.

It is very bad practice to hand over the task of summarising criticism to the people being criticised, and then, further, not actually bother to mention the critical arguments discussed in the biased source.

Furthermore, there are some major weight issues: Parapsychology is pretty clearly a fringe theory, however, an inordinate amount of weight is given to the Parapsychological Association. For instance, we get this paragraph, from out of nowhere, in Parapsychology#Parapsychology_today:

The Parapsychological Association states that the presently available, cumulative statistical database for experiments studying some parapsychological effects provides strong, scientifically credible evidence for these effects. This includes presentiment, ESP, and mind-matter interaction. The Association states that an increasing number of parapsychologists are moving beyond proof-oriented research, because they believe experimental success has already been established, and instead looking at more detailed factors to better understand the phenomena.

This is from the section on history of parapsychology, let me emphasise, and yet blatant advocacy is present, cited only to a tiny organisation of about 300 people worldwide (and that tiny organisation is the largest association f parapsychologists, no less), and yet they're allowed to summarise the state of the field, with no challenge from the mainstream view, in the middle of an irrelevant section. I have deleted this particular paragraph now, but this article has a ridiculous number of problems for an FA. It would never make FA today, and is so far from accepted FA standards that I can't see it being brought back up to them anytime soon. One possibility might be to revert back to the featured version, then try and fix problems from there. Shoemaker's Holiday Over 193 FCs served 18:50, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing this. I agree that there are severe problems with the article because of recent overzealous editing. I would like to say that I hope that editors will turn the article around and regain its FA status, but like you I think the scale of the problem makes it unlikely. Mentioning that government-sponsored studies were done, without mentioning that they were negative, seems a worryingly blatant case of agenda-pushing. Giving Rhine the "last word" on his own experiments, when plenty was published about them by third parties since then, is also blatant POV. MartinPoulter (talk) 21:09, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In the past week, the editors above (NOTE: Except for MartinPoulter) have the editor above, Shoemaker's Holiday, has edited Parapsychology with a meat cleaver and sledgehammer. The careful wordings and citations, the neutrality and consensus that successfully brought this article to FA has been successfully eliminated. Gone. The article is now canonical: Parapsychology is bullshit and anyone who thinks otherwise is an idiot or worse.
After a slash and burn of many long months of consensus editing, the fine editors above now note -- very correctly -- that following their POV edits the article is NOW a stinking heap of garbage. And having gotten it to this stinking state, they now want it de-FA'ed.
I am in total agreement with them. This article is no longer FA quality. Not in any way. Thanks guys! --Nemonoman (talk) 13:16, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
PS. You guys could turn this into a business.
Actually, if you look at the version that was featured, not one thing that has been removed was in it. Shoemaker's Holiday Over 195 FCs served 13:22, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nor did it contain your many helpful new edits.
As to the info you removed, en masse, with no discussion, god bless you. Apparently you're comfortable that new info, including numerous citations, describing parapsychology in a reasonably positive light may be removed without comment. And that other information describing parapsychology in a skeptical light may be added without comment. Do we detect a pattern?
Some of us editors who regard it as good wiki-business to keep the article neutral were working that new material over. Apparently not fast enough to satisfy you, particularly when you had so much new skeptical material to add.
How much of this FAR is based on the actual quality of the article, and how much is based on a belief that the SUBJECT MATTER does not merit a Featured Article. That's something I'll be thinking about today. --Nemonoman (talk) 15:01, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but did you actually read my comments above, which explicitly demonstrates that the citations were abused and actively contradicted what was cited to them? Shoemaker's Holiday Over 195 FCs served 15:12, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nemonoman, I think Shoemaker's Holiday has explained fairly clearly that the information in the article did not always match the sources given, so although there was the appearance of the article being sourced, this was deceptive. Maybe you should re-read the evidence presented in this FAR. Nev1 (talk) 15:23, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I know what he said. This was not my experience. Most of the material that was the subject of this complaint was the work of one new, extremely voluble, editor. In my early work on some of those new edits, I found most of the information being cited. The editor was inexperienced, but working with incorrectly or poorly cited references of new editors is part of the job, it seems to me. That said: I found most of the information being cited when I went looking, with a modicum of difficulty, except in one instance, which I marked[citation needed]. Using [citation needed] is one way of improving an article, by giving some respect to work of new editors. Another, apparently, is to delete it willy-nilly.--Nemonoman (talk) 16:05, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I want to emphasize that I have not had time to review all of the new citations to validate. I suppose if SH can tar them with a broad brush, that is the only option available. Guilty, I suppose, until proven innocent.
Rather than discuss these problems on the article's talk page, or do the hard work of editing reasonably workable material, or at least adding some fixit tags if that would be too much trouble, what we have here is an end run around the typical editorial process, which I find insulting to editors who worked to raise the article to FA status. I am NOT one of those editors, but I respect them and their work. What little work I have done on this article was subsequent to its FA promotion. But I am sorely tired of editors who decide to raise their little complaints in General Forums, rather than with those actively at work on an article.
I have seen with my own eyes parapsychology research in process, good and bad. I was one of the persons involved in bringing Jay Levy's fraud to light: see the Fraud section of the article. I don't know if ESP exists or doesn't exist, but I do have an open mind and I don't have an agenda. I'm one of the editors concerned with WP:RS and WP:NPOV, and this article has issues involving both. Issues that can be and should be worked out through careful effort, good editing, and consensus. Not by sudden escalation to a different venue.
Like I said: delist it. In the long run, this tempest is not worth the teapot. --Nemonoman (talk) 16:46, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Those "actively at work on an article" should have picked up on the attribution of sources as is was introduced, rather than let it deteriorate to the state where someone felt the need to bring it to FAR. Shoemaker's Holiday removed a lot of poorly sourced information, actually removing POV. As for your question "how much of this FAR is based on the actual quality of the article, and how much is based on a belief that the SUBJECT MATTER does not merit a Featured Article", all of the comments I have seen by Shoemaker's Holiday relate to poor sourcing (criterion 1a) so implying prejudice is distinctly unhelpful. Nev1 (talk) 16:59, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The majority of objections I see here relate to changes made by one editor who apparently quit once Ryanpaddy and I began to NPOV some of his edits. The changes that are so objectionable were in place for 8 days total. By contrast, you, Nev1, and SH and MartinPoulter SH and to a lesser extent Matisse have made considerable, POV-changing edits in one big burst yesterday, and then SH FAR'd the article.
Since all the materials removed were suggesting the legitimacy of some areas of psi research, and since all the additions made by the Gang of 3 2 suggest that psi reserach is bullshit, I bring that fact to the awareness of others who may be reading this discussion, and who may decide to express opinions.
The material that the 3 of you was removed may not live up to FA standards. But it is generally considered poor form to remove reasonably added, reasonably cited material without attempting to improve it. Which is why I will be leaving your new Agenda-driven POV additions in place until I've had time to see what, if anything, can be salvaged from them.
The FA question is YOUR question. If you wanted to challenge the material you deleted, or to discuss why you were adding the material you added, you might have done so on the talk page before escalating to this forum.
The FA question is your question, and the outcome up or down is meaningless to me. The quality of the article, good or bad, speaks for itself. I have seen shit raised to FA status, and deserving articles failed. So why do you and your buddies want to make a big ado about this? It seems to me that your edits point to the reason. You don't like the article's tone. If the article doesn't agree with psi research=bullshit agenda you have plastered all over your new additions, then it must be de-FA'ed. In support of this thesis I point to SH's comment that he removed material not present in the FA version. He sure didn't remove the newly added Gang-of-3 approved additions. If SH were really concerned that article had left FA status because of the material that was removed, he could have done this without adding a lot of extra opinions.
While I'm on the subject of poor citations, may I please point out that this and similar comments made above "Giving Rhine the "last word" on his own experiments, when plenty was published about them by third parties since then, is also blatant POV." don't offer much help to me as an editor. What studies, please? Why not quote them in the article, if that's the desire? And also, who precisely is to be given the last word? Must it always be a skeptic to be satisfactory?
In fact I think the discussion speaks for itself, and pretty much proves the point that an agenda is at work. --Nemonoman (talk) 17:46, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One further item: the ARTICLE must neutral, but not its sources. The sources must be VERIFIABLE, but need not be true, let alone neutral. I invite you have a long hard look at WP:NPOV and WP:RS and read the ACTUAL WORDS there, not what you think the words should be. So a comment like this above about a source ..."primarily comes from a single source: Berger, Arthur S.; Berger, Joyce (1991). The Encyclopedia of Parapsychology and Psychical Research. Paragon House Publishers - One might question the neutrality of this, but let's let that pass a moment." is essentially off the tracks. If the information is VERIFIABLE, it passes. It need NOT be NPOV. The article, however, must not cite that work to the exclusion of other works contradicting or questioning the citation. Which is why I'm interested that plenty was published about them by third parties since then,. --Nemonoman (talk) 17:56, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I stopped reading your ramblings after you characterised these edits of mine (the only ones I have made recently to the parapsychology article) as POV. You clearly have not read them as I was providing sources. From that, I conclude that have no idea what my stance on the subject is and are clearly trolling. Nev1 (talk) 18:04, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Above, Nemonoman writes "you, Nev1, and SH and MartinPoulter have made considerable, POV-changing edits in one big burst yesterday," referring presumably to the 18 August. I'm also included in the accusation against "the above editors". I made no edits to the article on 18 August, as can easily be confirmed using the article history. I have not edited the article since 11 August. Please retract this unfounded accusation. MartinPoulter (talk) 21:56, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nev1 and MartinPoulter are entirely correct calling me to account. I apologize to them. My cloudy brain somehow confused Matisse with Martin and I screwed that one over pretty well. Martin, I ask you to forgive this lapse. When you get as old and tired and stupid as I am, you might have a momentary lapse as well. Nev1 is also correct: changes to the article were reasonable and benign by any standards. I did not take the time to note this specifically. This is a failure on my part, and I have no excuse. Nev1, I also ask you to forgive me. I can offer no good reason for you to do this however.
I will correct my above edits to address my mistakes. --Nemonoman (talk) 22:33, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the prompt apology. MartinPoulter (talk) 22:38, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Images lack alt text as per WP:ALT. Please click on "alt text" in the toolbox at upper right of this review page. 03:42, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


Rejoinder: The justifications of the censorship are not reliable. I return to the sources I cited.

  • Hacking (1988) Isis: The article bears this title: "Telepathy: Origins of Randomization in Experimental Design" - that is the thesis of the article. It is very subtly argued, through close reading of correspondence from Fisher, as well as the public texts. The issue is not as black and white as we might like it to be. It is possible to extract one or more sentences of debate - of course it is. But please do not misrepresent the author's thesis. The thesis is surprising (as I noted), but there is an historical reasoning here that merits at least some encyclopedic representation given the bald and contrary representation in this article of Alcock's assertion (with no reasoning behind it) that psi research has contributed nothing.
  • Kaptchuk (1998) Bulletin of the History of Medicine: If the quotes provided by the respondent are not themselves sufficient to establish the point, please survey some others. Kaptchuk wrote "As far as I can ascertain, the first series of blind assessments and sham interventions for the purpose of scientific appraisal was aimed at mesmerism, the most popular and threatening unconventional healing system to appear in the late eighteenth century. ... The commission limited its investigation to determining whether the purported effects of animal magnetism were due to any "real" force [versus illusion]. ... The first blindfold experiment was performed at Benjamin Franklin's house. A series of women selected by the cooperating mesmerist as "good subjects" were physically blindfolded, with bandages (so that they "could no longer know anything respecting the conduct of the experiment" 15 ), and asked to locate where the mesmeric energy was being directed. It was observed that

    while the woman was permitted to see the operation, she placed her sensations precisely in the part towards which it was directed; that on the other hand, when she did not see the operation, she placed them at hazard, and in parts very distant from those which were the object of magnetism. It was natural to conclude that these sensations, real or pretended, were determined by the imagination.

    In another series of experiments, women patients were deceived by the scientists into believing that they were receiving mesmerism from an adjoining room through a paper curtain over a door." Referring back to these scenarios in his "Conclusion," Kaptchuk wrote: "Intentional ignorance [i.e., blind administration of experimental conditions] began as a method to challenge the "bogus" claims of unconventional medicine; some unorthodox practitioners adopted it in self-defense. At times, some nineteenth-century iconoclastic conventional medical leaders found it valuable in their polemics. Later, veiled procedures moved into psychology, psychic research, neurology, psychiatry, and pharmacology." Perhaps the argument, with respect to this particular article, boils down to whether these tests of the Mesmerists amounted to psychical research. There is enough even in these quotes to state the affirmative. I would be pleased to discuss the contrary. It is not original POV, in fact it is quite normative. The argument has also been represented by S. Schwartz (Proceedings of the PA, 2006), who goes on to describe Franklin as the first parapsychologist; while showing that other tests - of the dowser Aymar - preceding those by Franklin introduced blind-administration. The article can be read here: www.stephanaschwartz.com/PDF/blind_protocol.pdf On the same topic, consider also that Boirac in his La psychologie inconnue (1917) represented animal magnetism and telepathy as common to a single class of phenomena; such is how it was thought about at the time; see also Rhine, J. B. (1942). "Hypnotism, "graduate" of parapsychology [Editorial]." Journal of Parapsychology, 6, 159-163.

In another context, the editor in question cites Caroline Watt of the University of Edinburgh, as expressing (to his/her wits) a favorable perspective on parapsychological practice. Watt can be quoted as stating that "Historians have argued that the origins of the use of randomisation in experimental design can be traced to the early card-guessing experiments of the SPR (Hacking, 1988;Kaptchuk, 1998)" (Watt, C. A. (2005). "Parapsychology's contribution to psychology: A view from the front line." Journal of Parapsychology 69(2): 215-231.) . That is, in case you missed it, Watt refers to precisely the two articles I referenced in stating that the scientific procedures in question were "principally developed" in researching questions that we now dub, as per this WP article, as "parapsychological". If my phrase "principally developed" is not an appropriate reflection of this secondary estimation, and my side-line reference to associated procedures ("blind administration") is deemed to be too direct, perhaps another phrase or two can be suggested, in harmony with Watt's assessment, or perhaps by closer - and more representative - examination of the original authors. (Now let us give the same scrutiny to Alcock's baldly quoted assertion.)

  • The proponent of this nomination complains that "The main cite for this is to the "47th Annual Convention of the Parapsychological Association" - and the Parapsychological Association is not a reliable source, nor are conventions peer reviewed or otherwise reliable for such major claims." Such assertions fall easily off the tongue, unsupported by even a gesture of evidence, while they blindly defame the editors of the Psychological Bulletin - one of the leading flag-ship journals of the American Psychological Association. We find published in the 2006 volume of this journal an article by the same author in question which, in its Reference section, lists no less than 51 papers as presented at one or another convention of the Parapsychological Association; see Bösch, H., F. Steinkamp, et al. (2006). "Examining psychokinesis: The interaction of human intention with random number generators - a meta-analysis." Psychological Bulletin 132(4): 497-523. If such copious citations to papers delivered at conferences of the Parapsychological Association are worthy enough for the editors of the Psychological Bulletin, they should be worthy enough for citation by the editors of WP.
  • The proponent lastly offers that "there is no evidence provided that the statistical discussions linked ever became widely used." On the contrary, the citations given offer these statistical developments to mainstream statistical audiences, and not for parapsychological usage alone. See, for example:

Greville, T. N. E. (1941). "The frequency distribution of a general matching problem." Annals of Mathematical Statistics 12: 350-354.

Greville, T. N. E. (1944). "On multiple matching with one variable deck." Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 15, 432-434.

Gridgeman, N. T. (1960). "Card-matching experiments: A conspectus of theory." Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A (General), 123,(1) 45-49.

Sterne, T. E. (1937). The solution of a problem in probability. Science, 6, 500-501.

Whether these and like articles published in these and other journals ever led to any applications is as much a question for any article published in these journals, and not only those based upon questions of assessing parapsychological data (i.e., those attending to the relationship between humanly generated data, and data generated on the basis of theoretical distributions). The fact of their publication is the evidence of the contribution.

As for the complaint about referring to Richet's work, there is no claim in the censored section that he introduced statistical reasoning into psychology or elsewhere; he was plainly an early adopter and that is precisely what the quote from the proponent represents. And Richet's experiments were entirely negative? Doubtlessly some of his experiments were; but which ones, and if you wish to refer to the negatives, we shall also have to introduce elaboration of the positives. Brush up on such offerings from Richet by following these references:

Balfour, A. B. (1888). "Some remarks on Professor Richet's experiments on the possibility of clairvoyant perceptions of drawings." Journal of the Society for Psychical Research 3: 348-354.

Gurney, E. (1884). "M. Richet's recent researches in thought-transference." Proceedings of the Society for Psychical Research 2: 239-264.

Mazana, J. and M. R. Arino (1991). "Charles Robert Richet and some milestones in the history of allergies." Journal Investig Allergol Clinical Immunology 1(2): 93-100.

Richet, C. (1888). "Expériences sur le sommeil à distance." Revue Philosophique 25(435-452).

Richet, C. (1927). Our Sixth Sense. London, UK, Rider.

  • The proponent complains that "I've had to click repeatedly on issues until I found the relevant one". The references are given in a standard form: that offered by the American Psychological Association, and adopted by many other sciences. It is not customary, in this standard, to list issue numbers, unless the page numbers per issue are re-commenced. That is, if the page numbers continuously accrue throughout a volume, it is not considered necessary to list the issue numbers, in addition to the volume numbers, and pages. In any case, the complainant could have cut down on clicking by simply using the search facilities, on the various journal sites, entering author, year, etc.. WP articles can not be held accountable for problems in accessing referenced articles when these are presented in conventional forms, and when quite simple means are available for direct access to the articles of interest.
  • Lastly, the proponent has offered complaints about some few statements in the section s/he censored. These barely touch 20%, I hazard, of the overall content s/he eliminated. We know that s/he didn't like the information, but what other reason is there to censor it?

Rodgarton 14:25, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Rodgarden's analysis is pretty much completely fallacious. He seems to think that if something was presented to a mainstream audience, it is vitally important to the mainstream (and can be discussed in a section on parapsychology's contributins to the mainstream); that if parapsychologists are said to be early adopters of a technique, alongside other fields, that it was "principally developed" by them, even if the paper itself credits other fields and people with its main development; hell, that just having parapsychological studies mentioned in connection with a technique lets parapsychology claim all credit for them. A few specific points:
  • The Isis source which you used yourself says Richet's experiments were negative.
  • There's a difference between "partially developed" and "primarily developed", some sources might justify the former for some claims, but the section claimed the latter, which goes far beyond the sources. Particularly, the Kaputchuk source in no way justifies a claim of blinding being "principally developed" by parapsychologists just because it has a couple paragraphs mentioning it was used in parapsychological research. Shoemaker's Holiday Over 200 FCs served 09:54, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Issue numbers are a standard part of citations, this was missing them.
The material is available. I would encourage anyone else interested to repeat my alalysis, and see if you agree. Rodgarden's work is appallingly bad example of WP:SYNTH, WP:OR, quote mining, and, in the main, simply making stuff up based loosely on the source in order to puff up the field's alleged contributions to the mainstream to extreme levels. Shoemaker's Holiday Over 200 FCs served 09:42, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion: This discussion should be focused on the question: is Parapsychology still worthy of featured article status. Instead what we've got here is the bickering typical of strongly opinionated editors with differing points of view. The arguments above belong on the discussion page of the article, not here.

This FAR has little legitimacy in and of itself, in my opinion. All that has been presented is a set of concerns related to the sources and uses of data presented in recent edits. That concern is not significant enough in itself to warrant a change of FA status. It's a concern better addressed on the discussion page of the article, not in a FAR.

I challenge Shoemaker'sHoliday, who initiated this FAR, to spell out precisely how the article has deteriorated from its previous FA status, and what steps s/he believes necessary to restore it to that status, or to close this action until further discussion reaches consensus on recent addtions. If that consenus then results in a marked deterioration of article quality, then a FAR is called for. --Nemonoman (talk) 12:00, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I discussed far more than the one new section, I pointed out problems throughout the article. I'll go through again:

Criterion 1a: Poor writing style edit

Major problems here. For instance, the lead is very choppy and badly written, as are several other sections. quotes like "The existence of parapsychological phenomena and the scientific validity of parapsychological research is disputed by independent evaluators and researchers. In 1988, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences published a report on the subject that concluded that "no scientific justification from research conducted over a period of 130 years for the existence of parapsychological phenomena."[8] In the same report, however, they also recommended monitoring some parapsychological research, such as psychokinesis on random number generators and ganzfeld effects, for possible future studies.[8] The studies at the PEAR lab, recommended for monitoring by the report, have since concluded. These studies likewise failed to elicit a positive response by the scientific community despite numerous trials.[31] A 2008 study using fMRI showed no detectable psi effect.[43]" are just bad writing, and have no place in a FA.

Criteria 1b and 1c edit

There are major problems with depth of coverage (Criteria 1b), and research (1c) including:

  • Letting Rhine be the source for criticisms of himself, then failing to actually name the criticisms, just saying they exist
  • Insufficient detail. Consider the following paragraph, and realise that the only further mention of any of the research or concepts mentioned here is a single sentence: "Some effects thought to be paranormal, for example, the effects of Kirlian photography, disappeared under more stringent controls, leaving those avenues of research at dead-ends."

What is Kirlian photography? What is Ian Stevenson's research? What's astral beaconing? The article doesn't bother to tell the reader.

Criterion 1d: Neutrality issues edit

The article fairly often misleads the reader as to the amount of scientific support on the subject. For instance:

  • Criticism is minimised: For example, this is the section on criticism during the Rhine era:
No actual coverage of the details of the criticism is even mentioned.
  • Most criticism of the field is ghettoised at the end of the article, and , due to this structure, most parapsychological claims are allowed to go unchallenged, because the criticism section is written purely from a generic perspective, but the article covers many specific claims. For instance, there is no criticism in the sections on Ganzfield experiments, only a tiny bit in remote viewing, of insufficient length to form a full thought, and the section Parapsychology#Direct mental interactions with living systems again gives the right to analyse and present criticism to the people being criticised.
  • Over-reliance on quoting mission statements, basically giving organisations a free advert. For instance, 'The SPR's purpose, stated in every issue of its Journal, is "to examine without prejudice or prepossession and in a scientific spirit those faculties of man, real or supposed, which appear to be inexplicable on any generally recognized hypothesis"' - This is quoted, but does it actually add anything to the article?
  • Several sections written like an advertisement:
For example, the section "Parapsychology#Establishment_of_the_Parapsychological_Association contains sentences such as
  • The aim of the organization, as stated in its Constitution, became "to advance parapsychology as a science, to disseminate knowledge of the field, and to integrate the findings with those of other branches of science" This basically takes the controversial, at best, discussion of whether parapsychology is a science, and lets its advocates declare its status.
  • "The annual AAAS convention provides a forum where parapsychologists can present their research to scientists from other fields and advance parapsychology in the context of the AAAS's lobbying on national science policy"
  • The section Parapsychology#Anomalous psychology is simply ridiculous. Basically, citing surveys - or rather, failing to cite surveys, as there's a [citation needed] tag there, it seems to advocate for treating any sort of coincidence that people thought was a little weird as evidence of parapsychology. It is highly questionable what encyclopedic value this section holds, which is a particularly bad thing as, if they were discussed neutrally, with discussion of the other possible explanations, and what appears to be the mainstream parapsychological belief that a few, at best, are real, this would have covered an important part of parapsychological belief. As it is, it actually goes farther than what most academic proponents of parapsychology claim. Parapsychology is a fringe belief, yes, but it's being presented here from the perspective of the most extreme, probably non-academic proponents, which only serves to make the field look much worse than it deserves.

Also, it may be worth mentioning that the FAC that resulted in its promotion was not very well attended, and does not seem to have looked into the article in any depth. In all honesty, I think reviewers may have dropped the ball somewhat. Compare Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Parapsychology with the most recent FAs (taken from the last batch of closures): Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/James_Nesbitt/archive2, Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Fungus/archive1, and Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Hurricane_Bob_(1985)/archive1. The Parapsychology FAC was very poorly attended, shows no signs of any detailed reviewing, and I think that it does show in the result. --Shoemaker's Holiday Over 200 FCs served 15:18, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In fairness, standards and expectations at FAC have increased dramatically since 2007, I don't think the reviews this article got back then were exceptional one way or another really. Nev1 (talk) 20:16, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's true, but I'm not sure it should have passed even at the time. This is the revision that was promoted, and it has a fairly large number of uncited sections. This is the FAC criteria of that period, and it still required that Claims are supported with specific evidence and external citations; this involves the provision of a "References" section in which sources are set out, complemented by inline citations where appropriate. Shoemaker's Holiday Over 200 FCs served 20:46, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The article is currently rated as FA. Shoemaker's Holiday has set out how it fails the FA criteria by a long distance. Therefore that status needs to be reviewed. The logic couldn't be clearer.
Shoemaker's Holiday is under no requirement to explain here all of the recent edits to the article: that's what edit summaries and Talk are for. This page is about whether the article should be an FA.
The Wikipedia policies of WP:NPOV, WP:FRINGE and WP:RS are non-negotiable in this context. Those policies, not the policies of, say, the Psychological Bulletin (which is secondary literature, unlike WP which is tertiary), have to apply.
One reason I'm not optimistic about real progress is the tone adopted on this page by User:Rodgarton and User:Nemonoman. It should be possible to apply the relevant process to an article without being a target for invented accusations of defamation or bad faith. It clearly isn't encouraging for editors who might potentially step in and fix the damage to the article. MartinPoulter (talk) 17:52, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I very much appreciate SH making his concerns so clear. Many of the items he cites as reasons to de-FA the article include specific quotes and language from the version of the article at its FA promotion. So I note that now SH is anxious to establish that the original FA review was bogus.

As it stands, with SH's many new additions and deletions, an FA article has been effectively wrecked, and I agree that it is no longer at FA status. But I would be remiss if I did not note the hatchet job done in large part by SH to get it to its current POV status, complete with snide quotes, bogus logic, and and blockhead prose.

I'll note again that SH's criticisms have not been raised in the proper forum. He's shopped it over here, I suppose to attempt to gain some cover for his changes, rather than discussing them on the article's talk page.--Nemonoman (talk) 03:24, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Rejoinder #2 The complainant is now not only misrepresenting and ignoring the articles that I cited, but turning his/her tack to misrepresenting me. S/he quotes me on the statement of what was "principally developed" - that was precisely restricted to the issue of randomisation, and associated methods e.g. blind administration. I have now provided references from more than one source for this interpretation of the development of core experimental method - including the quotation from Watt that historians have certainly made this point; previously, the complainant was pleased to quote Watt, but now we find Watt is ignored in reply.

If we must restrict ourselves to Hacking's article, it will be there noted, by all reasonable readers that, from the title to the conclusion, the thesis is offered that randomisation was principally developed with psychical research in mind and as practiced. I too could offer many sentential quotes extracted from their context to prove the point: e.g., "the first methodological breakthrough came from across the Channel, from Charles Richet" (p. 437); or "We now think of probability as so integral a part of scientific method and practice that we are astonished to recall how ground-breaking a paper this is" [i.e., Richet's 1884 paper entitled "La suggestion mentale et le calcul des probabilités", Revue Philosophique, 18, 609-674.] Hacking goes on to explain that "suggestion mentale" was Richet's "rather positivistic choice of words for thought transference" [i.e., telepathy]. Again, Hacking states that Richet, in this paper, "did something that, though obvious, no one had quite thought of doing before". Hacking goes on to explain that this involved the random selection of targets (stimuli) for association with a psychological response in order to detect the operation of a beyond-chance factor in the association of the two sets of data. Simply put, by randomly applying experimental and control conditions, blindly to the source of response, a reliable statistical estimation of the operation of any extra-chance factor could be determined. As for the conclusions possible from Richet's data - and quite distinct from the misrepresentation of them by the complainant of these pages - Hacking himself interpreted them as showing that "there is some probability for the hypothesis of mental suggestion - low, but not negligible" (p. 439). In any case, whether or not Richet's results showed the operation of an extra-chance factor is quite distinct from the issue of the value of his procedures of data-analysis. It is mischievous of the complainant to blur this distinction. Let us quietly recognize and take stock of Hacking's thesis, rather than be so surprised by it that we misrepresent it; by such misrepresentation - and, I would add, with such exaggerated importance - as is presently happening in these pages through the authorship of the complainant.

Doubtless, some persons would like more citations. Let us then go straight to Hacking's concluding remarks. He there offers that even Fisher's famous prime example of how to conduct randomized experiments was informed by his attentions to the proper analysis of psychical research. Specifically, Hacking refers to Fisher's famous example of the lady who claimed to be able to tell whether the milk was poured into her cup of tea before the water was added, rather than by the more civilized reversed operation. Even this example of Fisher's was attributed by Hacking to Fisher's examination of the demands of psychical research. Hacking argued for this interpretation on many fine points; eventually making this appeal, as his penultimate sentence: "Anyone unfamiliar with the social combination of séance and tea may consult the elegant photograph After the Séance."

From head to foot of the article, Hacker quietly argues for this thesis - on such anecdotal and experimental grounds. We can quote the entire article to make the point, but I trust that these citations from the start to end of his article satisfy the reasonably minded. Kaptchuk (the author of another article I cited) refers to the article by Hacking, without being offended by Hacking's interpretations, and we have seen Watt and Schwartz repeating the interpretations without retort.

The complainant wishes to black-mouth me; s/he has a much bigger job ahead of her/him than s/he fancies.

We should also wonder what has happened to all the other issues the complainant first projected, but now makes no mention of. What does s/he have to say of the issue of blind-administration which s/he previously objected to but now shrinks from mentioning? What does s/he now have to say of her/his defamatory accusations against reports in the Proceedings of the Parapsychology Association Conventions, and, naturally, the universities that have hosted these conferences? How does the complainant explain her/his excision of the 80% or so of the information s/he blankly deleted and upon which s/he hazarded not a single comment?

The readers of Wikipedia deserve a reasoned reply, and not more gushes of adjectives and invective, and no more strings of now-we-see-them/now-we-don't assertions, and no more embroidering of these half-baked assertions by cherry-picked quotes.

The readers of Wikipedia deserve to be informed of abiding scholarly opinion, and not the gushing retorts of the blindly informed, egoistically censoring, and mischievously misrepresenting. --Rodgarton 10:03, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

You ask why I don't mention blinding again? I don't talk about blind administration again because it's ABUNDANTLY CLEAR YOU ABUSED THAT SOURCE, AND WERE WRONG, so there's not much more to say. You were wrong. You acted badly with the blinding. Is that sufficiently clear? Because you seem to think that if I don't mention you were wrong (which you were) for one statement means I have accepted you were right (which you aren't). Actually reading the Kaputchuk source blows the claims that blinding was principally developed in parapsychology out of the water, and the Isis paper at best indicates that Parapsychology was an important waystation in the development of randomisation methods, and doesn't offer a single fillip to your blinding claims (which are wrong). As for your new claims about the Isis source, they're merely cherrypicking. If anyone without an axe to grind looks at the information in context, it's clear that you're highly overstating the case.
Furthermore, on the statistical methods, the section was on its importance in other fields of research. Saying that there's no need to show it's important because you didn't say it (only implied it by putting it in that section on its importance to other fields) is disingenuous. Shoemaker's Holiday Over 200 FCs served 12:41, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"it's being highly overstated" - just which source are you disputing as being overstated? And how did you come to misrepresent what I noted as "contributions" as "importance" to other fields? We also note that there are quite a few other assertions you have made that you have failed, yet again, to address in "reply". We await at least something hinting at an attempt at a comprehensive and responsible reply. --Rodgarton 13:03, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
I have clarified above (edit conflicted). Shoemaker's Holiday Over 200 FCs served 13:07, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The complainant now wishes to shift her/his entire complaint, and so to justify for her/his entire excision of the information on how parapsychology has contributed to other fields, upon the issue of whether it was or was not singularly responsible for introducing "blind administration of experimental conditions" as a scientific method. I have provided statements and citations from more than one source that psiological research certainly contributed, in a principally responsible manner, to the introduction of such practices - both from Kaptchuck, and lately from Schwartz. Where is the citation that disputes these sources? I, like C. Watt, have cited both Hacking and Kaptchuck in unison. The question then is as to the source of Fisher's thinking about randomisation. Kaptchuck does not himself address this issue as to the source of Fisher's ideas. He defers it to Hacking, with whose thesis we are already familiar: the scientific questions raised by the examination of psi (or psychical phenomena, etc.) were principally responsible for developing their ideas.

If the phrase "principally responsible" is what fundamentally and singularly irks the complainant-censor of this section, then let us focus on that phrase, rather than using it as a pretext to baldly and unequivocally and brashly censor and excise all mention of any possible contribution of psiological research to scientific ideas and practices. The references I have provided and described clearly demonstrate that readers of Wikipedia may well be informed that research into the question of psi contributes to scientific ideas and practices. History, and those who have noted it, commend this knowledge to us. We have seen, in recent days, that some WP editors are existentially disgusted by this fact. Let us hope that what, in the end, is offered to readers of Wikipedia is more informed by abiding scholarly opinion, as I have recently sought to represent it, than by such ejaculatory disgust, as we have recently suffered. --Rodgarton 14:03, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

No, let's not. Because the WHOLE BLOODY SECTION has problems. I didn't find a sentence in it that was backed by reliable sources, and I'm sure if I went on to the other sections, it'd be the same. Shoemaker's Holiday Over 200 FCs served 14:25, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Another flaccid non-response, another appeal to "what I felt" and "my personal disgust, my interpretation," another withdrawal from the facts laid out. And not the slightest attempt to back up the defamatory assertions with a bit of fact. We're just offered a run of expletives and capital letters as proof of the point. Resign now, I would advise, before causing further embarrassment.--Rodgarton 14:50, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Not taking the bait anymore,. I've written about 5 pages of analysis now, people can read that. Shoemaker's Holiday Over 200 FCs served 21:00, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

General comments edit

Comment. I've followed Parapsychology since the day it was featured on the front page. In that time I believe that its overall quality has improved somewhat, despite sometimes fierce warring between proponents and critics. The issues that Shoemaker's Holiday raise largely relate to very recent additions by Rodgarton. Given their recency, I think the best approach to fixing any problems with these edits is via the article's talk page. I've been making edits to improve Rodgarton's additions and have found the process of discussing the additions on the talk page perfectly adequate. I'm not sure why SH's other concerns, such as missing issue numbers in references, can't be resolved by him either fixing them or letting fellow editors know about them on the talk page so they can fix them. The same goes for SH's concerns over a few items of wording in the article that are separate from Rodgarton's recent additions. I would dispute that the lead is not well written, it scans well for me. And, speaking as a sceptic, I am not detecting the heavy pro-Parapsychology bias that SH describes, although it's my experience that it's common for people on both sides of the issue to see the article as slanted the "wrong" way. Given that the "Contributions to other disciplines" section is what most of the discussion here has been about, and that section was deleted by SH when the review was posted and is still not present in the article, this review feels rather Alice-in-Wonderland to me. I thought the purpose of a Featured Article Review was to try to fix issues. If the largest issue under discussion was fixed before the review even began, it seems strange to be devoting so much verbage to it here. Personally, I think that we should rebuild the "Contributions to other disciplines" section source-by-source on the talk page with careful source-checking, and address the other concerns there too. This review seems too much about personalities and recent changes, particularly a recent addition that has since been removed, and this process seems to be giving off much too much heat and not enough light. Ryan Paddy (talk) 23:28, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
With respect, I've commented on problems in other sections. This article has major problems with depth of coverage and sources: This article is a very shallow discussion of the issue, and would need a lot more academic sourcing to meet criteria 1b and 1c. Indeed, all the neutrality issues are to do with depth of coverage: The sections are poorly developed and explained, and so commentary on them goes missing. Shoemaker's Holiday Over 201 FCs served 01:32, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We'll have to agree to disagree on that. I find the depth of coverage and the neutral point of view adequate for a featured article. Ryan Paddy (talk) 19:35, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
RP queries the relevance of discussing the eliminated section on the contribution of psi research to other disciplines. The charges of false citation I take quite seriously, and cannot be permitted to pass by as a hit-and-run; the complainant must be obliged to justify her/his statements, and not only actions. I have seen no justification for anything but minor clarification and elaboration, not total censure and defamation. As for restoring this section, I have not considered it necessary to do so, and do not presently consider that it is necessary, having come to the opinion that WP is not the place for academically relevant and informed primary sources; its procedures and policies are not appropriate to the proper discussion of such information; and it best relies on populist or semi-popular secondary sources, as this article traditionally has done. In fact, I fully commend all the edits and cuts the complainant has autonomously undertaken as they now clearly indicate the objective of the article, and allow the article to self-demonstrate its unreliability, from the word 'go'. Naturally, I do not care to have information I have contributed included in such a thing. --Rodgarton 08:23, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
I wasn't questioning your discussion of that section. I was pointing out that SH deleted that section but then criticised it in great detail here, which seemed a weird thing to do in a featured article review. As for the rest of your comment: the beauty of Wikipedia is in its outcomes, not its processes which are often ugly. The outcome regarding that section is in the air, so it's too soon for throwing your toys out of the cot. Personally I don't have an opinion on it yet, because I haven't examined the sources yet. My point is that the bulk of the above discussion belongs on the talk page, not a FAR, because it's about a deleted section. As for your point about primary sources... yes, secondary sources are preferred here because they require less original research. This is an encyclopedia, not a collection of academic papers. Ryan Paddy (talk) 08:59, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary edit

Suggested FA criteria are original research, neutrality, citations. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 07:36, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist Large sections are uncited, or only cited to one or two sources, particularly when discussing methodology. Completeness of the discussion is doubtful, and, as it's probably more useful to have a new example, see just below. Shoemaker's Holiday Over 203 FCs served 09:49, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The History of Parapsychology
Feel free to add comments

The history section has real issues due to concentrating almost solely on giving the history of currenly active (or very recently shut) parapsychological organisations, and failing to put it in context by talking about other things which have now failed. Despite the titles, the structure basically boils down to:

This is a very, very organisation-based approach, and leaves out a lot. The worst failing is probably that nothing before 1911 is discussed unless it was part of the Society for Psychical Research - which basically means that the history begins abruptly with an organisation being founded - and the extreme lack of depth. We are never told what's actually being researched in more than a word or two. A quick example:


Worse, important people and even extreme innovators of the field, such as Karl Zenner and Charles Richet only appear in lists of names. ´

In short, the istory section isn't a history section at all: It's a report on notable parapsychological organisations. That's well and good, and even, perhaps, an important part of the article, but we need a discussion of the actual history; of mediumship and Victorian spiritualism, of the people involved with trying to take these phenomena and investigate them scientifically, and how they improved their researches, and of what the important people did and the tests they came up with to study it. None of these appear. Shoemaker's Holiday Over 203 FCs served 09:44, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[If you wish to comment on this, please leave comments below; if people want to skip over this example, they're just going to be confused if commentary appears anyway]

  • I have a different take. Currently, the history section is 1292 words, out of 4711 words total for the article body. This is far too large a history section, unless the article is attempting (very indirectly) to say that parapsychology is an obsolescent field. (And if that's the point, it should be stated directly, near the start of the history section.) Assuming parapsychology is still an active field, I suggest spinning the history section off to a History of parapsychology subarticle and shortening the section to about 10% of the body (about 500 words). The resulting section should not need subsections. Eubulides (talk) 19:49, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's sort of the converse of what I was saying: The examples in the current history section are very poorly chosen so that the actual history is never really described, and we instead get a lengthy discussion of the history of a few organisations. It's very long, but it wouldn't serve any purpose to simply shorten it, it would be better to replace it with material that actually covered the history of the field, instead of the history of organisations related to the field.
On striking comments, one problem is that most of the comments are examples. There's a tendency in this sort of thing to presume that if the few examples of pervasive problems are dealt with, the article as a whole is fixed. Shoemaker's Holiday Over 204 FCs served 21:36, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The entire article has some major problems, and the very poor response of many of the regulars on this page is strong cause for concern over whether it could be rescued at this time. Indeed, I've been constantly attacked ever since I started discussion here, so there's no way I'm touching this article's cleanup with a ten-foot pole. Shoemaker's Holiday Over 203 FCs served 09:44, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • A good bit of the review commentary now seems to be obsolete, as the article has been edited, I suppose in response to objections. For example, there's no longer a "The annual AAAS convention ..." phrase in the article. Could you please strike out your comments if they are now obsolete? That will save the rest of us the time of figuring out that these are non-problems. Alternatively, you could put a summary of up-to-date criticism somewhere. Eubulides (talk) 19:49, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist: On 18 August, Shoemaker's Holiday made numerous edits to this article. None of the edits were discussed on the talk page. He then opened this FA Review. Since then, despite repeated requests to discuss these changes or find consensus, SH has continued to make major changes to the article without discussion or consensus.

While I agree that a number of edits made by the new editor Rodgarten needed a lot of review and improvement, that editor at least discussed the changes extensively before they were made. SH excised most of that work without discussion.

SH is now defending his version of the article quite fiercely, and still makes no attempt to discuss or reach consensus.

In its current SH-version, the article has lost any semblance of neutrality. It is very POV and filled with a number of snide comments that do little to further NPOV. SH has introduced his own OR conclusions to a number of sections, determining for the benefit of all that Parapsychology has no worth as a subject of study. I can't make a comment about the references he has added, but I will note that he calls the University of Pennsylvania Press and New Scientist journal "fringe publications", apparently because the don't share his personal point of view. That these publications have not outright rejected the discipline of parapsychology is apparently adequate evidence that they are unreliable sources.

Since SH is a confirmed reverter, since he is now the official Owner of the article, since he will not discuss or otherwise attempt to reach consensus, I can only assume that we're stuck with this article in its current ragged, POV, highly OR'd state.

It no longer deserves FA status. I regard this whole mess as standing Wikipedia on its head: butcher an FA article, and get it delisted, defending against any all reasonable improvements. I can only assume from SH's very apparent attitude of self-righteous skepticism that it was his intent to hurt the article in an effort to better prosyletize his skeptic's agenda. This article became an FA through an admirable effort of well-meaning editors with highly conflicting viewpoints working together to find consensus. That righteous work is gone. Delist.--Nemonoman (talk) 21:04, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A check of Parapsychology's history will show that Nemnonoman's accusations of edit warring against me are baseless. I have not edited the article at all in a week, and, of the handful of the edits I made since taking an interest in this article just before the FAR, only a single one was a revert, for which I gave a reason. Shoemaker's Holiday Over 204 FCs served 21:36, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I'm missing something? I agree that the article should be delisted. Isn't that the whole point of your efforts? --Nemonoman (talk) 22:19, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Some potentially original research was removed before this FAR even began, so that issue has been addressed. The neutrality concerns of both Shoemaker's Holiday and Nemonoman (who represent either of the "does parapsychology have value?" debate) are greatly overstated, as usual in an article on a contraversial subject. Any citation formatting concerns are easily fixed - Shoemaker's Holiday could easily fix them, as he has found the sources in question. This should never have been a FAR, it should have been some discussion on the talk page, where in my experience good accomodations are usually found. The fact that no such attempt was made unfortunately leads me to agree with Nemonoman that this FAR looks like an attempt to discredit an article on a subject disliked by the nominator, who seems upset by recent pro-parapsychology edits that have since been removed. However, I don't agree with Nemonoman that subsequent edits to the article by the nominator have significantly damaged the article's eligability for featured status. The article still stacks up well against the featured article requirements. Ryan Paddy (talk) 01:21, 4 September 2009 (UTC
    • It does very poorly against the 1b and 1c issues: This article just isn't a very good overview of its subject. Shoemaker's Holiday Over 204 FCs served 15:42, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep And just fix it. Some of the commentary about what's "wrong" with it point to issues that are easily resolved. Naturally articles degrade over time, but the amount of time spent going over it line by line to find things wrong with it could more productively be spent maintaining and upgrading it. I agree with Paddy (above). The article, despite numerous edits, still resembles FA and can be tweaked. --Nealparr (talk to me) 10:27, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Given the article has undealt with tags on many sections, has sourcing issues, mentions huge numbers of things off-hand, then fails to explain what they are, given everyone whose commented on the history section (as of now) has said it needs very major rewriting, given that Nemonoman is actively advocating for removing such fixes as have already happened, and given the increase in FA criteria since it passed to assure that they really are the best of the articles, when this was, at the very best, a weak candidate that probably barely met or actively failed many of the weaker requirements of the time, I don't think this is practical. It deserves the increased scrutiny of a new FAC. Shoemaker's Holiday Over 204 FCs served 17:25, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, whatever you guys do, de-FA it or just fix it, your comments about the original FA article being "at the very best, a weak candidate"... that's bullshit. What you read in that article, for better or worse, is the result of many months of writes, rewrites, arguments, and compromises, and even a few arbitrations. Many different editors from a variety of backgrounds came together to write something that we all could feel proud of. The end result was entirely based on compromising. We had many eyes upon it, and what you see in the actual FA review is just a small portion of editors involved, small because the actual FA review occured in many different places around Wikipedia and involved many editors, and the FA review was just a formality. If it wasn't as comprehensive as you would like, well, sorry about that, but it was written in WP:SUMMARY style, as it should have been, with its spin-off articles linked to like they were supposed to be. The article was whittled down to around 60K, as we were told to do by the reviewers. It was never meant to be an entire book about the subject. I don't claim that article was perfect, but it was definitely the best article I've ever read about such an obscure topic, and it was definitely worth being featured. It's easy to criticize and say it made it through because of weak requirements at the time, but -- from experience -- it's even harder to actually write a featured article as we did. How many have you written? --Nealparr (talk to me) 18:04, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The lists credit me with 7 between the two accounts; I think it may be a little higher as I also got involved with group projects like Evolution, and I wasn't a nominator, just major contributor, on H.M.S. Pinafore. I also have two Featured portals, about half of all featured sounds, about 5% of featured pictures, and a list or two.
I realise this isn't easy, but compare this to other broad-overview FAs, such as, say, Intelligent design, Climate of India, History of Sheffield, Hardy Boys, Definition of planet, or, to give another psychology concept, Philosophy of mind. I think you may agree that all of these are better-written, and have better-chosen examples and choices of what to discuss. Parapsychology has several strong points that could be built upon. The lead is good, and the criticism and controversy section pretty good as well. But it falls down when trying to explain the history of parapsychology, and when discussing the methods and research done, and that's a problem.
In short, it needs more and better-sourced discussion of parapsychology, particularly its history (which starts in medius res, concentrates too much on the history of modern organisations, thus concealing the actual development of the field, and doesn't do a very good job at explaining many of the techniques at all. Sentences like "The technique was developed to quickly quiet mental "noise" by providing a mild, unpatterned sensory field to mask the visual and auditory environment." don't make any sense to the uninitiated after the word "noise". While the next two senteces clarify a bit, it does seem very jargon-laden and unclear. (Also, isn't Ganzfield, as a German noun, always capitalised?) Shoemaker's Holiday Over 204 FCs served 19:10, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What can I say? It's a little different when the topic is both controversial, and obscure, and you have a lot of impassioned editors involved. None of the ones you listed off are really that controversial, and they're all pretty mainstream. Evolution has wide acceptance in science. Intelligent design is almost universally condemned. Parapsychology has always been just a small handful of PhDs exploring topics most PhDs don't, and even the opposition has always been mainly a small group of vocal opponents who bothered to write a scathing critique. Most people don't care about parapsychology.
What you see is what you get when there's a small set of sources to begin with, and of what's there, half are ruled out as unreliable. There used to be greater detail on the history. It was whittled down because it was said that too much space was devoted to the history and not enough on the research and criticism. There used to be a lot more on the research. Half that was dropped because the details came from parapsychologist themselves. The sources were said to be unreliable, eventhough no one else was around to describe what the parapsychologists were doing. No details could given that "unfairly" put parapsychology in a "positive light". It's a frustrating way to write, I tell you. You want to talk about details on the research? Jeeze, man, let me give you an example of how bad it was. So PEAR conducted millions of trials on PK. That's a notable detail. Couldn't put that in the article, though, because they said it was a "big number argument" that somehow made parapsychology seem more legitimate. Tried to put in reported results, attributed to the researchers, along with a disclaimer. Nope, no statistics could be reported, of course, because they're not reliable. Almost nothing from the parapsychology side could be written in any detail, at all, even when attributed to the author. It was horrible : ) Despite all of that, you still got a pretty well-written article that met FA standards. Never perfect, but I'd be willing to say probably about as good as you'll get on this topic (assuming the same editor backgrounds).
Like I said, go for it, feel free to de-FA it. Just don't belittle the original FA version. It was very well written given the circumstances, and definitely worth featuring. I could write a dozen FA articles about mundane subjects with none of the grief and in a fraction of the time involved in writing this one. --Nealparr (talk to me) 20:54, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If that's true, then, yes, it was a major achievement to get it as far as it did. However, I think there are at least some pro-Parapscyhcology sources of sufficient reliability - the textbooks, for instance - and I think that, if we can avoid the old problems, this should be improvable. Shoemaker's Holiday Over 204 FCs served 21:27, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The sticking point is obvious. Will the article be one edited carefully through discussion and consensus, or will it be subject to sweeping, non-neutral edits as recently? I'm entirely ready to Keep if we return to an earlier version of the article and make incremental changes, verifying as we go, along the lines of the process RyanPaddy has suggested more than once in the talk page of the article. There are several experienced editors with a reasonable history of neutral editing on this article, who I respect and applaud. Their careful editing should be standard for an article that has achieved FA status. If we can return to that standard, there's no reason to delist this article. --Nemonoman (talk) 13:06, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist mostly because the article is simply not very WP:NPOV. I do not think it gives proper WP:WEIGHT to the majority sentiment that parapsychology, as a discipline, is either populated by people who have come to dubious conclusions about the existence of psychic powers or is simply bunk. Attempts to illustrate this more clearly in the article and in the lead have been systematically removed or watered-down. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:27, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is rubbish, but it's probably the real reason behind this FAR so it's nice to have it said openly. I'm a sceptic and I'm perfectly happy that whenever well-sourced statements that are appropriate to the article have been found it's been possible to negotiate their addition to the article. The lead in particular now has a very clear statement of the sceptical position, describing parapsychology as "contraversial", stating that the consensus of the scientific community is that no proof of psychic abilities has been found, and saying that many scientists view the field as pseudoscience. These are all statements with good reliable sources, which is why they stick. Your past unsuccessful attempts to add sceptical sources that don't meet Wikipedia's reliability criteria are indications of the article working correctly, not failing. Sources such as self-published sceptical articles by authors of no particular note don't belong in this or any article. Ryan Paddy (talk) 00:15, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would kindly ask you to retract your allegations. I am NOT ScienceApologist, and have stated precisely what I found problematic about this over and over. I found some surprising claims, checked them against the sources, and found they in no way supported the claims. I checked further, and found other problems, mainly with depth of coverage. While a few sections are or were misleading, by actively suppressing information by, say, mentioning the government funded experiments but not mentioning that these experiments were decided to show no useful results that would merit further study, and this cited to a report on the failure of the experiments. That, I think you'll agree, is not on. However, on the whole, the big neutrality issues are mostly sorted. What isn't sorted is that many aspects of parapsychology aren't included, the history section is an utter failure, and I'm not entirely convinced we discuss all the major avenues of parapsychological research. Shoemaker's Holiday Over 204 FCs served 01:35, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad we agree that neutrality isn't presently an issue for the featured status of this article. But I don't agree that the completeness of the article is an issue. I find the article, including the history section, to be comprehensive in its coverage. But if you believe the depth of coverage could be even better, by all means widen it. The concern that you've raised regarding the history section focusing on organisations appears to be a question of style. You could edit that section to have less of a focus on organisations, and you may well be able to add some more historical details. The current level of comprehensiveness is adequate, but as with anything there's always room for improvement. Ryan Paddy (talk) 02:46, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Given the higher standards FAs are now held to, I think we're right to insist on a fair bit more. That said, I do think the History section is a major issue. I doubt me any other FA has a history section that fails to actually explain the beginning of the field, for instance, instead jumping to an event somewhat after, or any of the other liberties taken. I also think that citations are still an issue in some places, though gradually improving. Shoemaker's Holiday Over 204 FCs served 02:52, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The founding of the Society for Psychical Research would seem to make the beginning of organised parapsychology. If you have reliable sources that discuss noteworthy early individual researchers that were precusors to the organisation of parapsychology as a field of research then the editors of the article would doubtless welcome them. But I think it's equally reasonable for the History section to start with the first organised group attempt at creating the discipline under discussion, as it currently does. Of course, if your main interest is in highlighting that Victorian interest in seances was how the field started then you'll need one or more reliable sources that draw that conclusion, so that it's not original research. Ryan Paddy (talk) 03:29, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, while reviewing the sources for that huge section Rodgarton added, even if they weren't suitable for his use, they would be very suitable for this, and emphasised very different aspects. Plus, any decent source about parapsychology's history could be used for such discussion as you mention.
Perhaps I wasn't clear: I've read a lot on this subject while preparing for this FAR, and the history section doesn't just look odd from me looking at it, but from comparing it to what other sources indicate as important. Shoemaker's Holiday Over 204 FCs served 04:29, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The purpose of a FAR is to fix the article. If you have sources on hand that make you think the History section is incomplete, then perhaps you could use them to fix it? Ryan Paddy (talk) 19:46, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be honest: after the constant attacks, here, on my talk page, on Talk:Parapsychology, and elsewhere, simply for having pointed out problems and attempted to fix them, I am not going to commit to the major effort of reading and preparation necessary just so I can prolong the constant personal attacks and false insinuations as to my motives. Shoemaker's Holiday Over 204 FCs served 20:21, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you constructively edited the History section rather than just throwing rocks at it, I imagine that suspicions as to motive would be reduced, not increased. Having said that, I can understand if it's work you don't have time for. Please note that doubts about good faith are not the same thing as personal attacks. I would like to assume good faith, it's just difficult in the face of the circumstances and approach of this FAR. Anyone who hangs around a contraversial article like Parapsychology for long enough starts to become suspicious of actions that could be interpreted as undue promotions or attacks of the subject or the article, and this FAR looks a lot like the latter. The reason for my suspicion is that I would expect an experienced editor acting in good faith to attempt to use the talk page to discuss and fix the kinds of relatively simple concerns you've outlined rather than abruptly opening a FAR, and to not make a big song and dance in a FAR about a very new section that had already been removed. That choice of approach makes me suspicious about good faith. We should assume good faith, but actions can cause that assumption to be eroded. Ryan Paddy (talk) 22:49, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you had followed this from the beginning, you'd know that it opened with the discovery of massive abuse of sources. Much of this turned out to be in a relatively new sections, but discovering such things in an FA is, in my eyes, ALWAYS cause to seek as widespread review as possible. Shoemaker's Holiday Over 204 FCs served 23:18, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I did follow it from the start. The recent edits you refer to as "abusive" were removed before the FAR began. So it's still a mystery to me why you highlighted them in the FAR. Did they leave behind some sort of offensive smell? Ryan Paddy (talk) 02:56, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, as the person who removed them, I can assure you they were removed after the FAR began, and long before it became clear that this was largely isolated to the sections removed. I had mainly checked those sections, those problems were extreme, and other sections had a host of obvious problems which we've slowly been fixing. If it were just the other problems, the article would still be problematic, but some time to fix it before FAR might have been justified. As it was, for all I knew sources were abused throughout the article, and it had a lot of other problems beyond that. So you can see why I started an FAR. I do think the remaining problems, coupled with the increase in standards, probably means it should be delisted for now, so that it's subjected to increased scrutiny after a hopefully relatively short period of improvement. For one thing, it leaves out a lot of important sources like the NAS report; it's not clear whether all the problems with highly negative sources having only the positive parts mentioned (e.g. saying that they were by the U.S. government, not that the results were decided to be wholly negative by them) have been caught and fixed; the problem where the only discussion of the criticism of Rhine is to say that Rhine rebutted them still remains, and there's a lot of unfixed problem tags. If we can fix it all, that's fine, but this should NOT leave FARC as an FA until all of that's fixed. Shoemaker's Holiday Over 204 FCs served 14:31, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As an addendum, though, FARCs are not on a fixed schedule, so if progress can be made, it'll be kept open. Shoemaker's Holiday Over 204 FCs served 20:32, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist - I've been keeping an eye on this, as OR concerns always get my attention (maybe its because they are my initials). I noticed the original problems and I still see problems. It is all a mess and is obviously not an FA nor was when it was first promoted. I have many issues with the sourcing now and it is to the point that I would almost suggest deleting the article and starting over. Sigh. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:59, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist because the article is self-demonstratively unreliable, with not even a pretence at reliability. Were the article intended to be reliable, it would demonstrate, from the outset, an objective to be dispassionately informative about parapsychology's aims, assumptions, methods, databases, theories, interdisciplinary relationships, etc.. Instead, it presents an objective of advocating for a certain set of opinions about parapsychology, giving paramount importance to controversiality, and then by a simple black-and-white representation of this controversiality. This leads to an unreliability that can be appreciated from any point in the article, e.g., from the bulk of the images selected to illustrate it, from the weight of references to the "anti", by absenting any mention of the positive functions of the field (e.g., confronting claims of the paranormal). As soon as the article pretends to offer concrete information, it fails to be factual and to demonstrate a well-rounded and informed basis of representation: e.g., in the first paragraph, it distinguishes between "sensory deprivation and the Ganzfeld", although the latter is a form of sensory deprivation. As this page and that of the article's discussion page reveal, more objectively constrained and factual information has continually been forced to fall away before certain editors' emotive shouts of "abuse," ad hominem slights against another's prose, "see no evil" self-defense, partisan opinions presented as self-evident truths, autonomous culling of information on the basis of such opinions, bogus consensus expressed by scapegoating others, specious rejoinder on rhetorical rather than substantive issues, and so on. Any attempt to provide more objective and comprehensive information is simply deleted amid a spray of such irrational processes. These irrational processes have ubiquitously conditioned the article's information, rendering it fundamentally and self-demonstratively unreliable. At best, this article could partly serve as an introduction to qualitative opinions of non-parapsychologists about parapsychology, or as a partial basis for an article on the sociology of parapsychology, but it should not be presented as offering knowledge about parapsychology itself. Accordingly, not only should the article be delisted, but it should be deleted altogether as an article on parapsychology, and more accurately reframed as something like "qualitative critiques of parapsychology: a compendium of personal selections". --Rodgarton 04:25, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
"giving paramount importance to controversiality, and then by a simple black-and-white representation of this controversiality" This is per WP-Fringe. The vast majority of sources do not treat Parapsychology as anything more than a controversial fringe "science" that cannot be taken seriously. We are not allowed to produce content that advocates for fringe groups as we merely reflect scholarship. The scholarship cannot be used to make the claims you wish it to. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:14, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The paramount emphasis on controversiality, with its negative effect on the reliability of the information, is not "per WP-Fringe". That policy instructs editors to take care in the treatment of what are considered fringe claims. There is no evidence of such care in this article. On the contrary, controversiality is allowed to dominate the article and to distort the information it presents. I have documented this distortion and unreliability with respect to the very definition of the field given in the first paragraph; and in the highlighting of marginal studies on controversial and passing issues in the field, and ignorance of the substantive issues (e.g., giving as examples of studies of the 1970s that of Moss' in Kirlian photography, but nothing of the much more prevalent, multi-laboratory alpha-band EEG studies); add to this the factual error concerning the Ganzfeld, noted above. One can continue to demonstrate such elementary errors of fact, and unreliability of information; yet the basic principle of distortion in the advocacy of the pseudo-skeptical side of controversiality will be obvious to any truly skeptical student of the field; and these points will continue to be ignored by the editors of this article. The above respondent continues this tradition, and provides yet another example of the irrational processes of the article's construction: offering more personal opinion, blankly stated without reference, as self-evident truth, with the typical lather of hyperbole; viz., "The vast majority of sources do not treat Parapsychology as anything more than a controversial fringe 'science'" (note the odd capitalization of "parapsychology"; another pointer to the lack of elementary knowledge of those who presume to inform us about the field, and to "merely reflect scholarship"). I have provided objective information by way of questionnaires in order to assess such claims, but the information, naturally, has been deleted, in further evidence of the agenda-driven distortions and preference for irrationalism and personal opinion of the editors of this article. There are no "claims you wish" the article to make, as the above respondent charges against me; that is just more obfuscation by colorful trivialisation and ad hominem slight; and another demonstration of the unwillingness of the editors of this article to discuss the substantive issues I have raised. These issues simply boil down to an objective of producing a programmatically comprehensive, objectively constrained rather than personally opined, responsible and informative article. Instead, editors deny such efforts, while preserving and continuing to make elementary errors, over numerous edits, and positing opinion gleaned from the populist and pseudo-skeptical literature in preference to that which is objectively constrained and attained from academic sources. Delist and delete.--Rodgarton 01:14, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
The long-term elementary error I note above in distinguishing between "sensory deprivation and the Ganzfeld" was corrected by another editor on 11:52, 10 September 2009.
WP:FRINGE makes it clear that fringe science cannot be treated as science. WP:WEIGHT reinforces that the controversy and fringeness of this science must be the dominant aspect of this page. You disagree with these two, as you seem to disagree with Wikipedia's policies and beliefs. Wikipedia is not here to promote your fringe group. You can find plenty of other Wikis without such standards that may be more accomodating. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:50, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think taking from WP:WEIGHT that the "fringeness of this science must be the dominant aspect of this page" is a poor interpretation of that section of NPOV, which actually states that "Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views" (my emphasis). This is actually the article to describe those views held by the tiny minority that is parapsychology, not unchecked without its criticism, but not suppressed or censored either. --Nealparr (talk to me) 22:32, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Nealparr's comment -- I think the 'fringeness of this science must be dominant' comment reflects an agenda not compatible with overall WP philosophy. --Nemonoman (talk) 23:07, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While the article should describe parapsychology, it needs to cast it in a light appropriate to its respectability. While Parapsychology is NOT the most fringey subject out there - enough respectability attaches to it that I believe we can get away with simply making sure that a small, but significant amount of criticism appears where relevant. However, the article has had some major problems - slowly being reviewed and fixed, it must be admitted - of mentioning high-profile groups that studied it, e.g. the U.S. Government, but suppressing their findings if negative, and occasionaly breaking a neutral tone to outright advocate for parapsychology (largely dealt with).
That sort of thing isn't acceptable, I think you'll agree. We need to check sources and make sure we don't have any of that sort of thing left, then, basically, we just need to include a few sentences of relevant criticism here and there, for example, Langmuir's and other criticisms of Rhine should probably be discussed, instead of simply saying they exist and that Rhine wrote a book discussing them. For most sections, a sentence or two per section should be ample; some may need a little more, others might well not need any. This shouldn't substantially increase the amount opf criticism, though, as any duplicate material in the extensive criticism sections could be removed. Shoemaker's Holiday Over 204 FCs served 23:29, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
SH, I applaud this statement of principle: a good summary of guidelines for editing this article. I sincerely hope we can find ways to reach consensus as we implement. As Pres Obama said about health care reform -- "a few details need to be worked out...". --Nemonoman (talk) 12:50, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's pretty much a common-sense approach. The only real addition I might make is that parapsychology has a fringe as well, and, when dealing with it, we should probably include rather more criticism than when, as here, talking about parapsychology as found in respectable academia. For example, I believe there's a lab that "tests" television psychics, and uses no control, e.g. they might ask her to make a report for a 70-year old in Boston, and then have that 70-year old rate it for accuracy, without seeing how other 70-year-olds in Boston would rate it. Given that Barnum statements are well-known, this research has been eviscerated by pretty much every other scientist who's talked about it. So if we wanted to include things like that - the fringes of parapsychology - we ought to take a rather more critical approach. However, these are the fringes of parapsychology, and unless more prominent than I've been led to believe, probably shouldn't appear in this overview. Shoemaker's Holiday Over 204 FCs served 15:25, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's not really parapsychology. If you have ghost hunters running around saying they're "certified parapsychologists" or some junk, it's not parapsychology, it's fraud. If you likened it to intelligent design proponents calling themselves biologists, how much coverage of them would you give them in the biology article? That's WP:WEIGHT. There is a ghost hunting article for fake parapsychologists. --Nealparr (talk to me) 16:40, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[Unindent] Pretty much what I thought, though it might be good to mention that sort of lunatic fringe to explicitly seperate it from the mainstream of parapsychology. Shoemaker's Holiday Over 204 FCs served 16:42, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It'd be difficult to find credible sources that identifiy that sort of lunatic fringe as actual parapsychology. --Nealparr (talk to me) 22:42, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I find it a little unsettling that someone said, "not unchecked without its criticism, but not suppressed or censored either" as if I was saying that there should be no information. Instead, I said that the page should be -dominated- by the sources that state that the matter is a fringe science. That is per Weight and Fringe. By misleadingly replying to what I claim, the whole discussion is manipulated in a manner that only verifies the unsettling manipulation of trying to push this as something that is not a fringe science. I find such things inappropriate, and I would ask that when you respond to me, please actually respond to what I say instead of making claims to the contrary in order to push a view. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:13, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was commenting on exactly what you said, "dominate". The article should not be dominated by anything. I also have an issue with what Shoemaker said, "cast it in a light appropriate to its respectability". It shouldn't be doing that either. All of that is editorializing. The article should present credible sources representing all relevant views, in proportion to their prominence among the people involved in the topic. Not editorializing ends up with what we have now, which (even with its faults that are being corrected) is not dominated by anything in particular. The criticism section doesn't dominate the page. At roughly 68 kb, remove the criticism section and you're left with roughly 48 kb of straightforward information. It doesn't have to be dominated by a single aspect of the topic, ie. its fringiness. Parapsychology has been around for over 130 years. The historical aspect of it could fill volumes, but it's not dominated by that either. The goal isn't to slant the article to be about one aspect of the topic. It's to cover all relevant and notable aspects, without editorializing. To dominate the page with sources "that state that the matter is a fringe science" you are, in fact, suppressing the other aspects of the topic. There's a lot of credible sources that talk about (just one example aspect) the history of parapsychology, without delving heavily into the science/non-science debate. Parapsychology predates the term pseudoscience by almost 100 years. The topic isn't all about how it's pseudoscience. Neither WP:WEIGHT, nor WP:FRINGE, directs you to treat a subject that is pseudoscientific as all about pseudoscience. I know, because I contributed in writing them. Even the astrology article is not dominated by its pseudoscientific aspect.
Btw, you took my comment, talking about what WP:WEIGHT says, and twisted it around into accusations of agenda pushing, and you say I'm misleading? Forgive me if I'm not all that sympathetic. After editing years of editing Wikipedia, I don't take accusations seriously without diffs. Least of all hypocritical ones. --Nealparr (talk to me) 22:42, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"I was commenting on exactly what you said, "dominate". The article should not be dominated by anything." Fringe says otherwise. Your failure to accept that and your constant disruption needs to come to an end right now. FAR is not for you to push something that goes against our policies. You can step off the soap box and stop disrupting things, or you can be taken to AN for a request of a topic ban of both the FAR process and anything related to Parapsychology. You think there is a suppression? Fine, think that. Go to some other Wiki that lacks any academic or logical standards and push some unscientific lie simply because you can't handle the fact that we require actual sources and matters based on how it is treated in actuality. You want a fantasy world. That goes against everything Wikipedia is about. Wikipedia wont change because you want it to. So, you have your option - stop the disruption, or processes will be started to stop you. You have blatantly lied about what I say, and now you are continuing trying to twist words. I do not accept such people, so you are at the end of my patience. You have the two options. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:29, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You obviously are confusing me with someone else, or not actually reading what I wrote. WP:FRINGE does not say that an article needs to be dominated by anything, feel free to try to point out where it does. I have not been disruptive, feel free to try to point to where I have. I have not advocated parapsychology, feel to try to point out where I have. But above all that, stop saying I'm twisting your words when you are totally twisting mine, and adding to it that I support some position that I don't. You're on some weird attack position against me personally, when all I've done is disagreed with what you think policy says. Your reading of Wikipedia's policies is incorrect, that's all. Saying that doesn't make one an advocate of parapsychology, or warrants personal attacks. So seriously, again, diffs or keep it to yourself. --Nealparr (talk to me) 15:09, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"But above all that, stop saying I'm twisting your words when you are totally twisting mine" Bull. I only respond to what you claim -I- claim. Once again, you are twisting things. I warned you, and you are making it clear that you will need to be topic banned because you are not here for anything but spreading misconceptions, out and out claiming things that are false, and disobeying our standards in order to push a view. And "does not say that an article needs to be dominated by anything" is so patently absurd that it is unbelievable that you would even write it: "Coverage on Wikipedia should not make a fringe theory appear more notable than it actually is" Right there at the very top. Very clear. The article -must- be presented in the actuality of it not being an actual science. Therefore, the dominant idea within the article can and only should be that this is not a science. You don't like it because it gets away from you promoting some fringe view. So stop the crap. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:24, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Let's take this to AN because I am getting really tired of you saying I'm promoting a fringe view when I haven't, and you've provided no diffs that support that I do. At AN you'll be required to provide diffs, and I won't have to deal with unsupported accusations.
WP:FRINGE deals with inclusion to Wikipedia based on notability. Parapsychology, everyone agrees, is notable for inclusion. WP:FRINGE also deals with where inclusion should occur, again, based on notability. Parapsychology is not notable in science articles such as physics and biology. It's not included there. It's fringe there. Parapsychology is certainly notable in an article about parapsychology. The fact that parapsychology is pseudoscience is not the only aspect to the topic of parapsychology. In this article, there is 48 kb of information having nothing to do with that, and 20 kb of information about that. It's not dominated by the fact that its pseudoscience, it shouldn't be, and WP:FRINGE doesn't say that it should be. It'd be a really short, biased essay, not an article at all, if it were dominated by the fact that it's pseudoscience. Again, look at the astrology article, the example pseudoscience Popper used when he coined the term. It's not dominated by that aspect. It too is under the purview of WP:FRINGE.
Not once did I even say that you advocate that it should be dominated by anything. I only said that it shouldn't be, and that interpreting policy to say that it should is a bad interpretation. I've never said that you support any position on anything. You're the one saying -I- support some advocate position, and frankly I'm tired of hearing that. So, yes, let's take it to AN so you'll at least have to back that up with something substantial, and they can review your style of bullying people into agreeing with you through personal attacks, of which you've made several against me and other editors who you seem to disagree with. Let's. --Nealparr (talk to me) 15:54, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Or, rather, the proper venue is WP:ANI. I'll let you give your version of the events first if you'd like. Please provide diffs. Alternatively, we can agree to disagree and move on (I won't talk to you, you won't talk to me), but I must insist that for a resolution of that sort, you stop accusing me of advocacy. If you're going to continue doing that, I require diffs. A great deal of the criticism on this article I wrote myself, so I don't deserve that label, or your disrespect. --Nealparr (talk to me) 16:44, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The only diffs that will be presented will be to your comments here in which you continue to disrupt this process. Your spastic edits above are only verification of that. The fact that you claim there are "personal attacks" when the only thing that has been discussed are your -actions-, which is clearly not a personal attack shows that you are acting inappropriately. WP:NPA makes it very clear that such accusations -are- a personal attack, so you are in violation of yet another policy. The more you talk, the more evidence you provide that you are not here to act appropriately. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:15, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You made what I felt is an inaccurate interpretation of policy in response to someone's comment (who you also labeled an advocate). I commented that I felt that interpretation is inaccurate. You called me an advocate who twists your words. I defended myself. You continued. If there's disruption here, you "dominate" it. ANI can figure it out. --Nealparr (talk to me) 17:24, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is only inaccurate because you either 1. don't understand it and that is the reason why you are in violation of the policy or 2. don't care about our policies and will try to manipulate whatever you can in order to push a fringe view. Either way, your actions are completely inappropriate and unwelcome at Wikipedia. You didn't "defend yourself", you have been acting offensive from the very beginning. That is how many fringe POV pushers operate. You are dead set on operating in a manner that is not appropriate for Wikipedia and have violated many, many rules. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:00, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong. I've been working with Shoemaker on improving the article in response to his complaints about the article. You're the one who's been offensive. Reread what you wrote. You've been calling me a POV pusher in every post you wrote since I disagreed with you. You can't just call someone a POV pusher, not produce diffs to back it up, and expect me just to sit back and take it. I offered to drop it and move on if you stop doing that. You insist on doing it. I said you can post to ANI first, but if you're not going to I'll be happy to post first. One way or the other you need to stop the personal attack of calling me a POV pusher. I won't be called that by someone who won't even bother to check my edits. --Nealparr (talk to me) 23:20, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"You're the one who's been offensive" Really? Offensive would require me attacking people. Instead, I have been responding to people who attacked me. Funny how that words. However, your reversal of the two is indictative of your reversing of minority and majority positions in order to promote the view you wish. And pushing a POV is an adjective and describes actions. It is not a "personal attack". Please read WP:NPA - it says to focus on the actions of others. And check your edits? I am responding to the way you are twisting language above. If you are acting differently elsewhere, then that only shows a greater problem with your editing here. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:45, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You want a fantasy world.
Wikipedia wont change because you want it to.
You don't like it because it gets away from you promoting some fringe view.
You are dead set on...
...promote the view you wish
You have no clue about what I want, what I like, what I am dead set on, or what view I wish. But that's a lot of talk about me personally, and not my actions. Again, reread what you wrote and come at me differently. Maybe a little less belligerent. --Nealparr (talk to me) 03:48, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[Unindent] May I politely suggest that this battle is likely to be unhelpful, get us nowhere, and just cause problems with little benefit. It'd probably be better to drop it, and possibly use {{hat}} {{hab}} tags around it. Shoemaker's Holiday Over 204 FCs served 03:45, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fine by me. --Nealparr (talk to me) 03:48, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist. There are ongoing problems both about agenda-pushing and breadth of coverage. It could be made into an FA, but it's not now. Cutting the article any slack would send the wrong message to the agenda-pushers. Shoemaker's Holiday has shown an amazing tenacity and it's a pity that such stubbornness seems necessary just to implement a needed process on this article. MartinPoulter (talk) 11:08, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
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 07:14, 22 September 2009 [22].

The KLF edit

Review commentary edit

Notified: WikiProject Music, Kingboyk

I am nominating this featured article for review because... I think it is starting to fail 1C. There are fairly large stretches with only one or no references, and at least a couple {{fact}} tags are creeping in. All of the instances of unsourced-ness are spread out enough that I think there're enough cracks in the foundation to delist. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 20:50, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article might not be quite up to standards, but it strikes me as pretty good on the first look. Were these issues brought up on the talk page first? Also, were the significant contributors notified? Dabomb87 (talk) 21:21, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • There doesn't seem to be any significant contributor. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 21:44, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • [23] – from the toolbox on the right side of this page. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:49, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wow, most of those guys haven't edited in a while. I did get to Kingboyk at least. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 22:48, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Images lack alt text as per WP:ALT. Eubulides (talk) 06:06, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was tempted to try and clean up the article, as I love their music, but I fear that a lot of the unreferenced stuff would require access to print media from back when the band was active, which I simply don't have. Also, a lot of the "themes" section seems like OR, or at least very difficult to find a reference for - the talking porpoise, for example. And blimey, there sure are a lot of images claimed as fair use. The shot of Bill Drummond at the BRITS, for example, is claimed as fair use because it illustrates the performance, yet all we see in the image is a guy in a leather jacket holding a mic, which doesn't add anything to the description in the prose........ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:56, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • 24 non-free files in one article? - only 21 articles in the whole of en.wiki have more than this. Clearly excessive and needs to be cut down harshly. Far too many album covers which fail WP:NFCC#3a, WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFLISTS, especially as most of them are decorative. Black Kite 10:09, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is rarely a need for any album covers on artist pages; are the covers themselves of significance to this article? J Milburn (talk) 12:20, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary edit

Suggested FA criteria concern are citations, alt text. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 07:06, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist - the web citations are badly formatted, there are too many sound samples and some sections are written more as a series of comments rather than as paragraphs. -- EA Swyer Talk Contributions 19:59, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments—There seems to be two major problems in the article. I think both are fixable:

  1. References: Many of the citation tags are for uncited chart positions, which should very easily fixed. Citing their themes etc. should be a greater challenge though (although I suspect that can be fixed by reverting those sections to the version that got through FAC). Also those links to article reprints on libraryofmu.org should be removed as they constitute copyright violation.
  2. Fair-use: None of the music samples have their sound described as of now, so I guess they can all be removed for now (note that I am not very familiar with the group's music at all). Then we can re-add samples one-by-one as required.

I'll try to get as much done over this week. indopug (talk) 02:15, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please don't forget about the alt text. To see what's missing, you can click on the "alt text" button in the toolbox at the upper right of this review article. Eubulides (talk) 02:22, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed by YellowAssessmentMonkey 00:53, 14 September 2009 [24].

Thomas Pynchon edit

Review commentary edit

Notified: Anville (nom), Abaca, WikiProject Biography, WikiProject Biography/Arts and entertainment

I am nominating this featured article for review because it lacks some references, may contain original research, and may not be neutral. It became a FA in March 2006. It has an unusual referencing format which may no longer be acceptable. —Mattisse (Talk) 19:08, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • 1a There is some weasel wording, e.g. Some made the point that this was ostensibly the culmination of Pynchon's career and a summation of his personal philosophy, while others noted that it was a "loose baggy monster" which had been pieced together from several long-time Pynchonian works-in-progress and offcuts from other of his novels.
  • 1b This is a biography of a living person so it probably needs updating
Books are mentioned that were to be published in 2009
  • lc There are sections that have few or no reference citations. e.g."Themes", "Influence"
These sections may reflect some original research, as opinions are given without citations.
  • 1d "Gravity's Rainbow" section has a {{pov}} tag and many {{citation needed}} tags
  • Per WP:LEAD, the lead needs to be beefed up so that it summarizes the article.

In general, this article appears to be very well written and well referenced (although the referencing format is idiosyncratic). For someone who is familiar with this author, I think this article can with a little work be brought up to standards. —Mattisse (Talk) 19:08, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Images need alt text as per WP:ALT. Eubulides (talk) 19:41, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Pynchon.jpg: without a source or author, how do we know this is Pynchon? DrKiernan (talk) 14:11, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pynchon is a writer I hold dear to my heart. I'm fairly inexperienced with scholarly analysis of literary works, but I'll try my best to polish the rest of the article up to standard. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 03:10, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1975, Pynchon declined the William Dean Howells Medal of the American Academy of Arts and Letters" - why? Seems like it warrants further explanation... --74.138.229.88 (talk) 03:20, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary edit

Suggested FA criteria concern are citations, original research, neutrality, prose, alt text. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. FAQ? YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 00:40, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Editors appear to be working on the article. JKBrooks85 (talk) 23:45, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I think the referencing system needs to be fixed and brought up to date. The way it is now, it is virtually impossible to fact check or verify sources. There are no page numbers. Also, the lead needs to reflect the article, per WP:LEAD. —Mattisse (Talk) 00:22, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just as a matter of interest, what do you see as wrong with the current lead exactly? I ask because I'm increasingly seeing LEAD being used to insist that certain types of material be added or removed. This is a guideline I helped to write, so I'm interested when I see it being used in ways that weren't really expected. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 19:16, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, considering so much of the article is unreferenced, the lead is probably a very good summary, even though it does not convey his importance as the awards mentioned are won by many. —Mattisse (Talk) 00:26, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is the second FAR I've read tonight where a statement is made indicating that the referencing system needs to be changed or updated; I'm afraid incorrect information is taking hold at FAR. Both footnotes (using cite.php) and Harvard referencing are acceptable. Please see WP:WIAFA:
  • (c) consistent citations: where required by criterion 1c, consistently formatted inline citations using either footnotes (<ref>Smith 2007, p. 1.</ref>) or Harvard referencing (Smith 2007, p. 1)—see citing sources for suggestions on formatting references; for articles with footnotes, the meta:cite format is recommended.
    • SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:01, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Looks like some referencing issues still need to be addressed. If editors are working on that, then that's fine for now, just keep an update here at this page when done. Cirt (talk) 06:11, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Could whoever's working on the article also add alt text to its 3 images? Please click on the "alt text" button at the upper right of this review page. Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 12:42, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Anybody still working on this. Nothing since Aug 30, and a lot of the citations have a book with no page YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 01:21, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delist. With only two inconsequential edits since Aug. 30 and some issues remaining to be resolved, it doesn't pass the FA criteria. There are citation needed tags, and as YellowMonkey said, page numbers are needed in several of the book citations. Drop me a note if you fix these, and I'll strike my opinion. JKBrooks85 (talk) 07:37, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - It's emblematic that by far the largest category of Featured Articles is the one on Warfare. That makes it look like a warmonger Wikipedia. We have a number of fine articles on science, which is the only area where Wikipedia gives his best, although even there the culture of providing the best and broadest body of references is still not consolidated. There is the ridiculous case of the Ronald Reagan article, which got promoted to Featured status, despite been just dummies propaganda. When we come to literature, and the humanities in general, despite the 8 years since Wikipedia has been in place, we are still down to the level of a small-town high school teacher. The subject of this article is considered by experts in the field to be one of the best writers ever, along with Joyce and Nabokov. Articles on these top subjects should be at an Academic level, it's a pity for Wikipedia that this one is not there yet. Sum (talk) 10:34, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I continue to wonder at the inconsistency of the citations. Why are there no page numbers for many book references? Why are only two of the four references to Gussow 1998 clickable? Is it because the "back" buttone will not work for the last two? Also, as mentioned above, this article on an important author is woefully in adequate. For example, the "Influence" section mostly an prose list and is not well cited. It is not specific and makes statements like "Examples of such works might include ..." and "Other contemporary American authors whose fiction is often categorized alongside Pynchon's include ...". It is way shorter than the "Media scrutiny" section, which should be considered less important than the influence of a major writer. —Mattisse (Talk) 00:27, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was removed by YellowAssessmentMonkey 00:40, 11 September 2009 [25].

    Final Fantasy IV edit

    Review commentary edit

    Notified: Crazyswordsman, Deckiller, Judgesurreal777, WikiProject Square Enix, WikiProject Video games

    I am nominating this featured article for review because it has several issues that need to be taken care of. This article was nominated for FA back in 2006 when standards were substantially lower. Here are my concerns:

    • The lead contains refs which is unnecessary as per WP:LEADCITE if the information is cited in the body, which it is. Common terms and unnecessary links must also be removed, e.g. 1991 in video gaming and North America. Also, I don't know if it's necessary to include refs in the infobox; most video game articles don't.
    • I removed the citations from the lead and I took out the 1991 in video gaming and the North America wikilinks. I'm not familiar enough with the infobox policy, so I'll leave it be for now and let another editor take care of it. -- Nomader (Talk) 16:08, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The gameplay section has a few uncited statements, and the last paragraph is only two sentences; it should be merged into another paragraph.
    • The story section is tagged with {{plot}}, and is in serious need of a good trimming. Eight full paragraphs of plot information is unacceptable.
    • The development section is very sparse, with most of the information pertaining to music. An FA cannot simply have three sentences of development information.
    • The Versions and re-releases section is very long and hard to read as a lot of the content is undue weight. The section needs to be trimmed down a la FF1#Versions and re-releases for better readability. The section also has a {{fact}} tag in it.
    • The reception section needs to be expanded. As it's an old game it may be hard to find ample reviews, but it should be possible. Using LexisNexis may be a good idea for finding reviews in news papers and magazines. Something along the lines of Final Fantasy V#Reception and legacy would be good.
    • The Merchandise section is only one sentence. Either expand the section or merge it into reception as Legacy.
    • If the reception section gets changed to Reception and legacy, consider merging the Sequel section as well as it's only a paragraph of information.
    • There are some unreliable sources used as refs. Examples: Siliconera.com, Chudah's Corner, FFCompendium, and Final Fantasy Neoseeker. These refs need to bee replaced by reliable sources. Also, the last two refs aren't formatted properly as they lack publisher and accessdate information.

    As it stands now, I think the article fails the FA requirements and needs substantial work to amend the issues I've listed. The Prince (talk) 12:47, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Siliconera is owned by Crave Online, so it should be fine as a source. The others though are another story.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 13:05, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I've stricken Siliconera. The Prince (talk) 13:07, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding the unreliable sources, I changed the publisher in Chudah's Corner to Square, which originally published the liner notes in the soundtrack (which is the real object being cited), and left the url to Chudah's Corner as a convenience translation (which is acceptable in WP:VG, since as in this case, a lot of good information is in Japanese, and readers enjoy being able to read a translation at leisure). The things FFCompendium and Neoseeker are citing seem like they could stand without references, so someone can remove those. ZeaLitY [ DREAM - REFLECT ] 17:58, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Formatted those last 2 refs. --PresN 19:28, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Agree with the above comments by Prince. Examples:
    • The "Plot" section, with its three subsections (Setting, Characters, Story) is way too long and mind-numbingly complex for the general reader who may not be familiar with it. Needs to be more succinct.
    • The "Development" section, normally one of the most crucial in game article, is extremely sparse and does not set the stage. The reader learns nothing about the people behind the games development, or the process, relationship to other games, etc. (other than the info regarding the audio).
    • The "Versions and re-releases" section is very long and detailed; it overwhelms the rest of the article.
    • "Merchandise" should be removed or added to, as it has and {{expand}} tag.
    • Just curious what this means: one of the sources says, " All in all, Final Fantasy IV is a solid and ground-breaking RPG, which also brought about the end of an era in gaming."[26] What end of an era did it bring about? Perhaps more is needed as to the game's place in game history. —mattisse (Talk) 16:54, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    FARC commentary edit

    Suggested FA criteria concern are citations, focus, structure, balance. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 07:07, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delist. Concerns have not been addressed. The Prince (talk) 20:34, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delist per the concerns raised above, particularly those about low-quality citations. JKBrooks85 (talk) 07:09, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was removed by YellowAssessmentMonkey 00:40, 11 September 2009 [27].

    Norman Borlaug edit

    Review commentary edit

    Notified: Brian0918 PDH, WikiProject Brazil, Noticeboard for India-related topics, WikiProject Biography, WikiProject Plants, WikiProject Texas

    A 2005 promotion, there are the usual 1c (not enough inline citations) issues. Parts of the article don't flow well (especially the "Honors and recognition" section, which has a lot of proseline). I suspect that a few of the external links listed could be used as a source. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:23, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    File:Borlaug Mexico locations.png: missing source. File:BorlaugHarrar1943.jpg, File:BorlaugUSEmbassy.jpg, File:Borlaug July172007.jpg: sources are dead links DrKiernan (talk) 10:12, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Although there's only one book-length biography on Borlaug (a self-published one that I wouldn't consider scholarly) I'll try to pull some sources together and fix this article up. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 03:03, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Here are a couple of recent sources I suggest looking at:
    No doubt there are others. Eubulides (talk) 04:21, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for that. I'll start working on this article after I finish up with George F. Kennan. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 14:25, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    FARC commentary edit

    Suggested FA criteria concern are citations, prose, alt text. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. FAQ? YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 00:39, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I'm not inclined to !vote delist when it's evident that someone will work on this. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:01, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I still hope to work on this. I just finished my department presentation at work, so I should wrap George F. Kennan up this weekend and begin working on this article next week. I'll post my next update then. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 19:20, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I've taken this into account YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 05:40, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delist - at this time, the article has far too many unsourced sections and statements, especially for a BLP article. While I note above that others are working to address this, as of this moment, it does not meet FAC. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:51, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delist, per FA criteria concerns. Cirt (talk) 06:08, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delist. It's a pity, because this article deserves to be and could be so much better, but citation work needs to be done on a large scale. JKBrooks85 (talk) 02:53, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I'm willing to give Nish a week or two more before changing my stance. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:14, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Unfortunately, since it doesn't look like any work has started here, I'm going to have to !vote delist. Dabomb87 (talk) 12:57, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    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 Marskell 23:19, 4 September 2009 [28].

    History of New Jersey edit

    Review commentary edit

    Notified: all listed WikiProjects. Author has no edits for a year.

    As with many old FAs, this has a lot of unsourced content and fails (1c). Aside from the wide swathes of paragraphs that are unaccounted for, there is also a problem with the quality of many sources. "OurStory" is not in my opinion reliable, and there are other amateur or hobby sites used when the events described seem notable enough to find references in more scholarly texts.

    More importantly however, this article is not written with the big picture in mind to show the historical evolution of NJ but is more a collection of important/big news events, some with little or no impact on the historical development of the state and thus fails the comprehnsiveness/balance criteria

    • Great Depression era is one example.
      • 25% about the depression, and the other three quarters are about the War of the Worlds hoax, which only had an impact for a few days and didn't last because the misconception was rolled back.
      • Another 25% about Lindbergh's son being kidnapped. No wide impact on the state. There are hundreds maybe thousands of murders, including no doubt some serial killers and massacres.
      • Hindenburg blowing up. Again, tragic, but no lasting impact on the state. There have been many other crashes as well they can't all be included List_of_accidents_and_incidents_involving_airliners_in_the_United_States#New_Jersey
      • In contrast, there is only about half of this one state politics combined, and most of this is an unsourced BLP violating part about a possibly homosexual governor being corrupt, but again, none are about government policies affecting the state, except that there was a crisis due to there being no deputy' position.
    • Ditto for last 35 years. Only 9/11, Ellis Park transfer and the governor resigning are mentioned, without any way of the bigger picture of things like maybe? industrial decline, changing demographics, those sorts of things.
    • Ditto for things like a US/USSR presidential summit being held in NJ and nukes being stored there. The location is not relevant and the results affect every place in both countries equally, nor would they have had a large impact on the economy of the state.

    YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 01:18, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Could this article use tightening? Of course.
    • However, it would be nice if the criticism of content were not mere guesswork.
      • The Lindbergh case had state (and national) coverage for a long time; that's why the Governor gave his personal attention to it. NJ's handling of the case was one of the concerns about the structure of government which led to the Constitution of 1947.
      • We are discussing New Jersey, not Michigan; industrial decline was localized, and largely in the 1960s - not in the last thirty five years. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:18, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I don't know if this is recentism or not, but the indictments of several dozen New Jersey politicians and other figures by the FBI in the past month seems worthy of inclusion in this article. I'm unsure of the treatment required, however. JKBrooks85 (talk) 08:39, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    FARC commentary edit

    Suggested FA criteria concern are citations, comprehensiveness, alt text. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. FAQ? YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 00:38, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delist YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 00:38, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delist per above concerns. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:13, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep unless some concern less conjectural and vacuous is presented. I really should compile a list of inane FARs and FACs. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:16, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delist. The concerns expressed are real. I find the "big picture" comment and the lack of sourcing to be most troubling. No attempt has been made to improve the article during the review period (other than adding some "dead links" templates, a troubling sign). Eubulides (talk) 04:17, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delist. Per the concerns of commentators above. The section "Twentieth century" is a good example of the article's fundamental problems. It seems to be apparently random selections from the not very good "main" article New Jersey in the 20th century. —mattisse (Talk) 14:55, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delist, per FA criteria concerns. Cirt (talk) 06:07, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    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 Marskell 23:19, 4 September 2009 [29].

    Louisville, Kentucky edit

    Review commentary edit

    Notified: User talk:Quadell and all listed Wikiprojects ...

    Article fails more than one criteria:

    • 1c) Many parts of the article have no source, including claims of certain institutions being particuarly good etc
    • Undue weight/POV: In some places the article descends into listing the names of certain institutions including minutae about high schools winning certain high school football championships, or of the specific number of seats in a certain building, giving it an equal weight as some parts of the history section. YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 01:04, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't understand the clause "giving it an equal weight as some parts of the history section". Can this be explained a different way? Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 03:53, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment. Images need alt text as per WP:ALT. Eubulides (talk) 04:23, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Definitely a good idea, but is this required to remain featured? Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 16:39, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, the requirement is listed in WP:FACR #3. Eubulides (talk) 01:56, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Oh dear. I wonder who's going to have the time to do that. Even though I've put a lot of time into this article over the past few years, I honestly don't have but little time to contribute at this point. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 03:07, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Images Generally, image sizes need not be specified in pixels (see WP:IMGSIZE and MOS:IMAGES). Note Wikipedia:Accessibility#Images: images should be placed on the right if coming immediately after a third-order (===) heading.

    Given that there are such a large number of images on the page, I think any image with even a slight problem can be pruned out without loss to the page. DrKiernan (talk) 14:34, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments. If others would identify the spots that most need references, I will carve out time to search for them and apply them. I have some books in my library that may supply some of them. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 16:37, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Many paragraphs have no cites at all. Where is this info accounted from. For the undue weight, there is more on high school football teams than there is on a tornado that apparently flattened most of the town YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 01:27, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Every paragraph is not required to have a cite, as some paragraphs are supported in the linked articles therein. But your point is well-taken. Thank you for your input. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 03:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Other Wikipedia articles are not reliable sources, let alone "high-quality" per WP:WIAFA YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 03:28, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    To clarify what I was trying to say, if the linked articles in a paragraph already have appropriate supporting references, it's redundant to do it all over again in the linking article. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 16:02, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That said, as soon as somebody identifies specific spots that require cites, I will carve out a bit of time to look through some books. Sorry I can't do more. Time very short! Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 03:10, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comments:
    • Decent amount of prose, but as stated above, I question some of the focus of that prose. Forex, there's almost nothing about the riverboat traffic that was the city's main raison d'etre for much of the first half of the 19th century. Conversely, there's a lot about athletics teams. There's also almost no mention of the Lousiville Slugger bat factory in the economy section, while a company that formerly had a headquarters in town gets an entire paragraph.
    • There are minor grammar issues and MOS violations all over the place. I fixed a handful (was hand full in the article :)) of them, but someone needs to go through and give this a thorough MOS check and copy edit.
    • Examples: Metro/metro; city of Louisville/City of Louisville; twelve/12; tense shifts (would meet/met); use of the serial comma; word duplication (also features ... and features)
    • Check numerals for metric conversions where necessary.
    • There's a lot of weasel-wordy sections, particuarly in the recreation sections. In a lot of places, it sounds like something out of a chamber of commerce brochure.
    • But the biggest issue is the complete lack of citations in many sections. I've added fact tags, but I honestly don't think it's going to be possible for someone to fix them all in the time of this FAR. Adding to the problem is that some of the citations are to encyclopedias and other tertiary sources. These should be replaced by secondary sources if possible. I might be pleasantly surprised, though. JKBrooks85 (talk) 06:27, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for adding the fact tags. As you stated, I do believe that it will be next to impossible to fix the article in the expected timeframe. I don't think there are enough active editors around to do it. I used to be active, but I'm too busy to do more than look up a few references here and there. Perhaps the article should be downgraded to Good and be done with it. And then later, it can be resubmitted for Featured status, after the significant period it will take to fix the article. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 16:00, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Note When articles are promoted to FA status, they lose their GA status. As such, when an article loses FA status, it is not automatically downgraded to GA; it has to go through another good article nomination first. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:35, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately, I would fathom that if the article loses its FA status, it is not of a high enough quality to pass even a GA nomination. :( Otumba (talk) 00:24, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    FARC commentary edit

    Suggested FA criteria concern are citations, comprehensiveness, undue weight, alt text. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. FAQ? YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 02:36, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delist per my concerns above. JKBrooks85 (talk) 03:47, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delist per FA criteria concerns listed by various editors. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:58, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delist Too many {{citation needed}} tags to count. Agree that article is nowhere near even GA quality. —mattisse (Talk) 15:03, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delist - Way too much to do. Aaroncrick (talk) 15:21, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delist, per FA criteria concerns. Cirt (talk) 06:03, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delist. Most of the FA concerns remain. A few citations have been added during this process, but without changing the article text at all; this is a worrisome sign, as the text should reflect what reliable sources say rather than the other way round. Eubulides (talk) 12:28, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was removed by YellowAssessmentMonkey 00:47, 1 September 2009 [30].

    Médecins Sans Frontières edit

    Review commentary edit

    Notified: WP Africa, WP France, WP Medicine, WP Spain, WP Organizations. Quadell, Xenophrenic

    I am nominating this featured article for review because it appears to have degenerated and/or not kept up with our evolving standards. The lead looks odd and includes a rudimentary table of founders not included in the article proper. Citations are inconsistently formatted and occasionally appear incomplete, and some paragraphs lack any citations. Overall, a rather large percentage of citations appear to be to primary sources (i.e., MSF publications). Thus, I question whether the article, as it stands now, is really within reasonable distance of 1c and 2a, while having concerns that 2b, 2c and possibly 1a are lacking. Apologies if this nomination is lacking, this is my first FAR. Jclemens (talk) 05:27, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I removed the bullets, but probably the names of the founders do not need to be in the lead. —Mattisse (Talk) 18:02, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    FARC commentary edit

    Suggested FA criteria concern are citations, comprehensiveness, reliable sources (bias?), citations, alt text. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. FAQ? YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 01:53, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delist, per FA criteria concerns, above comments, particularly WP:PRIMARY. Cirt (talk) 06:14, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delist. Someone needs to go through the article, find and cite 3rd party sources, and rewrite the text to match the sources. It will take quite some work. Eubulides (talk) 12:47, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was removed by YellowAssessmentMonkey 00:47, 1 September 2009 [31].

    Franklin B. Gowen edit

    Review commentary edit

    Notified: User talk:Slambo, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Philadelphia, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pennsylvania.

    FA from 2005, 1c issues throughout article. WP:LEAD has a bit of an unorthodox style format with bullet points, and is larger than the requisite amount of paragraphs. Image File:Franklin B. Gowen.jpg lacks sufficient source information on the image page, same goes for File:James McParland.jpg, and the page for File:Uriah-stephens-circa-1900.gif could use some improvement as well. Cirt (talk) 18:46, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment This article has had one edit since it was nominated on August 2.
    • Need for alt text has not been addressed.
    • None of the {{citation needed}} tags for the uncited quotes and unsourced material have been addressed nor has the bullet list and other problems in the lead.
    • I do not understand the reference system. For example, there are citations like Schlegel, 222–22, Daggett, pp. 100–101, Wallace, p. 435, Wallace, p. 435 etc. but there is no bibliography listing books by these authors. Therefore, I'm not sure what these are in reference to.
    • Most of the article is made up of very short paragraphs, making for choppy reading, and lacks flow.
    • Some of the prose needs work. Random examples:
    • In collaboration with his close friend, George deBenneville Keim—who had bought Gowen's Pottsville home in 1864, and was subsequently appointed first president of the Coal & Iron Co.—Gowen's perhaps most crucial business bet was made upon these lands: development of the Pottsville Twin Shaft Colliery.
    • From that time, through fresh sanguine predictions for improvements in the business climate and the Reading's overall performance, which allowed him to borrow more funds on a less grand scale and to get the McCalmonts to defer interest payments due; and maneuverings such as periodically paying workers in scrip—essentially promissory notes—instead of cash, Franklin Gowen continued to run the Reading.
    • As noted above, in the 1871 legislative investigation of coal field agitations and the Reading Railroad, Gowen portrayed the WBA as having at its core a murderous, secret association. In his 1875 testimony before another investigative committee, he characterized this same core of the union as "Communists." (The citation is: Schlegel, p. 84. See Wikipedia articles on the Paris Commune and International Workingmen's Association to better understand the contemporary connotations of this charge.)
    • For instance, the shot to the head from which Gowen died was from an angle very unlikely to have been self-inflicted, ...

    —mattisse (Talk) 22:08, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    FARC commentary edit

    Suggested FA criteria concern are citations, lead, alt text. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. FAQ?
    • Delist Per citation and prose concerns mainly, although the image copyrights, alt text and lead would also have to be fixed to have this brought back up to FA status. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:03, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delist, per FA criteria concerns. Cirt (talk) 06:13, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delist. Citations need work, and I'd suggest introducing more images to break up the large amounts of text in the article. The bulleted structure of the lede is odd, but it might work. JKBrooks85 (talk) 05:03, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was removed by YellowAssessmentMonkey 00:47, 1 September 2009 [32].

    Sequence alignment edit

    Review commentary edit

    Notified: Opabinia regalis, WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology

    I am nominating this featured article for review because of 1c concerns. The article has been edited extensively since it passed FAC in July 2006 and there are whole sections that are unreferenced. It has been tagged for {{Refimprove|date=March 2009}} —Mattisse (Talk) 00:56, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • The lead is only two sentences on a complex subject, violating WP:LEAD.
    • The lack of citations suggest the much of the article may be original research. For example, this uncited section:

    Very short or very similar sequences can be aligned by hand. However, most interesting problems require the alignment of lengthy, highly variable or extremely numerous sequences that cannot be aligned solely by human effort. Instead, human knowledge is applied in constructing algorithms to produce high-quality sequence alignments, and occasionally in adjusting the final results to reflect patterns that are difficult to represent algorithmically (especially in the case of nucleotide sequences). Computational approaches to sequence alignment generally fall into two categories: global alignments and local alignments. Calculating a global alignment is a form of global optimization that "forces" the alignment to span the entire length of all query sequences. By contrast, local alignments identify regions of similarity within long sequences that are often widely divergent overall. Local alignments are often preferable, but can be more difficult to calculate because of the additional challenge of identifying the regions of similarity. A variety of computational algorithms have been applied to the sequence alignment problem, including slow but formally optimizing methods like dynamic programming, and efficient, but not as thorough heuristic algorithms or probabilistic methods designed for large-scale database search.

    —Mattisse (Talk) 18:58, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Hmm. I haven't decided yet whether I'm going to have the time to update this article, but I'm really glad to see that alt text has been implemented. Still, I'm at a loss as to how to write useful alt text for a sequence alignment... I mean, it already is text; the trick is in the formatting. Since you seem to be the alt-text expert, do you have any suggestions? Perhaps at least one alignment can be presented as text in table format rather than as an image? I think that would help text-based browser users, but I'm not sure about screen readers. Thoughts? Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:52, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You're right to be cautious about screen readers: they do tables, but sometimes it's easier to summarize the gist of a table in text rather than to list each row and column separately. However, for the two sequence-alignment images here I expect that tables would be better. Even for a sighted reader a table can be better, e.g., you can copy and paste from it. Eubulides (talk) 20:33, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • General comment I agree that this article is in need of an update, though I'm not sure yet that I'm going to have the time to do it. "Citing" it is a bit of a red herring; references to a bioinformatics textbook would technically be appropriate, although I'd rather also include the references to the original descriptions of the older methods (even if the 'standard' current implementation has been modified from the original). For one thing, the prose has degraded (not that mine was brilliant to begin with). And three years is a long time; there are new methods that belong here (relatedness-aware MSA methods should certainly be included) and dead links to prune (the software subarticle looks like the lawn of a home in foreclosure). Lastly, it's suffering from the bias of its author in that most of the examples derive from protein rather than nucleic acid sequences, and there's very little on methods used in genomics. (As a side note, I'm really surprised to find things like PSI-BLAST not even mentioned by name.) Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:07, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, it's not looking good for finding the time to fully update this; I'm in the middle of revisions for a real paper. Sounds like the best way to show an alignment is either a table or a preformatted text box, although I'd like to keep at least one image showing a large MSA (perhaps not the current one, which is a screenshot from software that was rather old 3 years ago). I'll try to at least update the images and insert the original refs for the methods next week, though that won't help with the dated text. Opabinia regalis (talk) 03:17, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    FARC commentary edit

    Suggested FA criteria concern are citations, alt text. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. FAQ? YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 01:55, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delist per the concerns of Opabinia regalis. The article needs an expert in the subject. JKBrooks85 (talk) 06:49, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delist per above and per nom. —Mattisse (Talk) 14:33, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delist If Opabinia agrees that the article needs significant work, then it probably does. There's not much that can be done here without an expert. Better to delist and have it resubmitted when it's up to standard again. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:01, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delist, per FA criteria concerns, and above comments. Cirt (talk) 06:12, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was removed by YellowAssessmentMonkey 00:47, 1 September 2009 [33].

    Yuan (surname) edit

    Review commentary edit

    Notified: WikiProject China

    This article is definitely close to FA, but it needs some cleaning up.

    • The entire article needs way more inline citations. Even if they're all coming from the same source. There's plenty of bombastic language that needs backing up.
    • The citation style is messy, and includes "Ibid." and so on.
    • Someone ought to review these sources, since they're all in Chinese and there's no way to tell what's a reliable source (is Zhonghua shu ju a "well-regarded academic press"?). This doesn't look like a reliable source but it could be, I would have no way of knowing.
    • The lead image claims to be "circa 2nd century" but the description page says it's self-made, which is it? The stele image doesn't have a source.
    • The "prominent personages" list includes people without articles, are they notable?
    • The prose is good and meets MOS but is it brilliant? Noisalt (talk) 01:38, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I fixed the problem of redlinks in the "Prominent Personages" list by creating an article on one of the people, who is definitely notable, and deleting the other two, on whom I could find little.--Danaman5 (talk) 05:03, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Clarified caption of lead image.--Danaman5 (talk) 16:33, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Images need alt text as per WP:ALT. Eubulides (talk) 03:00, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Alt text added. As before, your corrections are welcome.--Danaman5 (talk) 16:23, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. My own feeling is that when an image focuses on text, that text should appear in alt text even when the text is not English. File:Yuan character (1st century).png is a Chinese character, so its alt text should contain the text equivalent of that character; since that image is particularly about visual appearance of a character, it should briefly describe the gist of the character's appearance to an English-language reader (something like "a character with ten strokes: a stick figure of a man above a circle..."); the color is not that important here since it's arbitrary editorial choice. The alt text for File:Yuanshi Zongpu.jpg should contain the text for the Chinese characters in the image (no English translation, obviously; that's in the caption; also there's no need here to describe the characters in detail). Similarly the Chinese text of the stele should be added to the stele's alt text, since the text is quite legible. One image still lacks alt text; this comes from the protected {{Surname}} template and I just now asked to get this fixed. Eubulides (talk) 17:10, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I just now struck the items that have been fixed, but the other problems still remain. Eubulides (talk) 12:32, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Fair use rationale needed for File:Yuanshi Zongpu.jpg. DrKiernan (talk) 09:30, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    FARC commentary edit

    Suggested FA criteria concern are citations, prose, alt text. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. FAQ? YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 00:37, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delist per lack of citations. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:00, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delist per Dabomb87. Most of article is unsourced. Article has not been worked on since last month. —mattisse (Talk) 15:07, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delist. I've seen worse-cited articles, but no work is being done to fix the problems in this article. JKBrooks85 (talk) 23:38, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delist, per FA criteria concerns. Cirt (talk) 06:06, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delist. Several paragraphs and important sentences remain unsourced. Eubulides (talk) 12:34, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was removed by YellowAssessmentMonkey 00:47, 1 September 2009 [34].

    Baby Gender Mentor edit

    Review commentary edit

    Notified: Johntex, ... WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology, ...Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine

    I am nominating this featured article for review primarily because of 1c concerns. It was promoted to FAC in January 2007

    • There are many dead links, and links that go to irrelevant pages that do not contain the information cited.
    • Many of the references go to pages that are marketing or selling the product, pages of the developer of the product or blogs. They are not unbiased and neutral.
    • There have been long-standing tags on the article requesting citations.
    • Although the article is covered by the WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology, there are almost not references that fulfill the requirement of WP:MEDRS. Rather, the references seem to reinforce that this article is about this product for which it appears there is little scientific evidence that it is reliable or works as advertised.

    There are also 1d concerns; for example, there are some promotion quotes included in the article from those that are selling it, but none from the scientific community giving an unbiased view.

    Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 22:23, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment. Done; thanks. The two images need alt text as per WP:ALT. Eubulides (talk) 05:49, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Reply from original FA nominator - Hello, I am the author that worked this article through the original FA and I will try to address the remarks above.

    1. "There are many dead links, and links that go to irrelevant pages that do not contain the information cited." - Please cite specific examples and I will address them. All of the links went to relevant information at the time of FA listing. Please note that Wikipedia does NOT require the removal of a link just because it is not working at a given point in time. Websites sometimes go offline or get restructured; sometimes this is only temporary. The link may come back to life and it may not. Even if it is dead, it may still be a useful guide to a reader who is trying to find this informaiton.
    2. "Many of the references go to pages that are marketing or selling the product, pages of the developer of the product or blogs. They are not unbiased and neutral." - "Many" is a weasel word, according the WP:MOS. Yes, "many" of the links give the manufacturers viewpoint. That is entirely appropriate for presenting their side of the story. "Many" of the links go to other sources. There is no problem with having "many" links to the manufacturer of the product. The overall tone of the article is certainly not an advertisement, nor is it biased in favor of the manufacturer. Therefore, the links are not a problem.
    3. "There have been long-standing tags on the article requesting citations." - I checked a version from 2 weeks ago. As of that point in time, there were no major tags on the article. As of 2 weeks ago there were 2 references that someone wanted verification on because the cited sources are apparently not currently on-line. Again, there is no requirement that every source be available online. We cite plenty of out-of-print-books, magazine articles that have never appeared online, etc. I'd prefer to see each source accompanied by a live link, but that is not an absolute requirement.
    4. I'll examine this statement in two parts
      1. "Although the article is covered by the WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology, there are almost not references that fulfill the requirement of WP:MEDRS...." - this has nothing to do with whether the article if FA or not. Any wikiproject can come along and find a thin connection to an article and slap their talk-page tag on it. I've seen articles with 10 wikiproject tags on it!! That doesn't mean that article must meet the requirements of those projects to be FA. WikiProjects don't control FA.
      2. "Rather, the references seem to reinforce that this article is about this product for which it appears there is little scientific evidence that it is reliable or works as advertised." - yes, exactly. The available scientific evidence seems to say that this test does not work and may even be fraudulent. That is reflected 100% in this article, which is how it should be.
    5. "There are also 1d concerns; for example, there are some promotion quotes included in the article from those that are selling it, but none from the scientific community giving an unbiased view." - again, on the whole I think the article is very fair. Any educated reader who read this article would come away with the idea that the product is no good and possibly fraudulent. I don't see any bias in favor of the manufacturer at all.
    6. The two images need alt text as per WP:ALT. - I am not familiar with WP:ALT. I will read up on it and come back to reply and/or fix that issue.

    Best, Johntex\talk 00:03, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Update: I have now added Alt text for the two images. Johntex\talk 02:21, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • All the dead links are tagged on the article; the tags were removed by a revert. Please do not revert the tags if you want to know what the problems with the article references are. All the links that do not give the information purported are tagged on the article; again you reverted the tags. Please do not remove the tags without fixing. The tags are there to inform you of what needs fixing. I stand by my opinion that the article appears to promote the product and there are not balancing views from the scientific community. It has a banner on the talk page that it belongs to Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine (recently added) and Wikipedia:WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology, therefore it should follow WP:MEDRS for reference citations. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 00:25, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This is the version of the article that tags the dead links and those that do not provide the information cited.[35] Please use this version to address the link issues I have raised. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 00:31, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Great, thanks. I can refer to that version; no need to have all the tags in the live version. Johntex\talk 02:19, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, if you look at Talk:Baby Gender Mentor, you will see that my concerns have been voiced there repeatedly over the years by other editors. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 01:13, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think this is an accurate reflection of the discussion on that page. If you look at the time stamps, you will see that discussion occurred over a period of about 5 days. This was one incident; it is not like people have repeatedly voiced any concern "over the years".
    What happened was this: When the article was selected to be the Main Page FA, there were some people who were worried that having ANY product featured on the Main Page was akin to serving as an advertisement for that product.
    If you will please re-read the discussion, you will see that other people joined in the discussion on the other side: saying that Wikipedia has articles on many things, and that includes products. Any of those articles can make it to the main page. You will also see people saying that they don't see how this can be interpreted as any kind of advertisement. Johntex\talk 02:19, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    But this is a product that appears to be unreliable and possibly a scam. Also, most of the references go to either product pages, or to sites that sell the product. —Mattisse (Talk) 15:15, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note to FAR reviewers: Please consider this version [36] in evaluating the article, as the nominator has again reverted the tagging of dead links and inaccurate links, so that the problems are not evident in the "live" version. —Mattisse (Talk) 16:04, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    To Johntex: it was unhelpful of you to remove the dead link/verification needed tags from the (live) article. This is a wiki where many users collaborate to improve the content. If you leave the tags in place, other editors (including myself) would find it easier to find and correct the highlighted problems. Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:06, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • I've never thought this was a particularly brilliant article -- good, and maybe good enough, but with odd flaws. For example, ref [32] is to Pamela Prindle Fierro. "Vanishing Twin Syndrome". About.com. [37] Why the heck are we citing About.com for the percentage of pregnancies that involve vanishing twins? Can't we cite proper papers or medical textbooks? Or is this statistic so generally rejected that we have to stoop to what is essentially a self-published source? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:33, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note It is very unfortunate that the editor is working on the version of the page that reverted the links marked {{deadlink}} and links marked {{Failed verification}} and {{rs}}. These included many named references that were repeatedly cited. The editor should agree to check the this version before declaring that these link problems have been rectified. Altogether, approximately 40 citations fell into these categories. Many links are to unreliable or irrelevant sources. I don't understand all the links to the "vanishing twin" issue. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 19:21, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sample of dead or dysfunctional or misleading links:
    • Many sources are unreliable or have very limited reliability, and some are used repeatedly. Examples:
    • Some sources are irrelevant:

    —Mattisse (Talk) 00:49, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    FARC commentary edit

    Suggested FA criteria concern are citations, alt text. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. FAQ? YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 02:37, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delist per above concerns (many, many "[dead link]" and "[not in citation given]" links; editor reverted the tags[38] without fixing problems); too many links to commercial sites; concerns about source quality). I don't understand the many reference citations to the "vanishing twin" issue, at least three to PMID articles. What is the relevance to the apparently fraudulant Baby Gender Mentor? Seems at best like WP:UNDUEWEIGHT. —Mattisse (Talk) 16:42, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Not sure it looks too bad at first glance - is work still being done actively on this? Cirt (talk) 06:05, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I have gone through the article once again and marked the many, many {{deadlink}} and {{failed verification}} tags. Before when I did this, the tags were reverted without the article being fixed. I don't think anyone but me has really checked the article out and looked at the citations. I am at a loss how this article ever passed FAC to begin with. It has a lot of seemingly relevant (but actually irrelevant to the topic) information to give it a clothing of respectability, like so many links on the "vanishing twin" stuff. Basically, this is an article about a fraudulent product. Please check that the numerous faulty links (which I have checked individually) are actually fixed and not just reverted without fixing.[39] Also, there are links to blogs and old {{verification needed}} tags in the article. Many links are to the company sites and to press releases. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:20, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delist per Matisse's comments. A lot of tags need to be repaired, but I think it can be done. JKBrooks85 (talk) 02:50, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was removed by YellowAssessmentMonkey 00:47, 1 September 2009 [40].

    Douglas Adams edit

    Review commentary edit

    Notified: JohnDBuell, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject BBC, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Atheism, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Monty Python, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Doctor Who, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comedy, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject London

    1c) Undercited - in my opinion, there are facts that need citations. I am listing only a few examples. There are many throughout the article:

    • "A version of the revue performed live in London's West End led to Adams being discovered by Monty Python's Graham Chapman."
    • "He had been wandering the countryside while carrying a book called the Hitch-hiker's Guide to Europe when he ran into a town where, as he humorously describes, everyone was either "deaf" and "dumb" or only spoke languages he could not understand. After wandering around and drinking for a while, he went to sleep in the middle of a field and was inspired by his inability to communicate with the townspeople. He later said that due to his constantly retelling this story of inspiration, he no longer had any memory of the moment of inspiration itself, and only remembered his retellings of that moment."
    • "A postscript to M. J. Simpson's biography of Adams, Hitchhiker: A Biography of Douglas Adams, provides evidence that the story was in fact a fabrication and that Adams had conceived the idea some time after his trip around Europe."
    • "This was an entirely original work, Adams' first since So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish. Reviewers, however, were not as generous with praise for the second volume as they had been for the first. After the obligatory book tours, Adams was off on his round-the-world excursion which supplied him with the material for Last Chance to See."

    1c) There are uncited quotations. Here is one example:

    • "After graduation he spent several years contributing material to radio and television shows as well as writing, performing, and sometimes directing stage revues in London, Cambridge and at the Edinburgh Fringe. He has also worked at various times as a hospital porter, barn builder, chicken shed cleaner, bodyguard, radio producer and script editor of Doctor Who."

    3) File:DNA in Monty Python.jpg - I am unconvinced by the need for this non-free image. I agree it is cool, but I'm not sure it meets WP:NFCC #8.

    1a, 1b, and 2b) Comprehensiveness and structure:

    • The sections on Adams' writings do not explain what they are about, their themes, or his writing style. I would cut some of the details about production of Hitchiker's, for example, and describe the series/books themselves.
    • The "Doctor Who" section is poorly organized. Much of it seems to be an assortment of trivia rather than an explanation of precisely what Adams' involvement was with Doctor Who. There are several very short paragraphs that reveal this.
    • The "Music" section seems to be given a lot of space in the article when it is actually just a collection of rather random facts. Much of the information seems relevant to the articles on Hitchiker rather than this article (it explains allusions, for example). I would suggest removing much of this material.
    • I'm wondering if the "Computer games and projects" section should be integrated into the biography proper. Right now it is a prose list. If it were integrated into the biography, it would help the reader understand when particular events happened in Adams' life.
    • I would suggest integrating the "Personal life" section into the biography proper. Too much of Adams' life is fragmented in the article right now to properly understand it.
    • I do not think that the "Biographies" section is necessary, as these are sources that the article should use.
    • I'm wondering if the "Tributes and honorifics" section should be deleted. It seems as if this is WP:TRIVIA.

    1c) Sourcing: I checked the MLA database and there are scholarly articles by literary critics on Adams and his works that should be a part of any biography on him. None of those are used as sources in this article, therefore it is not "well-researched" and does not represent a "thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature on the topic".

    I hope these suggestions are helpful. Awadewit (talk) 16:18, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment. Images need alt text as per WP:ALT. Eubulides (talk) 17:04, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment. The signature in the image is legible, so it doesn't illustrate illegibility. The image does not illustrate the point being made. DrKiernan (talk) 09:47, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment. Links 27 and 40 are dead.--andreasegde (talk) 14:47, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment. Agree with Awadewit's observations. This article has ballooned up from 62 kB when it was passed as FA to 213 kB now. I believe it needs to be reorganized, cleaned of cruft, the prose polished, and facts and quotes need to be properly cited. There are unreliable sources like a yahoo user group. —Mattisse (Talk) 22:31, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    FARC commentary edit

    Suggested FA criteria concern are citations, reliable sources, comprehensiveness, quality of research, structure alt text. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. FAQ? YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 02:31, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delist per 1a, 1b, 1c, 2, and 3. Awadewit (talk) 03:04, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delist per concerns raised by Awadewit and others. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:54, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delist, per FA criteria concerns. Cirt (talk) 11:15, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delist. Matisse appeared to be doing some work on it, but he hasn't edited it in a week. Many of the concerns raised in the first part of the review remain. JKBrooks85 (talk) 12:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delsit. Per Awadewit. Her concerns are not being addressed. The section "Tributes and honorifics" is a trivia section containing cruft having nothing to do with tributes and honorifics. —Mattisse (Talk) 15:19, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was removed by YellowAssessmentMonkey 00:47, 1 September 2009 [41].

    Stanisław Koniecpolski edit

    Review commentary edit

    Notified WikiProject Poland, WikiProject Military History, WikiProject Biography and Piotrus.

    This article currently fails FA criterion 1c, since there entire paragraphs/sections without citations. In addition, the article almost entirely relies on one source. I'm not sure if other sources are available, but I would appreciate it if some more attention could be paid towards identifying potential sources that might detail notable information not found in Podhorodecki (1978). Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 14:54, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't have the books here, but on the bright side, anybody with access to Podhorecki biography of him should be able to reference this article easily. This book, which I used when writing the article,is as far as I know is the major work dedicated to him, and hence, practically the obligatory source for the article (any other works are either less comprehensive or very specialized one one aspect/era of his life). On the down side, without access to this book one will not be able to finish referencing this article. Few months ago I started adding inline citations, but didn't finish (as can be cleary seen from refs :D). I'll have access to my copy in Poland again in December. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:38, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I've started adding refs from what I can get from online sources but unfortunately I don't have access to Podhorodecki. I think the more general stuff can be reffed with online sources but some of the details will need the more specific book. I think most of the reffing can be done in the next few weeks - how much time do we have here?radek (talk) 20:41, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    FARC commentary edit

    Suggested FA criteria concern are citations, alt text. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. FAQ? YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 02:39, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Could we get an update here? I've seen some progress since the FAR started, but the page has been devoid of activity for the past two weeks. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 03:19, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delist. The prose in this article is abysmal, it's riddled with weasel words and imprecise language, and missing citations abound. JKBrooks85 (talk) 07:30, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Hold on. It's summer - activity is bound to be sporadic. A good bit of citing has already been done but then I had to take ten days off for real life reasons. I can now resume work on this.radek (talk) 10:45, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good to hear! I'll keep an eye on it and remove the delist in a few days as progress continues. JKBrooks85 (talk) 23:44, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks!radek (talk) 23:53, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Also it would be helpful if someone could fact tag [citation needed] all the text that needs to be referenced. In several cases multiple sentences can be sourced to the same ref but I'm not sure if I need to inline after every comma (if one's familiar with the person one might miss a need for a ref). This would make the work easier and direct my efforts to where they need to go.radek (talk) 23:57, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Added. Citations also are needed for that footnote about the year of his birth, since none were included in the body of the article there. JKBrooks85 (talk) 10:56, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • To try to help out a bit, I added a toolbox to the upper right corner of this review page. For example, you can visit its "alt text" tool to find out the alt text problems I mentioned above. Eubulides (talk) 00:07, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delist The article is riddled with citation tags and the alt text has not been added. There are also prose concerns (random examples):
    • Stanisław Koniecpolski lived a life that involved almost constant warfare, and during his military career he won many victories.
    • With inferior forces fought the Swedish forces of Gustavus Adolphus to a stalemate in Prussia.
    • In 1615 and 1616, Koniecpolski gained experience in Ukraine fighting against Tatar hordes, but he failed to break or capture any sizable enemy units.
    • Soon afterward, Koniecpolski was defeated by the Tatars near Oryn, where he made a mistake of charging in front of his army against overwhelming odds and consequently barely made it out of the battle alive.
    • They returned to Poland in spring 1623 during the aftermath of the Ottoman defeat at Khotyn and the stabilization of Polish-Ottoman relations that was helped by the diplomatic mission of Krzysztof Zbaraski which bought the freedom of captives for 30,000 talars.
    • He also repelled a counterattack by Swedish raitars, who were pushed in the direction of Pułkowice, where another counterattack was led by Gustavus Adolphus with 2,000 raitars. This counterattack was also stopped, and the Swedish forces were saved by the last reserve units led by field marshal Herman Wrangel, who managed to stop the Polish attack.

    —mattisse (Talk) 19:34, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • What's the stauts on this? Major improvements have not been made for 10 days. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:10, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • No one has edited the article since you posted above on 21 August. Dabomb87. —mattisse (Talk) 23:30, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    1. ^ Kaptchuk, T. J. (1998). Intentional ignorance: A history of blind assessment and placebo controls in medicine. Bulletin of the History of Medicine, 72, 389-433.
    2. ^ Hacking, I. (1988). Telepathy: Origins of randomization in experimental design. Isis, 79, 427-451.
    3. ^ Hacking, I. (1988). Telepathy: Origins of randomization in experimental design. Isis, 79, 427-451.
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/archive/September_2009&oldid=317192809"