AIG Financial Products and Wikipedia:Featured article review/archive: Difference between pages

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 15:51, 13 October 2008

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

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

Kept status

Schizophrenia

previous FAR (15:51, 13 October 2008)

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 User:Marskell 12:11, 13 October 2008 [1].

Chelsea F.C.

Notified WikiProject Football. Marskell (talk) 10:16, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I think that this article shouldn't be neither a featured one nor a good one because: the history section suffers of recentism, the lead section is too short, the crest section has a non-free image gallery, and so on. Hadrianos1990 (talk) 07:55, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the archive, this passed FAC way too easily. But I'm not really surprised since it really is happening way too often, based on popularity etc. Anyway, I'm amongst the biggest supporters of Chelsea, but this article is indeed poory structured. The lead is way too short, and some other raised issues stand predominantly. I will do my brief best to fix up any issues, but I really can't promise anything. Domiy (talk) 09:03, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Not liking the FAC is not a reason for removal, and assumes bad faith on the part of the reviewers. Oldelpaso (talk) 10:34, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Please notify significant contributors and the FAC nominator of this FAR. User:SteveO does a lot of work on this article, for example. Oldelpaso (talk) 10:34, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Please follow the instructions at WP:FAR, using {{subst:FARMessage|Chelsea F.C.}}, to do the notifications and post them back to this FAR, as in the sample at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Felix the Cat. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:30, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Glancing quickly at this article, I see some minor issues, not bad for an article promoted almost two years ago, but I wonder if we aren't seeing some pointy-ness going on in the Football nominations. Was there any attempt to resolve these concerns on the article talk page? Folks, there are some really old and out-of-compliance FAs out there, and clogging up FAR with articles that could be addressed via talk doesn't bode well. If this becomes a trend, we may need to alter FAR instructions to require prior attempts to work things out on talk before bringing articles that could easily be fixed to FAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:27, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Sandy about this being in pretty good shape, but not that happy with the non-free gallery. Not sure five old logos are needed, not to mention a second use of the current one. The recentism issue is difficult because Chelsea have acheived most of their success since 1997. Naturally, the history section will be slanted toward this period. A little more on the club from before 1950 wouldn't hurt, though. As for the lead, some more on their history could be included. I said that for Real Madrid and it's only fair for me to repeat that here. But overall there have been many worse articles through here and I think with a little work this can be kept. Giants2008 (17-14) 00:50, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Per the comments above, I've expanded the lead and tried to reduce the recentism in the history section. As for the images, my suggestion is to remove the two variants of the current crest and the 52-53 initials one, which would leave just the main three. It's possible that the 1905 and 1955 crests are out of copyright anyway. SteveO (talk) 00:49, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

The notifications still have not been done. Per the instrutions at the top of WP:FAR, pls notify with {{subst:FARMessage|Chelsea F.C.}} and post them back to here as in the sample at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Felix the Cat. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:05, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment - History section and lead look absolutely fine to me, gallery of crests has gone, and what exactly does "and so on" cover? Looks a lot like a pointy nomination to me..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:18, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I felt this FAR was premature, but the non-free image gallery has been remove, [2], so I am happy. I would give this change a few days to settle as the consensus version before considering closing the review. Fasach Nua (talk) 11:09, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I have to say I'm not really that keen on the article's "History" section as it stands. There's currently about one paragraph for each of the last six decades (slightly less, actually, as the 70s and 80s seem to be sharing a paragraph), and the paragraphs get progressively longer as they approach more recent events. Even worse, there is a single paragraph that covers the entire period from the club's foundation in 1905 to the start of the 1950s! 45 years covered by one paragraph and then five whole paragraphs for the next 58 years? Reeks of WP:RECENT to me. You could argue that most of Chelsea's history has come in the last five years (and in terms of trophies, it has), but I'm sure there were plenty of noteworthy events that took place between 1905 and 1950 that could be expanded upon. If this was currently an FAC candidate, I would be in opposition. – Pee Jay 15:41, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

This didn't get comment after the first few days. Normally, it would go to FARC now but I am with the group that views this as premature and probably unnecessary. I don't see a huge issue wrt to recentism and the crests are gone. Keeping. Marskell (talk) 09:16, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The article was kept by User:Marskell 11:06, 9 October 2008 [3].

Half-Life 2

Notified: Nufy8, WP Video games, Tom Edwards (top 2 of 3 contributors no longer active)

Fails current FA criteria in several ways. First and foremost, 1c; there are many unsourced, potentially contentious statements not sourced, and worse there are entire paragraphs not sourced. Another issue is the excessive use of nonfree images (crit 3), as well as unnecessary detail (such as weapons info, and a ridiculously long synopsis section.) --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 02:12, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I corrected your notifications. When notifying, please use the subst FAR message (in this case, {{subst:FARMessage|Half-Life 2}}) so that editors who come straight to this page without seeing the FAR instructions will understand the process. Also, I corrected your links at the top of this FAR; giving a complete link to the notification page makes it easier for others to check that notifications are done correctly. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:01, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I completely disagree that this is an undue amount of synopsis for a full-length video game. Many film featured articles have comparable length summaries, and are for two hours, not the 40 hours a full-length game usually takes up. Phil Sandifer (talk) 02:35, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Somewhat of a side issue, but Content cut from Half-Life 2 doesn't strike me as a valid article topic. We might consider merging that into this article. I also question the structuring. It seems to me that some of the "Technical" section should be combined with "Source code leak" into "Development". Possibly "Cuts" as well. Pagra shtak 04:20, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
I will agree with merging it back in, as the information could be considered plagiarism for the fact it only has one source. A severe trimming should be had on merging, also. It should make the article stronger overall, as I'm sure the citations in the book could be valuable for sourcing other sections, such as Development.
Also agree with merging Cuts into Development; perhaps Source code leak should be merged into the article on the Source engine, or at the least up into the section on it, as I'm willing to bet that that is largely duplicated in the target of such a merge. The contract dispute can probably be merged into the section on Distribution. Also agree with trimming #Synopsis; the setting should be inherent from the plot description alone, and so I think that section could probably be axed completely.
I also agree that order is poor: Reception should be moved to being near the bottom, at the least.

All those issues, aside from the citations and other issues. However, with the remerge of the "cut" information, I think that will alone substantially improve the text. --Izno (talk) 04:38, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Sourced summary is not plagiarism. Phil Sandifer (talk) 04:46, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

For one it is not sourced (a single reference is not "sourced"), and two, depends on who you talk to. Looking at the article with my eyes, I'd say you'd be able to get away with not reading the book, which is the purpose of copyright - to protect the user's work. And hence, it is plagiarism to me. Rules may vary depending on who you ask, of course. --Izno (talk) 05:08, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Plagiarism and copyright are different issues. But given that the book is, well, a book, and we are a short summary, I would guess there's plenty in the book beyond our summary. Certainly it is valid under any standard of copyright we have used regularly, been told to use by Mike, or that has been tested in court. As for plagiarism, plagiarism is a completely different concept with a firm definition, and this has nothing whatsoever to do with it. And a single reference is indeed sourced. More sources would be lovely, but that article is not unsourced. Phil Sandifer (talk) 06:14, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, here's my concerns with the article:

The gameplay section needs some substantial copyeditting, and some of those subheadings could be merged into the main bulk of prose. It also needs more references.
The synopsis section is too long, and needs to be brought down a bit. A restructure could be in order, with three headings: "setting" (approx 1 paragraph, summarising backstory and location), "characters" (approx 1 paragraph, introducing key characters and their roles) and "plot" (approx 3-4 paragraphs, concisely summarising the plot).
Cuts, technical, soundtrack, source code leak, and contract dispute could all be put under the title of development, and they need copyeditting and perhaps a bit of reorganisation. Some more references are also needed. Content cut from Half-Life 2 is simply unnecessary, it is not an appropriate, verifiable and notable topic, and should be summarised very concisely in this article rather than spun out, reliant on a single primary source and reading like a fansite.
The reception section needs to be expanded significantly. The critical response section is painfully underdeveloped for a game of this importance, and there's absolutely nothing on the game's impact on the gaming industry and its influence on the genre (beyond a brief mention in the intro), which significantly affects this article's comprehensiveness. The merchandise section could also use padding out.
The expansions and modifications section could use copyediting and more references as to keep down the possible self-promotion of mods in the mod section's prose. The "subsequent releases" stuff should go under this heading, which should be modified to reflect this.
A total of ten non-free images (including box art) is really pushing the idea of minimal usage. For obvious reasons, the box art can stay, although I'd like to see a little bit of commentary on the different box arts available (I believe they sold the game with Alyx and G-Man on the front as well), the infobox caption could be a good place to briefly mention that if it can be referenced. Six gameplay images aren't needed, I'd recommend two at most, one for demonstrating normal gameplay (preferably with some design commentary if possible), and another that shows off some Source effects. The image of Steam isn't 100% needed, although could be justified as Steam was a major factor in the game's release and ran into problems for it. The Orange Box image certainly isn't, and should be ditched. The Lost Coast image is also probably best left to the Lost Coast article.

Sabre (talk) 10:13, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the content cut article, I am fairly sure that "there's another article on the topic that is poorly written" is not a valid criteria for de-listing an article. Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:16, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

The other reasons are, but we're not talking about delisting yet. This is just in the review stage, we haven't got to removal candidates and with luck we won't need to. Besides, there is no harm in mentioning that a related article is an utter pile of [insert expletive] and should be done away with in some form, when the only significant link on Wikipedia is from the article under review. What happens to the content cut article isn't going to affect the review, it just seems as good a time as any to clean it out. -- Sabre (talk) 17:58, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Considering how intensive Half-Life 2's development was, a future Development of Half-Life 2 article is not unrealistic. The Content cut from Half-Life 2 would find a suitable home in such an article. About this FAR, should we each grab a chunk of the text (e.g. a section), copy-edit it, and then proof read each other's work. I'm eager to dive in and help save the article (considering its my second favorite game and my FAC seems stalled), but I don't want to get too carried away. Thoughts? -- Noj r (talk) 06:19, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I have given a first stab at cutting down the plot (down to 3 paragraphs, I think that is a pretty fair size). Should still have a setting section, but make sure that this doesn't overlap with City 17 (or Sabre's List of locations in Half-Life that I know he has floating around...) --MASEM 16:05, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I have organized the article. It should look better now. Gary King (talk) 00:05, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

It seems a major issue is that the plot and gameplay are screwed up for anyone who hasn't played the game. I've condensed the synopsis more, but I think the characters section should be refactored and shunted into synopsis, and the gameplay rewritten (and sourced this time) so it doesnt start talking about 'Ravenholm' and such until the reader gets to those story elements. Similarly, the plot specific details (such as riding a bugger during X part of the game) can be entirely excised. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 04:02, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I have straightened out the references in the lead and am going to work on the gameplay prose and references next. The plot references need to be supported by a reliable source, e.g. Half-Life Fallout appears to be a fan site. This IGN walkthrough should do the job nicely for the plot section and perhaps most of the gameplay section. EDIT: Finished copy-editing the gameplay section. I cut out a lot of cruft and added references. Feel free to improve on the language and add any significant gameplay features I might have missed. Thanks, -- Noj r (talk) 02:08, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Excellent, it's looking a lot better now. The article has already improved a lot in the past few days. Gary King (talk) 02:20, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Pshaw, I know you're just after another FTC star :P Looking further at the development section, I can't help but think that it might be better to merge together some of the headers and go through a more focused, historical view of the development. The Steam section and Soundtrack would remain seperate, but the rest of the information might be better served reformatted and with some additional content focusing on the inception. I know there's Raising the Bar out there at the very least, along with primary sources, so it shouldn't be that hard to bolster the section. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 02:35, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Off topic moved to talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:36, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I've made some major changes to the article. Could we please start back at the beginning and people list what the article still needs? Preferably in bullet points. Gary King (talk) 16:30, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

There's still absolutely nothing on the cultural impact and influence on the industry, which I would imagine is rather substantial, save for a brief mention in the intro. That puts a hole in the side of the article as far as comprehensiveness goes. -- Sabre (talk) 17:14, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Got specific sources for that? I wouldn't know where to begin, and I don't really keep up-to-date with Half-Life 2 news. Gary King (talk) 17:29, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Sort of forgot about this little gathering. :-p I've never been a huge fan of the article myself (I don't even remember being that big a contributor!), but I think its problem is that the game was important almost solely because it was so very, very good; not something on which you can really go into great depth in an encyclopaedia article. We might want to talk about its impact on the rest of the industry (physics, character animation and digital distribution off the top of my head) as just mentioned, but that's all a bit wooly and hard to be objective about. --Tom Edwards (talk) 17:53, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I imagine the fact that the source engine, which was developed primarily for Half-Life 2, has been used by other non-Valve games, is probably worth a mention - rst20xx (talk) 21:50, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

It already says "Several other games use the Source engine developed by Valve including the popular Day of Defeat: Source and Counter-Strike: Source, both of which were also developed by Valve." Gary King (talk) 23:44, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

That covers Valve's Source powered games, but not the few dozen non-Valve games that use Source -- Sabre (talk) 10:27, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

How's this? Gary King (talk) 14:47, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that should do. -- Sabre (talk) 16:31, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I have to say, I absolutely hate the idea of breaking off the development information. The length of the prose wasn't that long that it needed to be broken off, and seems to needlessly sidestep dealing with the development section, which in my view was reasonable anyway. I'm going to restore the two sections put into the article, that approach simply isn't needed, especially when you condensed the other sections into one so well. Other than on the issue of spinning out the development section, I'm rather content with the article now, and support its continuation as an FA.

And whilst we're on the subject of spinoff content, might I recommend that some point in the future (could be now, could be after this FAR concludes) that we merge Half-Life 2: Deathmatch into the multiplayer section of this article. There's very little information in it, and due to the fact its just the single-player game with a couple of added weapons, its highly unlikely that it can be expanded on substantially. Most of its content is game guide stuff anyway. HL2DM does have some independent reviews from places like GameSpot and IGN, but it shouldn't be too hard to incorporate them into the article. -- Sabre (talk) 16:17, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I killed Development of Half-Life 2. I've also organized Half-Life 2#Production. Gary King (talk) 17:22, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm not entirely happy with that, there was a lot of (okay, unsourced, but sourceable?) information lost in that "merge" - rst20xx (talk) 22:54, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Sourcing isn't the problem (well, it was, as most of it is only sourcable to a primary source, but that's besides the point). WP:IINFO comes into play there, the information in that article generally required players knowledge of Half-Life 2 and to a lesser extent Counter-Strike Source. The average reader who hasn't played the game would have trouble following it, or would wonder why a good amount of it is significant. -- Sabre (talk) 23:02, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I killed off HL2:DM (redirected to #Multiplayer). There was basically nothing to transfer. The only suggestion I might add is that that section have a copyedit, and the specific month of release of HL2:DM added, rather than "3 months later". --Izno (talk) 00:22, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

"Doctor Breen’s office at the top of the Citadel, showing the advanced lighting abilities of the Source engine" (image caption) - I haven't played this game and can't remember the last time I played a Source game. As such this caption does very little for me. It looks like a normal light (to me), the caption is basically saying "nah, it's a special light!" without saying why, or without the image making it clear why. The unfamiliar reader (like, um, me) would be a bit confused. IMO. Giggy (talk) 23:07, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
- Ok, I think the problem here is with the image, rather than the caption. It is in-game, just a light emitter, there's nothing that special about it. I could go for a shot from the beginning of the game, showing the G-man up close, which incorporates effects like color correction, advanced facial animation, lighting and various other effects. -- Sabre (talk) 23:10, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

- The opening sequence didn't give as good images as I thought. I can't think of where-else in the game to get good shots of the Source engine in practice without going to the Episodes, and their technology is not representative of HL2. That image should be replaced though. -- Sabre (talk) 23:29, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
  - I no longer have the game installed, but if I recall, after the start sequence, when you go out the back following meeting Barney, the sun is such in the sky that you should be able to get some good Sun-related effects there - rst20xx (talk) 21:16, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
    - Do you mean this area? We seem to have a good too many HL2 images uploaded around WP, might as well see if any of them are suitable before cleaning them out under WP:NFCC. -- Sabre (talk) 10:26, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
      - Yes, I think that's it! But you can get the lighting effects much better than that - rst20xx (talk) 01:16, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
        Very well, I will see what I can get out of my supercomputer with the game on highest later. -- Sabre (talk) 07:36, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

So aside from the image, are there any outstanding concerns? Overall it's dramatically better, and though I haven't done a thorough look I think it meets summary style in all aspects now. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 04:31, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
I haven't done anything new recently as it's gotten a lot better in my opinion. Gary King (talk) 04:48, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

- Distribution could use citing, as well as the 2nd paragraph of #Contract_dispute. And probably #Third-party_mods. Other than that, it looks much improved! --Izno (talk) 06:18, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Alright it should be better now. Gary King (talk) 15:43, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I've updated the image I referred to earlier, with a different angle incorporating some lighting effects. The image is here, is that any better for in the article? Its got a nice bit of sun coming across the rooftops, clear soft shadows on the ground, a metrocop with some alpha shading (not very visible at this resolution though) and the Citadel in the background. -- Sabre (talk) 19:27, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Status. What's up folks? Does this need to go to FARC? Marskell (talk) 08:44, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I shouldn't think so, I think editor concerns have been addressed. Practically all of mine certainly have been. -- Sabre (talk) 10:26, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I haven't taken another look at the prose, but I'm assuming it's still in good shape. All my actionable concerns above have been addressed. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 11:53, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I think we could probably include a little more about the reception of it, but other than that, I should say HL2 is safe from FARC. --Izno (talk) 16:40, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The article was kept by User:Marskell 11:06, 9 October 2008 [4].

Death Valley National Park

Notified Mav, Vsmith, and WikiProjects: California, Earthquakes, and Protected areas.

This article, promoted to FA status back on February 5, 2005, requires improvement to maintain the current standards expected of a Featured Article. My main concern is that the article is lacking references and inline citations. -- Longhair\^talk 23:02, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Could the nom (or anyone) go through with {{fact}} tags. Even though even the very brief glance I did I can see that with only three inline citations it is easier to point people responding for what to look for cites on. I'm also going to notify two additional projects listed on the article talk page. -Optigan13 (talk) 23:50, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

No need for that until after my first referencing pass. --mav (talk) 00:47, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

~~Hold~~ This article does need more inline citations but already lists all the references used. Please be patient - I already have two other FARs and an article almost ready for FAC that I've been working on so I might not be able to do much here at least one other FAR results in a Keep. BTW, isn't there an informal concept to limit the number of active FARs any one person or WikiProject is expected to address? --mav (talk) 00:47, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The most basic informal rule here is that you can simply ask me and Joel to leave things open. If you want to defer work for some time, give a hold or a wait. This just started in FAR so there's plenty of time. Marskell (talk) 12:40, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Note I haven't moved the Geology article to FARC for this reason. Marskell (talk) 12:47, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Understood - thanks. I added a ~~hold~~. --mav (talk) 15:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Sandy beat me to it, but work on addressing FAR concerns has now started. My ref-pass shouldn't take too long; hopefully we will be mostly done by the end of the weekend. --mav (talk) 01:55, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't know why "Telephone history" is there, and it's full of undefined jargon. If it's kept, it needs better linking and a lot of WP:NBSPs. I'm not going to work on it yet, because I can't understand why it's there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:21, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

"Telephone history" section moved to talk - not needed for the article anyway. --mav (talk) 00:40, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I moved around all the images to make image layout conform to WP:ACCESSIBILITY and WP:MOS#Images; I don't know if I ended up with the optimal location for each image in the "Geologic history" section. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:22, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Inline cites for Geology of National Parks added. Still a few more sources to go through. --mav (talk) 00:58, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Inline cites for Geology of U.S. Parklands added. Still a couple more sources to go through. --mav (talk) 01:55, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Yet more inline cites added. Only a few paras left uncited now. Once that is done, I'll do a final copyedit and fix the telephone section (which was added after this article became FA - I've never really liked it anyway). --mav (talk) 03:47, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Section-by-section copyedit and final ref-pass now complete. I think we are done now... --mav (talk) 00:40, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Good work mav. I pinged Sandy for a second opinion. Marskell (talk) 08:40, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I just gave it a copyedit and MOS cleanup. I left a couple hidden comments in the text (noted in edit summaries) requesting clarification on some sentences I couldn't parse. The only other remaining issues I can see pertain to images. There are so many images in Geologic history that the text is repeatedly sandwiched between images, and there are two image galleries in the Biology section. Given that there are 28 images in the article as a whole, can we prune some of the poorer-quality/less-relevant ones? Some likely candidates: Image:Zebra tail lizard.jpg has a deprecated license; Image:Death valley flowers 1.jpg has enormous artifacting; and Image:Sphinx moth on rock nettle at Mosaic Canyon.jpg doesn't appear to have been taken at DV. Maralia (talk) 00:46, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Mosaic Canyon is entirely in the park and empties into Death Valley. But yeah, some images need to go. :) --mav (talk) 03:15, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Maralia and Jbmurray have both been through, so we should be in good shape here, but there are a lot of images; I struggled with how to organize them, and they need more work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:32, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll see about removing some images and rearranging the ones that remain. --mav (talk) 03:15, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Several images removed and other moved. I also added some sub-sections to the geology section. --mav (talk) 04:37, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

As the instigator of this review, I just want to add that this article has progressed ten-fold from what I initially saw six weeks ago. Credit goes to those involved in recognition of their efforts in bringing this important article back up to FA standards. I'd say it's very close to a FA, if not already there. -- Longhair\^talk 03:22, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for initiating the review - I'm normally too busy to do more than maintain my old FAs from deteriorating unless I'm prodded by a FAR to improve them to current standards. The inline cite requirement has been a killer for many old FAs. --mav (talk) 03:30, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for giving you more work? I guess that's a compliment of sorts. We've got ourselves a very nice article now :) As I said above, a credit to all involved. -- Longhair\^talk 03:36, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

It is an opportunity to polish the FA star. :) --mav (talk) 04:37, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Wow! Some really good copyeditors have done a great job in the past day on this article. Great work! --mav (talk) 03:24, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The article was kept by User:Marskell 12:09, 3 October 2008 [5].

The Adventures of Tintin

Notified WP COMICS, Hiding, Midnightblueowl, Fram

previous FAR (10 August 2006)

Big parts of the article are unreferenced and it therefore fails the 1(c) criteria; "factually accurate" ~~and the 2(c) criteria; "consistent citations".~~ --TheLeft orium 18:10, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I've straightened out the archiving of the old FAR (fortunately I remembered it, although it wasn't listed here). Since the article was cited during its FAR two years ago, please specify which "big parts" you're referring to with specific examples of facts that are likely to be challenged. Consistency in citation formatting is unrelated to whether citations are lacking; please provide examples of 2c issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:32, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, more specific information on where additional citations may be needed would be helpful. --Dragonfiend (talk) 23:17, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I worked on this the last time around, and whilst I'd have to go back to the library to get two of the books out again, I'd be prepared to bet that it is almost all verifiable to either Mills, Thompson or Farr, given the article has barely changed since the last FARC, [6]. Consistency of citations is a sofixit issue, no? Hiding T 11:31, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing the footnotes. I'm sorry I wasn't more specific. The problems I see are that much in the "Memorabilia and merchandise" section is unreferenced, especially the "Shops" and "Coins" sections. Also, the first three paragraphs of the "Theatre" section are completely unreferenced. --TheLeft orium 13:52, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm seeing cites in the "Memorabilia and merchandise" section and in the "Shops" and "Coins" sections. Everything in the shops section before the cite is sourced from that cite, that's how I write, I don't put the cite after every sentence but at the end of everything so sourced or the end of the paragraph if it goes beyond one. The coins one looks like it has changed since, but does have a cite. The theatre section shouldn't be too hard to cite, the first sentence is attributable to Comics: Anatomy of a Mass Medium - Page 184. Don't have time to add it now, but do you mind me asking if cite tags might have been better than a FA review? It looks to me like there are what, three or four sentences that could be challenged. We've got an FA on the main page now in the same state. Hiding T 14:07, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I suppose. Sorry for causing trouble. I'll add cite tags were I feel they are necessary. --TheLeft orium 14:26, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Done! Someone could probably close this review now. --TheLeft orium 14:34, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

NOT YET - some statements/paragraphs lack citations. I just found a couple of examples:

---In music, Tintin has been the inspiration to a number of bands and musicians. A British technopop band of the 1980s took the name The Thompson Twins after the Tintin characters. Stephen Duffy, a former member of Duran Duran, performed the minor hit single "Kiss Me" under the name "Tintin"; he had to drop the name under pressure of a copyright infringement suit. Duffy would later release the album Designer Beatnik under the name "Doctor Calculus" in reference to Professor Calculus. An Australian psychedelic rock band and an American independent progressive rock band have used the name "Tin Tin", and British electronic dance music duo Tin Tin Out was similarly inspired by the character. South African singer/songwriter Gert Vlok Nel compares Tintin to God in his Afrikaans song "Waarom ek roep na jou vanaand", presumably because Tintin is a morally pure character. Australian cartoonist Bill Leak often portrays the bespectacled neophyte Australian prime minister Kevin Rudd as Tintin.--- This entire paragraph needs at least one source for every claim of the song made or the copyright issues etc.

The 'Books' section is only a sentence. Way too short. Either summarize the main article and expand it into this article or remove the section all togethor me thinks. Domiy (talk) 06:20, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
- I never thought any of that was likely to be challenged, to be honest. But it can still be solved with cite tags or people fixing the problem themselves, can't it? Hiding T 10:55, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Closing. I edited this during the first FAR. It was extensively gone over and I don't see much to criticize now. Marskell (talk) 12:03, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The article was kept by User:Marskell 12:03, 2 October 2008 [7].

Aaron Sorkin

Notified: WP Biography, WP Actors and Filmmakers, WP Screenwriters. Top contributor and FAC nominator BillDeanCarter has not edited since February 2008 and 2nd top contributor, Bwith, has left Wikipedia. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:29, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I think this article needs a lot of work, despite its remarkableness as a source of information on Aaron Sorkin. I have removed the section "Controversies" and placed its subsections within the article in almost appropriate places, for the sake of narrative flow. A serious copyedit is now in order and was already in order due to several stubby sentences and paragraphs throughout. Additionally, Thomas Fahy's book listed in the "Further Information" section, Considering Aaron Sorkin: Essays on the Politics, Poetics and Sleight of Hand in the Films and Television Series should most definitely be used as a reference throughout the article. How unfortunate that it is not used! One section it could help improve would be the "Writing process and characteristics" section. There is also an interview in GQ listed in the "Further information" section that is not used but could be used in the "Writing process and characteristics" section.

The "Personal politics" section should be expanded (Again, use Fahy's book). The "Returning to the theatre" section should be rewritten and expanded. The "Castle Rock" section should be shrunk, and the business about "Kyle Morris vs. Castle Rock" should be better sourced and put into context. The "West Wing" section is crap, should be rewritten, with the "Rick Cleveland" controversy mentioned--this is a legitimate controversy unlike the Kyle Morris one--but with a better narrative flow. There is very little criticism of the shows and films, good or bad. In my opinion, the best sections are the "Early years" section and the "Writing process and characteristics" section. It also disturbs me that Sorkin's personal life is unevenly handled; his dating life and his politics should have a part to offset his drug use, because he is not really wholly a drug addict. Let's show he's human. Also, is there anything good that can be used in the "Castle Rock" section from the 2001 "From Stage to Screen with Aaron Sorkin and Rob Reiner, A Few Good Men" documentary, that is listed in the "Further information" section? Homely Features (talk) 08:51, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I have found many more problems:

I have added my own 'citations needed' tags to certain facts, but there were already many such tags in the article. Is the separate "Awards and honors" section necessary? Shouldn't it maybe be incorporated into relevant sections? As in, yes, and then he won the award for that show or that film, whilst critics said this and that too. There is a weird tendency to be very listy in this article. It results in a badly written article with little narrative.-Homely Features (talk) 08:55, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I like this sentence from the Studio 60 section: "The seething anticipation that preceded the debut was followed up by a large amount of thoughtful and scrupulous criticism in the press, as well as largely negative and feverish analysis in the blogosphere." But why isn't it followed up with examples of such criticism?-Homely Features (talk) 08:57, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

And what is the nature of Sorkin's relationship to the Obama Campaign? There is an interesting question on the talk page from Agrant33074. Did he really help with a campaign ad in 2004? Do we know everything about these political works by Aaron Sorkin?-Homely Features (talk) 09:05, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

As well, why are different formats used for the quotations? In the "Sports Night" section it's one style, and throughout another style.-Homely Features (talk) 09:07, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Why is there a "Screenplays written in the 21st century" section? Is it really important to make such a strange difference known? The only thing I can think of here, is that maybe Sorkin had returned to film after doing TV shows for a while so that is being highlighted.Homely Features (talk) 09:09, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
I retitled this section as "Back to writing for film".Homely Features (talk) 07:53, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry to say this but the "Personal politics" section is a disaster. Many paragraphs just do not have a clear purpose. Is the first paragraph in "Personal politics" about the politics in The West Wing? Is the second paragraph about his contributions, both money-wise and film/writing-wise, to the Democratic party? Say so then!-Homely Features (talk) 09:13, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
I killed off this section.Homely Features (talk) 07:53, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Why isn't the book The West Wing: The American Presidency as Television Drama from Syracuse University Press used more? And when it is used could the pages be numbered? Homely Features (talk) 09:35, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Is a "Personal politics" section really necessary? Shouldn't the information maybe go into the "Personal life" section? It seems like Sorkin's personal politics are being played up simply because he is known for The West Wing, although whenever he does say something it manages to get pretty wide media exposure, making him a little more important than Matt Damon and that "actuary tables" reading he did on John McCain's life expectancy.Homely Features (talk) 09:40, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Redundant information about awards received: "As a writer, Sorkin received an Emmy Award for Outstanding Writing in a Drama Series (The West Wing)." from the "West Wing" section is later repeated in the "Awards and honors" section.Homely Features (talk) 09:41, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I do appreciate the effort that was involved in writing this article and what an accomplishment that is, but I must point out where the article can be improved. I'll help out where I can, but the job is big.Homely Features (talk) 09:13, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Notification Request Please notify relevant wikipedia projects and significant editors and place these notifications at the top of this FAR (as per instructions on the top of WP:FAR). Thanks! --Regents Park (one for sorrow) 13:20, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Could someone sophisticated in these policy matters take the necessary action?Homely Features (talk) 07:53, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not that hard, but it is a lot of elbow grease. Post {{subst:FARMessage|Aaron Sorkin}} to the talk page of each WikiProject listed at Talk:Aaron Sorkin, the original nominator on the FAC, and any other sigificant contributors. Then list them back at the top of the FAR here, following the example at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Felix the Cat. We're all busy; when you nominate an article, it helps if you try to learn to do this bit. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:52, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, but if I don't do this could we still de-list this article when we all agree it is not up to par?Homely Features (talk) 19:06, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you could benefit from reading the WP:FAR instructions yourself. We're not here to "delist when we all agree it's not up to par"; we first try to enlist all the help we can find to bring it up to par. That's why you do the notifications. You are seeking to improve Wiki articles, right? And if you don't do the notifications and someone appears at the last minute, willing to work on the article, then the FAR can last two or three months. Please do the notifications. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:29, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I see. I may have to read the WPFAR. I think it *might* take months to fix this article so if that is alright then alright. It will cost about 35$ to read the Considering Aaron Sorkin book, and the other book about The West Wing will cost money too, unless you have one of those good libraries with copies of these rather obscure books. I can't promise to get these notifications done this weekend, but maybe next week.Homely Features (talk) 11:19, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I will not notify all Wiki people who were involved in this article. It is terrible. I don't think they would be of any help if they were originally involved in this article. It should never have been an FA and it will take much much much work to ever achieve FA. There is no criticism of any of his works. There is a lot of quirky bits here and there... God damn strange article if you ask me. Time to roast this article and let it earn its way to the top.Homely Features (talk) 15:28, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Dabomb87 for notifying everyone. I believe I am going to have a heart attack if I read anymore of this article. It's terrible. There was an anonymous Yahoo biography used as a source. I'm not sure why a Bartlett4America News Archive is used for Reuters wires of all things. Those are pretty easy to come by. I am finding shockingly abysmal prose throughout. I am beginning to think a rewrite from scratch is needed.Homely Features (talk) 16:33, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

The absolute outrageousness of it all

This article is so bad that I am shocked at what I'm finding. According to a Variety article [8] The Farnsworth Invention began in 2003 as a commission for a play! Not a screenplay first in 2005, and later rewritten as a play. Erroneous information is everywhere. Jizz magazine was being used as a source for this erroneous fact. How much of this article is wrong I wonder now.14:30, 28 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Homely Features (talk • contribs)

Why am I the only one finding these errors? They are blatant.-Homely Features (talk) 14:55, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Speedy Remove This article isn't even a Good Article. Start the process over again, from scratch. Let this article earn its way to the top.-Homely Features (talk) 13:39, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

There is not a "Speedy remove" option at FAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:52, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Homely, I'm concerned about the editing you've done to the article, as you've removed a large amount of text and a large number of citations. I've asked others to look in here, and I'm wondering if a revert to the September 6 version and rebuilding from there a bit more slowly might be in order. The article appears to have been in better shape then than it is now, and improving sources or seeking new sources, is preferable to deleting citations. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:11, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with SandyGeorgia. A very substantial amount of damage seems to have been done to this article Since September 27. References were removed, and then 'cite needed' tags were added! I am trying to WP:Assume good faith, but it appears that the changes reflect a political WP:Point of view. I returned the article to the September 27 state for now. Instead of replacing the language in this article with which you disagree, HF, I suggest that you prepare a statement of why you think the references that you removed are incorrect and let editors here discuss it and reach a consensus before making the changes. Thanks! Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:31, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

To cover all of these edits, I think you'd have to go all the way back to September 6th, when the Obama-related edits began. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:43, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with SandyGeorgia and Ssilvers on this as well - the edit summaries alone are enough to raise serious questions about this editor's agenda - see this one in particular. I completely agree with the revert to earlier version and recommend that some action be taken regarding this SPA who seems to have quite an agenda. Tvoz/talk 05:44, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I have now reverted back to Feb 2008, which was the last date the FAC nominator edited the article, and begun restoring from there. I'm not sure we'll be able to save this star unless someone takes over this article, but I hope we can at least repair the damage that has occurred since the nominator left Wiki in Feb 2008. We will need many people to start going through as I don't know what all needs fixing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:08, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

There are no Obama-related edits. Let's not be ridiculous.Homely Features (talk) 07:11, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Well, you're doing a disservice to the article. Read my edit summaries. There will blatant errors throughout the article. I removed the terrible references and added more reliable references. Homely Features (talk) 07:08, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Many facts(can you even call something a fact when it is wrong?) were untrue and in some cases the exact opposite to what Sorkin had said in the given source. Some sources I replaced with others because they were either rinky-dinky or were actually not about the film. I have been trying to excise the sickness and have left a mostly correct article, with less redundant information, and citation needed tags everywhere so that these facts can be sourced. I have still not been able to find a source that states that 40 out of 45 Sports Night episodes were written by Sorkin.Homely Features (talk) 07:20, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
It is also a very very badly written article. It severely needs a copyedit unlessly badly written articles are de rigueur here at Wikipedia?Homely Features (talk) 07:22, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
My agenda is to fix this article. It is ranked #1 in a Google search which is unacceptable considering how many errors are in it. I can't stress enough how much fixing this article needs. Too many liberties taken. His years at Castle Rock were supposedly "formative" according to this article but nowhere could I find such a fact. Nowhere could I find many other facts, and often I discovered the opposite, that they were in fact untrue.Homely Features (talk) 07:26, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Problem, Homely. Three editors above have agreed to revert the article so it can be restored more systematically, and you just reverted against consensus. That's edit warring; please see WP:3RR. Some of your edits were surprisingly good for a newly registered editor, but your edit summaries are problematic, you've deleted some text unnecessarily, and you've removed some citations unnecessarily, leaving the text littered with tags. And some of your edits or edit summaries appear to be agenda-based. Restoring the article is going to take some sustained effort, but edit warring and leaving the article in a damaged state such as it is in now, regardless of whether it retains featured status, are not viable options. Your edit summaries, and attitude on this FAR (about not notifying other editors and insisting that the article be defeatured rather than addressing issue) don't indicate that your primary goal is to produce a quality article; while some of your edits are good, others appear to be dismantling the article rather than fixing it. Collaborating with other editors will be necessary to restore the article; edit warring against consensus will only get you blocked. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:31, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

The previous state of the article was ridiculous. Pieces of information about The West Wing were spread out into every section needlessly. I have moved them all into The West Wing section. The "Controversies" section was very evil. The "Cleveland" controversy was legitimate but belonged in The West Wing section. The "Morris vs. CAstle Rock" controversy was a small fiasco, proven wrong, and if you have noticed is never mentioned in the mainstream media, because it was probably one of many such lawsuits, this being the loudest. It does not make for a standard reading of Sorkin's career to include such a controversy. Also, the treatment of his drug addiction was evil too. It does not have to be mentioned in every section and then separately in the Controversy section.Homely Features (talk) 07:37, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Also, in the "Writing charcteristics" section, aside from the redundant information I removed, many facts were flatly wrong. In fact, I was disgusted to learn in the given source that Sorkin had actually said the opposite.Homely Features (talk) 07:37, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
I have not removed a single source that was reliable and useful. There were blogs, ummmm..... and some other bad sources. It was quite shocking. I'd have to go through and see exactly what those bad sources were again. Why aren't any of the books that I have put in a "Themes and recurrent motifs in Sorkin's works" section being used?Homely Features (talk) 07:42, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm a very new Wikipedia editor, although I have been reading it for a long time. I don't think this deserves to be considered a Featured Article in its present state. It's badly constructed and badly written. The introduction seems overly long. The section about The West Wing is far too long considering the program has its own article and much of the information here pertains more to the program than Sorkin himself. IMHO, I think this article needs a lot of work. LiteraryMaven (talk) 15:55, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Awesome. Someone making sense. Yes, I have thought that too, that the West Wing section should be restricted to Sorkin anecdotes (not all flattering) and maybe more about the awards he won, rather than what the show won. In Jason Buchanan's bio at All Music Guide he sums up Sorkin's awards won succinctly I think. Will have to re-read that. But with regard to Ssilvers note: I can no longer look at that old FA. I have done enough of that and I believe rooted out all the misinformation and placed appropriate citation tags where facts that appear to be true need to be verified.Homely Features (talk) 16:13, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, I don't think this article will make it because there really should be a "Common themes and motifs in Sorkin's works" and of course based on those two books of essays that I've placed in this stub-section. Without that, you can't really call this "best work" can you? And that section will take time to write.Homely Features (talk) 16:16, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with SandyGeorgia. Durova^Charge! 01:25, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

To avoid more wikidrama, I am shutting this review down. Editor has been blocked and there is active discussion at AN/I. Marskell (talk) 11:55, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

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

Removed status

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

The article was removed by User:Marskell 12:11, 13 October 2008 [9].

2004 Indian Ocean earthquake

Review commentary

Notified WP QUAKE, Pepsidrinka, BanyanTree, Golbez, and Arwel Parry. No 1 highest editor, Sengkang, retired.

This was promoted back in 2006. It may have met the criteria then, but not now. Specific issus:

Cites: this is the main concern. Quite a few paragraphs (and the "Retreat and rise cycle" and "Countries affected" sections) are without them.
These do not follow the same format.
I'm sure the prose could also use a touch up.

I will be notifying the top contribs and WP:QUAKE. Your friend Eddy of the wiki^{[citation needed]} 03:49, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Many of the current issues were present during the FAC, so I won't retype them all unless someone engages to copyedit, cite and cleanup (in particular, the external jumps). Lots of issues here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:01, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Hope that we get some help here. If this article was delisted that would stink. —Sunday [speak+] 01:11, 21 September 2008 (UTC)]

Moved repost of previous FAC, already linked here, to talk page. 16:29, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are referencing (1c), formatting (2), and prose (1a). Marskell (talk) 09:48, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Remove. Agree with above by Editorofthewiki and SandyGeorgia. Many referencing and cleanup issues remain and the above comments have not been addressed. Cirt (talk) 09:59, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Remove
- Prose: needs tuning, also I find it overburdened with statistics in places.
- Verifiability: I took one representative section as an example: "Event in historical context", and examined the sources given. There are only two. In the "Deadliest earthquakes" table, the data in the table does not match the data given at the only web source listed: [10], and the other reference does not make sense to me: "Not Awa, Japan 1703, alleged 100,000, which is probably a misreading of the 10,000 toll given in Watanabe, H., 1998.". What is "Not Awa, Japan 1703"? A reference from 1703, giving details of an earthquake occurring in 1782, disputed by a reference from 1998? Also, where is the source saying that it is "probably a misreading"? There are several uncited paragraphs.
- Article structure and focus: needs tuning or pruning. For example, parts of the "Other effects" section read a little like a list of unconnected trivia, and would be better split up into relevant sections; tables and images sometimes crowd together, overlap or displace one another, and could be better organised.
- Minor issues: external jumps; too many external links; citations not formatted. DrKiernan (talk) 09:28, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The article was removed by User:Marskell 12:11, 13 October 2008 [11].

Battle of the Bulge

Review commentary

There are a number of reasons I'm nominating this article for a featured article review -

1(a) - The article has poorly organized quotes from different sources and needs to be extensively copyedited for grammar.
1(c) - The article is not properly cited, therefore also failing 2(c).

I will message the major contributors immediately. These seem to be User:Raul654 (280 edits), User:GeneralPatton (174 edits), User:Krellis (70 edits), User:DJ Clayworth (35 edits) and User:Anger22 (33 edits). I will also warn the MilHist Wiki Project. JonCatalán^(Talk) 20:36, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

The complete message for notifications (pls see WP:FAR instructions) is {{subst:FARMessage|Battle of the Bulge}} ~~~~ SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:16, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

FARC - I came across this article a few months ago and called for it to be delisted in the Milhist talk page. It has multiple problems. It has poor grammar in a number of places, very few citations, and those citations that are used are often misplaced or suspect. Skinny87 (talk) 08:42, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are prose (1a) and referencing (1c). Marskell (talk) 09:45, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Remove. Agree with above by JonCatalán and Skinny87, these issues have not been addressed. Major referencing issues remain. Cirt (talk) 09:56, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Remove Inline cites are thin. No evidence of active maintenance/work. Some clean up needed on the images (obsolete license tags; image files with same name). DrKiernan (talk) 12:16, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Remove Endorse the above. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 03:16, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Remove no sources etc. YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model) 07:29, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Remove per my reasons above Skinny87 (talk) 17:21, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Remove, I don't know if I'm allowed to vote, so disregard this if I can't. JonCatalán^(Talk) 18:09, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Remove per above. Cam ^(Chat) 22:31, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The article was removed by User:Marskell 12:11, 13 October 2008 [12].

The West Wing

Review commentary

Notified Scm83x, Hnsampat, WikiProject Television

This was promoted to featured status almost three years ago and a lot has happened since then. It hardly qualifies today as the production section and plot sections are way too short, it lacks an actual critical response section, it includes sections that shouldn't be in the main article (such as the "Presidential elections" section - that should go in plot) and a lot of the references are not accepted.–FunkyVoltron ^talk 15:01, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Please follow the instructions at the top of WP:FAR to complete Project notifications (see any of the FARs below for examples). Thanks! --Regents Park (one for sorrow) 16:01, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree this article is pretty abysmal. If you wish to take a break from this article please visit the Aaron Sorkin article and help improve the section in this article specifically about The West Wing. It is in need of organization and a severe copyedit. I have been significantly improving this article. Sincerely, Homely Features (talk) 22:23, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concern is comprehensiveness (1b). Marskell (talk) 09:43, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Remove. Agree with above by FunkyVoltron and Homely Features. These above points have not been addressed. In addition to comprehensiveness, there are serious referencing issues. There is a bit too much overweighting on the in-universe stuff, and not enough on cast/crew/production info. Cirt (talk) 09:54, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Aren't there too many non-free images? DrKiernan (talk) 12:13, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Way too many. Cirt (talk) 00:00, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Remove then, fails criterion 3. DrKiernan (talk) 17:06, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Remove 1c. YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model) 07:30, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The article was removed by User:Marskell 13:03, 10 October 2008 [13].

Russian Ground Forces

Review commentary

Notified Miyokan and Buckshot06 as regular contributors. Buckshot06 was the user who proposed the article. Also notified Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history and Wikipedia:WikiProject Russia Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:35, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Now I'll freely admit to not being an expert but I was surprised to come across this article and see that it is at FA. The grammar needs much improvement, there are many instances of WP:peacock words, the infobox looks untidy, there is a lack of wp:wikilinks. It warrants copyediting at the very least. I would also suggest that quite a few sections are bordering violation of WP:NPOV. Please note that this isn't a criticism of the editors, but of the article itself. I would suggest that the prose needs much improvement and that it is not neutral. I think it has a lot of merit but needs work to keep it's FA status. Parrot of Doom (talk) 13:01, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Please follow the instructions at the top of WP:FAR to complete Project notifications. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:51, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Could you please provide specific examples of your concerns? The article doesn't have an infobox at present, by the way - those are navigation templates. Nick Dowling (talk) 07:30, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

See below, the image in the box on the right could certainly be tidied up, on my browsers it isn't centralised - a small point, but considering its at the top of the article I think it sets a bad example. Parrot of Doom (talk) 19:13, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Let me explain a little background here. I wrote my MA thesis for King's College London's War Studies Department on the Russian Ground Forces in 2000. I have tried to reflect the best quality writing on the subject - the Conflict Studies Research Centre - in what I wrote, which has meant the use of terms analytically and a whole bunch of quotations. The Ground Forces emerge from that in a poor light, which I think reflects the real situation - it is a mess, to be honest. Miyokan will disagree, however I believe his particular views on subjects involving Russia reflect a lot of NPOV themselves - anyone who's interested in taking a look should check the attempts to make Russia a FA. Comments and violent disagreement welcome. Buckshot06(prof) 18:16, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

My concerns are mainly with the poor quality of grammar - that was the first thing to grab my attention. There are also several instances of a questionable POV, particularly sections like "It has been a very divisive struggle, with at least one senior military officer dismissed for being less than responsive to government commands. General Colonel Gennady Troshev was dismissed in 2002 for refusing a move from command of the North Caucasus Military District to command of the less important Siberian Military District." and "Without having to account for their actions, they can choose to promote or not promote him, to send him to Moscow or to some "godforsaken post on the Chinese border." typify the problems I see. Can I recommend that you submit the article here as a starting point? I would also suggest splitting the references section up and having a separate Bibliography - that would make it much easier for readers to see immediately what print material has been used. Parrot of Doom (talk) 19:13, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for noting specific areas where you see problems. Are you aware that the second one is a straight quote from a respected journalist in the field, chosen to illustrate a point? To be honest, I'm not sure what you see is wrong with the first one. Troshev was dismissed after a public spat with the Minister of Defence - not survivable in anyone's military. The references section, as per what I understood was the standard, lists only material utilised in the article, as you ask. I would have prefered to title it 'Bibliography,' but that's not the MOS - apparently there are reasons why we don't use the term 'bibliography.' If you've got specific areas of grammar concern, please tell me them and I'll work through them.

Well, "very divisive" is a somewhat questionable use of English, but that's my opinion only - personally I wouldn't use 'very', something is either divisive or not, again in my opinion. "less than responsive" - unless its a quote, I would just type "unresponsive". "Gennady Troshev was dismissed in 2002 for refusing a move from command of the North Caucasus Military District to command of the less important Siberian Military District." is unclear - I would substitute "to move" for "a move", the former implies an order, the latter implies a request - if it was either, then which one? It could be military terminology that I (or another casual reader) am unaware of. I had to read it about 3 times to understand the meaning. The second sentence was sloppy quoting from me, I actually meant to quote "Their morale is low, among other reasons, because their postings are entirely in the hands of his immediate superiors and the personnel department." which is extremely poor grammar in anyone's book.

I could go through the entire article and find more examples of such grammar, but it would be easier to submit it for copyediting. As someone who hasn't contributed (save some recent copyediting myself) to the article, I'd rather somebody else did that. Better for a major contributor to deal with it, than someone just 'browsing'. Parrot of Doom (talk) 23:24, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Happy we've got a dialog going. Cheers Buckshot06(prof) 20:07, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Delist. This article passed FA in 2006, when standards for FA articles were far lower, and it is easy to see why.

1. Copyediting and such that the nominator mentioned needs a lot of work.

2. The "History" section is way too long and takes up half the prose.

3. The cherry-picked opinon quotes should be removed (eg "The Russian Ground Forces' performance in the First Chechen War has been assessed as "appallingly bad"; "Furthermore, the human cost of the current situation remains high, with the mistreatment of conscripts being labeled "one of Europe's worst human-rights scandals" by The Economist in 2005", etc, etc). Just write the facts of the war, and in other cases, the facts of the issue, and let readers decide for themselves.

4. A lot of information is outdated and relies on old sources. For an entity that has undergone such rapid change in the past decade (eg military spending increased 6-fold under the Putin administration, compared to when it was in chaos and on life support in the 90's and early 2000's), this article should use at least only year 2006+ sources, especially for the "Personnel", "Crime and corruption in the ground forces", and "Equipment" sections.--Miyokan (talk) 10:23, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to trip you up on a minor point Miyokan, but as SandyGeorgia once said to me you cannot say 'Delist' during a FAR. 'Delist' is only possible after the article has moved to a Featured Article Removal Candidacy/FARC. I believe what you would actually want to say is this article should go to a FARC. When it got to the FARC you would want it delisted. Buckshot06(prof) 11:57, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

On the substantive questions, the 'appallingly bad' quote is on the First Chechen War, so if this got through a FARC and was delisted, and I was working on it again, I would still wish to include it. It is the opinion of a respected British expert at the CSRC, Michael Orr, working from Russian newspaper sources, and is a professional assessment of the state of the army at that time. It's a bit like saying the British Army was appallingly bad on 1 July 1916 on the Somme - or that initial US Army counter-insurgency tactics in Iraq were bad. What objection do you have to it?

What is wrong with the length of the history section? The article is roughly ~60kb, and so there's no size worries, simply details on an important topic.

I've previously added 2007 material from a more recent CSRC report by Keir Giles in response to your legit worries over out of date ness. I'll look for further material on the subject. But that does not imply deletion of the other material - at the most, maybe some of it should be moved to Military history of the Russian Federation.

I'll make your above suggested grammar changes Parrot of Doom. Buckshot06(prof) 12:08, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Will you also ask for it to be copyedited at the link I provided? Parrot of Doom (talk) 12:51, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I would list it, but that project seems to have become inactive - it's got a great big banner across the top. Please, if you know where an active copy-editing project is, direct me to it and I'll add it. Cheers Buckshot06(prof) 13:04, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject_Guild_of_Copy_Editors Parrot of Doom (talk) 14:01, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Done. Buckshot06(prof) 19:49, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

One image problem Image:Katyusha-chechen-war.jpg lacks a fair use rationale, and doubtful that fair-use is justified given the availability of other images illustrating RGF. DrKiernan (talk) 13:48, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The current formatting of the refs is clearly inconsistent, especially referring to authors by full name, initials and sometimes just surname. Some references are not filled out properly. Secondly, parts of the section on corruption are not referenced and the prose is generally a bit uneven in places. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 07:05, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are prose (1a) and POV (1d). Marskell (talk) 13:38, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Would someone kindly explain why the process has now gone to the FARC stage? I believed I'd addressed the POV issue, explaining the reasons why the extracts from the reports were quoted, and as for prose, the copyedit tag has been added - and no specific sections which have difficulties have been identified. Why is this still being considered for FARC? Buckshot06(prof) 17:08, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Do note the introduction to FAR: "Nominations are moved from the review period to the removal list, unless it is very clear that editors feel the article is within criteria. Given that extensions are always granted on request, as long as the article is receiving attention, editors should not be alarmed by an article moving from review to the removal candidates' list." Nothing to worry about. If you feel this is keep, say so. Of course we'd need to here from others as well. Marskell (talk) 08:12, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Keep I see no reason at all to delist this article. A copyedit wouldn't hurt, but there's nothing that bad and the content remains FA quality. Nick Dowling (talk) 10:14, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Keep in accordance with my comments above. Buckshot06(prof) 10:19, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Keep as i'm going to help keeping such an important article to FA status by formatting references and fix any style issues I will find. --Eurocopter (talk) 11:16, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

This clearly still needs work. There are unformatted citations, the layout is cluttered, the lead is not a summary of the article, and yes it does need a copyedit. As it stands, this is still in remove territory. Marskell (talk) 10:46, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for raising those issues. Could you please expand upon your concern about the layout? The article has fewer sub-sections or photos than most articles of this size and looks fine on my 24 inch monitor (the monitor's unusually large size normally increases any clutter in articles). Nick Dowling (talk) 11:19, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Lots of work needed: it is unclear if the previous Keep declarations have engaged FA standards at WP:WIAFA. To review (samples only, there are issues throughout):

WP:ACCESSIBILITY, WP:LAYOUT, WP:MOS#Images issues throughout, pls read those guidelines and alter the layout and image and template placement to conform.
WP:MOSBOLD, sample: on professionalisation (see Kontraktniki below) has occurred. (Also provides an example of sending readers to and fro with parenthetical insertions.)
WP:DASH, sample: ... will rise to 100,000-150,000 rubles ... and another ... by Sergei Ivanov's Order 428 of October 2005 - and, what
WP:MOS#Ellipses, sample: "...Without having to account for their actions ...
Citation needed tags, citations lacking throughout, and serious prose issues, start with this sentence: The previous 12th in the Siberian MD, and possibly the 15th(?) in the Far Eastern MD seem to have disbanded. Besides being uncited and weasly, the inserted question mark is something I admit to never having encountered anywhere on Wiki. As another example, most of the section it's in (Structure) is uncited.
Strange and inconsistent bolding in the Dispositions section.
Completely unformatted and chaotic citations. Two samples only:
- ^ История, структура, задачи и перспектиы развития
- ^ RIA Novosti - Opinion & analysis - Unmanned aerial vehicles increase in numbers, http://www.guardian.co.uk/russia/article/0,,2009339,00.html, and See Russian Wikipedia article [1].

The three Keep declarations above are quite surprising; considering that it doesn't appear that WP:WIAFA was engaged, I hope they will be disregarded. The article needs a thorough and independent copyedit, a MoS check, an image review, attention to sourcing, and probably a sources check. I'll ping Ealdgyth. When more of the basics are in place, you might ask User:Epbr123 to do a MoS check; asking him now would be a bit abusive though, as the article is far from ready. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:18, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments SandyGeorgia; I got this promoted on its content, and did not pay enormous amounts of attention to exact MOS and other stylistic requirements. Eurocoptre, Nick Dowling, and I are committed to seeing this article stay as a FA, and thus we will be working through the issues you raise one at a time to rectify them (which for me will mean learning a few new guidelines along the way). I would ask other commentators to give us the time required to fix the identified issues, and to kindly help identify any other deficiencies which are present. Currently I'm located right next door to the Advanced Research and Assessment Group at Shrivenham, one of the best places for producing analyses of the Russian armed forces (mostly by analysts who spend their professional time reading Russian-language sources), so while we're working through the stylistic issues, I'd be quite happy to engage on a point-by-point sources check of any sourcing or facts which need double-checking. Buckshot06(prof) 20:57, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

As long as work is progressing, Marskell always allows time as needed; I'll check in periodically, and can also help on MoS cleanup as work progresses. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:56, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Sandy, could you please assume good faith rather than declare that I didn't consult the FA criteria and that my comment should be ignored? - that's pretty rude behaviour. I did actually look at the FA criteria, and my view is, and remains, that the amount of work this article needs is fairly minor and doesn't justify de-listing. Formatting references is easy and the required MOS edits aren't a big deal. Nick Dowling (talk) 22:53, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I actually think quite a bit of substantial work is needed (prose and sourcing as well as the easier cleanup), hence my surprise at seeing Keep declarations from seasoned FA participants; at any rate, the work is doable. I'm sorry if I offended you, but because FAR work can proceed at a fairly leisurely pace, it's surprising to see a lot of Keep declarations when an article clearly isn't at FA status. Once again, my apologies for any offense. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:57, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments regarding images:
- Image:Emblem_of_Armed_forces_of_the_Russian_Federation.jpg‎ - needs a verifiable source and summary per WP:IUP
- Image:Big Emblem of Armed Forces of the Russian Federation.jpg - needs a verifiable source and summary
- Image:Flag of Armed Forces of the Russian Federation.gif - needs a verifiable source and summary
- Image:T-72 tank.jpg - needs a verifiable source ("usmc.mil" is as unhelpful as citing prose to "New York Times"). I searched the site for, among others, "T-72", "T-72 Tank", "Russia tank", "Russian tank", etc. and could not locate this image. How can we verify Marine (i.e. federal) authorship?
- Image:Russian soldier.jpg - image is a WP:DUCK copyvio: web resolution, no metadata, high technical quality (e.g. evenness of lighting, etc.), drive-by uploader with several image warnings. Эlcobbola _talk 02:25, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments regarding sources and the referencing in general.

Is it Kier, Giles or Kier Giles? Unclear from the context. Also are the sources by this author books? Periodicals? Is the CSRC the publisher? I see the abbreviation CSRC is finally expanded in ref 41? But it's used long before that.
Bare urls in references, they should have titles.
Website references that lack publishers and last access date.
While I understand the desire to not get involved in the minutiae of the MOS, there are good reasons for some of the rules. It helps imensely in finding your sources if the books or periodical titles are in italics, article titles are in quotation marks, authors are formatted consistently, a consistent format for volume and other information on periodicals is used, etc.
Please use link checker tool to check for dead links. I found that the very first footnote I clicked had a dead link.
References in non-english languages should give the language they are in, for the convience of the reader.
What makes http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/9059/RussianArmedForces.html a reliable source?
Likewise http://warfare.ru/?
Most of the referencing problems are MOS issues, more than quality of sources, it appears. They are not formatted consistently, as there is no over all system to the refs. It appears you were trying to go for a "Short footnotes - longer references" system, but you've got longer entries in the footnotes and some of your shorter footnotes don't exactly conform to the way the references are presented, etc. For this stuff, Sandy would be an excellent resource to straighten out the formatting concerns. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:52, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm normally on board to help with just such work, but this article needs so much work that I'm not yet convinced it's the best place to expend my FAR efforts. If it is copyedited and fully cited, I can pitch in to help with MoS and citation cleanup, but it's going to take a sustained effort to bring it close to status. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:45, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

A week since last commentary: I see work is ongoing, but the article is still a long ways from featured quality. How is it coming? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:02, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
- Everything is under control, the article will soon be a proper FA class with all criteria met. Just have a little patience. --Eurocopter (talk) 13:02, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
  - Two weeks, considering the amount of work needed, is a lot of elapsed time and there have only been three edits the month of October; I note that Eurocopter tigre did have time to submit FAC in the interim. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:41, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Per Buckshot's request, I've made a first pass through, leaving sample edits only.[14] To save me having to type it all up, please step back through my diffs where I explain each edit. There is much more to do, but this should get you started. I haven't even looked at citations, and there are still copyedit needs. I'll continue to peek in as you work and leave more sample edits. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:16, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

It has been a week since my last commentary (again), the article has been under review for five weeks, and there have only been 11 edits, very little change to the article since my last query. Please ask Elcobbola and Ealdgyth to revisit if images and sources have been resolved; there is still a copyedit tag, and MoS issues have not been resolved. I will move to a Remove soon if progress has stalled. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:24, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Remove, three edits the entire month of October, the article still has multiple tags, and work has stalled. The amount of work needed on this article cannot be accomplished at this pace. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:38, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Remove There are too many issues at the moment, and not enough people working on them. I just spent an hour working on the references but abandoned out of frustration, because there are so many conflicting styles being used. We cannot have FAs with cleanup tags on them. Although the specific content seems to be good, there are far too many style issues at the moment. Woody (talk) 08:47, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Closing. This article clearly has issues with regards to the criteria, starting with the lead which doesn't summarize the article. Nothing is happening here and I am taking the removes ahead of the rash of early keeps. Marskell (talk) 12:58, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I really think that this article has improved a lot during ths FAR and is very close to a decent FA now. Disconsidering "Keep" votes above isn't quite fair, especially that editors resolved most of the issues posted here. However, i'm opposing the closing of this review and wish to confirm my keep vote. Before stating that "nothing is happening here", have a look at how this article looked like before the review started, and compare it with its current form. --Eurocopter (talk) 13:19, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment There are still many instances of Peacock words, the Equipment section is a case in point. It's also riddled with grammatical errors. Parrot of Doom (talk) 17:39, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Please stop posting This review has been closed by Marskell, it is awaiting the automatic archiving by Gimme's wonderful bot. Please post any further comments about moving forward to the article talkpage. Regards. Woody (talk) 17:50, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The article was removed by User:Marskell 14:53, 9 October 2008 [15].

Felix the Cat

Review commentary

Notified WP Films, WP Animation, WP Cats, WP Comedy, Pietro Shakarian and Amcaja. Original nominator Lucky 6.9 talk page protected, retired.

A 2004 promotion, this article is largely uncited, needs MoS and WP:ACCESSIBILITY cleanup, and includes external jumps. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:44, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Support removal!!!! Good lord, this is a FA opposite! How the hell did this manage to even make it into the candidate list of acceptable nominations? The majority of the article can be called speculation or original research, very badly referenced so few times. Additionally:

Strong POV issues. I have seen the word 'famous' in there a few times already, one is too much unless it is an extreme case of acceptance (which this is not).

Image:Wooswhoopee02.jpg is about to be deleted.

Far too many nonexistent pages are linked! The page is polluted with red links everywhere. I personally don't like doing or seeing this at all, but it can be a blind issue sometimes. As I said, far too many red links. Quite simple really - if the page doesn't exist, don't wikilink it!

Some layout and format issues are visible. Lead may also be a bit too long. This page is in need of a desperate cleanup! Nowhere near FA status! Domiy (talk) 03:10, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Declarations of keep or remove are not made in the review phase; read the FAR instructions. Additionally, lower standards were held for featured articles in 2004, understandably, since the FA process was very new at the time. Nousernamesleft (talk) 22:52, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I have noted a number of instances of NPOV, a least two dozen redlinks and an image about to be removed, along with a dodgey referencing style that in totality means a redo is in order. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 03:27, 15 September 2008 (UTC).

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are referencing (1c), MoS (2), and POV (1d). Marskell (talk) 16:54, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Weak Keep Thylacinus cynocephalus (talk) 03:29, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Remove. Agree with above comments by SandyGeorgia (talk · contribs) and Domiy (talk · contribs), a lot of this stuff has not been addressed, particularly the referencing issues and cleanup issues. Cirt (talk) 09:47, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Remove Uncited material. External jumps. Minor MoS issues. Images with dubious licences/no sources, e.g. Image:April-maze-copley.jpg. DrKiernan (talk) 12:04, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Remove 1c. YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model) 07:31, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The article was removed by User:Marskell 14:53, 9 October 2008 [16].

Battle of Incheon

Review commentary

WikiProjects notified: Military history, Korea, Korea/Military history. Users notified: BrokenSegue (talk · contribs), Neutrality (talk · contribs), as well as Hongkyongnae (talk · contribs), Donald Albury (talk · contribs), Parsecboy (talk · contribs), Clarityfiend (talk · contribs), Good friend100 (talk · contribs), Rjensen (talk · contribs), Schrandit (talk · contribs)

This article passed FA nearly four years ago (16 December 2004), and underwent a peer review a little over one month later. By the standards we have now, I'm not sure this article passes the featured article criteria.

My main concern is the POV issues. While the article discusses in detail the actions taken by the UN, it doesn't describe what the North Koreans were doing. For example, it describes the planning done by UN forces, but there is no mention of what North Korea was doing in anticipation. Surely North Korean military intelligence had spies to keep them informed on potential attacks. Was North Korea building up fortifications, as only hinted at by the article ("the guerrillas gathered information about […] enemy fortifications" and "the Marines entered Seoul to find it heavily fortified")? Were there campaigns of disinformation to deceive the North Koreans (or vice versa)? This article is written almost entirely from the UN point of view! Granted, there are probably few unbiased North Korean reports of the battle (if any exist), but surely some North Korean POWs, or military officers who later defected, had some different accounts from what is presented here. Even the account of a historian about the North Korean actions—whether the historian be North Korean, South Korean, American, French, Gabonese—might help remove the POV.

Secondary to that, the article hardly contains any inline citations (10 references used a total of 11 times). There are many extra references listed at the bottom, so I don't doubt the information is true, but it is preferred if the facts presented can be attributed to the proper source. Do the people at FAC consider this important?

Finally, the lack of comprehensiveness (aside from the POV issues) is another concern: are "Background", "Battle", "Aftermath", and "Popular culture" really the only aspects to consider? — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 01:30, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for asking for this article to be reviewed, Twas Now. To be frank, this article does not even pass the B-class criteria, imo. There are many statements in the article which I believe should be verified, which I will proceed to highlight with 'citation needed' tags, that are not supported by a source, reliable or otherwise. 10 inline citations is not enough to allow an article to be FA-class.

As for POV, from my study of the battle, I have been informed that there is very little information available regarding North Korea's view of the fight, due to the fact that North Korea has rarely released military information to the outside world. I would like to see an article that balances NK's and the UN's account of the engagement at Incheon, but I do not believe that can be practically achieved. Still, we should still try to get more information on NK's view of the Battle of Incheon, nonetheless.

Regarding comprehensiveness, according to Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Style guide, an article on a battle should have a 'Background', 'Prelude', 'Battle', and 'Aftermath' part. If it meets this recommendation, then I do not believe the article can be faulted regarding its sections. JEdgarFreeman (talk) 17:59, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't expect any official North Korean accounts exist, either. If they do exist, I suspect they would be heavily biased, or probably outright fabrications. Still, it's hard to believe there would be no accounts whatsoever (even US accounts) of what the North Korean army was doing. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 01:50, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment North Korea is such an isolated country (self-imposed) that very little is broadcast about that country. Seeing as how their basic military thought hasn't changed in 60+ years, the U.S. may indeed have information, but are unwilling to share such information with the public because it is still classified. That said, the article is pretty good, but could use a good scrubbing. — BQZip01 — ^talk 17:00, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are POV (1d) and referencing (1c). Marskell (talk) 16:53, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Remove Most of the article is unsourced, especially since it has only 12 inline citations. As a result, this article fails 1c of the FA criteria, and thus it should no longer be listed as an FA-class article. 86.149.61.123 (talk) 18:30, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Right now we aren't deciding if this should be kept or removed. We discuss possible improvements (many have occurred since I started this FAR), but if the issues are not resolved, then the article can be brought to "Featured article removal candidate", where we will vote. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 21:19, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes we are, see what Marskell has initiatied, FARC. -MBK₀₀₄ 21:26, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

The FARC commentary has now started. As a result, 'remove' or 'keep' can now be added. Also, whilst some improvements may have been made to the article, it only has 12 inline citations, only 1 up from when the review was started nearly two weeks ago, and that means that large areas of the article are unsourced. A largely unsourced article does not pass FA criteria 1c, and as a result, it cannot pass the FA criteria. 86.149.61.123 (talk) 23:07, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Remove. The article has been worked on a bit since this FAR started but many of the above issues have not been addressed and some serious referencing issues still remain. Cirt (talk) 09:45, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Remove Citation needed tags need clearing. As I do not read Korean, it is very difficult to assess the copyright status or sources of most of the images. DrKiernan (talk) 11:58, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Remove Lack of citations is clear and I do not believe that the article meets the required level of comprehensiveness. JonCatalán^(Talk) 18:39, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Remove 1c. YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model) 07:32, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The article was removed by User:Marskell 14:53, 9 October 2008 [17].

Absinthe

Review commentary

Notified WP Mixed Drinks, Alanmoss, Nightcafe1, Ari x, Siúnrá, WP Switzerland

Please note the notifications in the FARs immediately below this one, and provide the links accordingly. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:26, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, well, faster to do it myself, but if you nominate another FAR, pls do the notifications. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:45, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Numerous unreferenced statements. It's pointless pointing them out, there are far too many of them. First noticed it in the first section where there are claims of the origin etc. It continued many times throughout the article. Furthermore, it has a couple of single [citation needed] tags, with an entire section needing additional references as per the tags. Furthermore, it has a quality standard tag for another section.

Constant bad layout!. There are some paragraphs which are just a sentence and then skip to the next few paragraphs. The page is, in simple terms, ugly. The 'Production' section squashes text between two large images and there are visible signs of inappropriate use of bold and italic text. And whats with the [NOTE:] things? This isn't good for an encyclopedia. Include as much info as you can in normal text without placing small private messages in brackets or parentheses! Again, there's no use going through and picking out specific parts; it is continuous throughout the entire article!

The 'History' section occurs halfway through the article!!!

Perhaps somebody could check the copyright of these images. I have some small suspicions as to using constant paintings and possibly copyrighted photos repeatedly. I dont know much so this should be just affirmed as legal.

The long quotes from critics etc can be placed normally in quotation marks or maybe even quote boxes if desired. Again, this page is constantly looking very broken and out-of-format. This needs a desperate cleanup and possible copyedit.

And I almost forgot; some few references are lacking, at the very least, publisher information. Some even lack date and author info.

Sorry to edit repeatedly, but I have another further suspicion. I think the references all need checking by appropriate experienced users. I have already stumbled upon some that may be deemed unreliable. Maybe its just me, but who knows. These need to be checked.

Coincidentally enough, I came onto the page in search of information on absinthe. I was somewhat pleased when I saw it was a featured article, but after less than 5 minutes I was stunned, disseminated and speechless as to how this article is possibly still an FA. If you ask me, everyday this article remains as an FA is heavily humiliating the process and criteria for Featured Articles. Domiy (talk) 03:40, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I checked the the images for copyright. Image:Pernodad.jpg lacks the required information and I've nominated it for deletion on Commons. Image:Affiche absinthe.jpg is by Albert Gantner (1866-?), but if we assume that he died before 1938, the image is PD as well. The other images appear to be correctly labeled as PD or as freely licenced. Sandstein 05:32, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with most of the above comments. Frankly I have been dismayed at the number of people who will appear here, fight over a small comment and then leave without touching the many things that needed improvement even when the article was FA quality. Hopefully this review spurns more interest as I just don't have the time anymore to keep things up or to clean up messy sections. I will try to help however :) -- Ari (talk) 06:15, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concern is referencing (1c). Marskell (talk) 16:52, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Remove (sorry Sandy :p) As any issues raised seem to be inactively considered. It looks like the editors of the page don't really care about the article anymore. On top of extreme lack of references, the layout, structure and overall presentation of the article is not appropriate by any standards and can easily be fixed up with time and care. Domiy (talk) 00:04, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

What does "Support" mean? Keep or Remove are the declarations at FAR. You Support Keeping or Removing? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:46, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I also Support. :D The editors don't "not care" but the few that apparently have been keeping the page up have been too busy. As the original editor to push it to FA status, if no one steps up to fix up the page I would vote Remove from the FA list. -- Ari (talk) 16:47, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Remove Agree with Domiy (talk · contribs) and Ari x (talk · contribs), it does not appear that above issues have been addressed. Cirt (talk) 09:43, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The article was removed by User:Marskell 12:04, 6 October 2008 [18].

Rudyard Kipling

Review commentary

Notified Dabbler, ‎WP Children's literature, WP Burma, WP Pakistan, WP India, WP Poetry, WP Books and WP Biography ‎

Rudyard Kipling is a 2004 Brilliant prose promotion, in need of review and tuneup. There are numerous citation tags, some prose issues, very poor image layout, and MoS cleanup needed. The lead is overcited and images may need review. The bottom of the article has taken on some listy cruft. Citation cleanup is needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:10, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments I made some changes with the images to ease the formatting problems in the first section. The major problem is the use of "center" for poems, the overuse of block quotes with images near by, and the excessive image descriptions. This, if done throughout, will ease about 85% of the formatting problems. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:57, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Brief review of the lead by Eubulides

Alas I don't have time now to read the whole article, but here's a brief review of the lead.

The lead's first sentence ~~is unwieldy and~~ does not satisfy the criterion in WP:LEAD #Establish context. It doesn't establish context and it only poorly says why Kipling is notable. Ideally, the lead's first sentence should briefly cover the entire arc of Kipling, including India, his best-known works, his popularity, and criticism over his prejudice/militarism.
The lead should not mention relatively-obscure works like Puck of Pook's Hill, Ulster 1912, Life's Handicap, The Day's Work, and Plain Tales from the Hills. Kipling's fame rests on The Jungle Book, Just So Stories, Kim, individual short stories such as "The Man Who Would Be King", and individual poems like "If—", "Gunga Din" and "Mandalay"; that's enough for the lead.
Poem titles like "If—" and short story titles like "The Man Who Would Be King" should be quoted, not in italics; see MOS:TITLE#Quotation marks.
Agree with SandyGeorgia that the lead is overcited. Try to stick with high-level relatively-noncontroversial stuff here.
The quote "innovator in the art of the short story" is out of place here. Reword using our own words.
The Henry James quote is not that famous. Really. It's not needed in the lead at all.
The Orwell quote is not needed in the lead. Reword using our own words.
The Kerr quote is way too long. Again, this stuff should be reworded in our own words.
Words to avoid: ~~"However".~~ "famously" (if it's in the lead, "famously" is implied).
What I sense from the lead is that there is a reasonably large amount of controversy among Wikipedia editors over Kipling, and that this controversy has been resolved by citing a lot of quotes in a sort of Simon-says style. That kind of style is not prose that is expected for featured articles; see WP:FA? 1a, which says the prose should be "engaging, even brilliant". Alas, this lead feels like it was written by a bickering committee.

Eubulides (talk) 17:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Swastika

Is the section about the swastika really important? --I'm an Editor of the wiki^{[citation needed]} 20:20, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

A whole section certainly seems very odd. A mention somewhere might be nice (I remember being alarmed as a child when I saw the books). Perhaps one could work it in to a couple of sentences on his views on the Nazis. N p holmes (talk) 07:23, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

As one of the people who contributed to the Swastika section, I think that it should remain because before it was in place in its current form there were lots of comments/edits about Kipling's supposed Nazi sympathies mentioning the swastika. Also as N p holmes has pointed out, it was significant in his experience of Kipling when he came across it. Dabbler (talk) 10:51, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Problems

The introduction is a mess: the second sentence is a classic example of Wikiprose (shoehorning of a biographical detail into a sentence devoted to other matter, Borgesian category schemes). The biography seems reasonable, but we don't get much clue to what the major works were about or why they were interesting. The treatment of his reputation is bad: broad brush positions that it's hard to believe anyone could hold supplied without citations; the same material reappearing at different points in the article. N p holmes (talk) 08:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Image problems

The claim of fair use for images of Sukh Niwas Palace, Kipling House, Naulakha and Poet's Corner (Image:Bundi palace1990.jpg, Image:Kiplinghouse villiers steet.jpg, Image:Naulakha fall.jpg, Image:Kipling poetscorner.jpg) are dubious because those buildings still exist, so it is possible just to go there and take a picture.
The claim of fair use for Image:Plaque theirnamelivethforevermore.jpg is far too weak. We don't need a picture for the use of a phrase.
Image:Kipling funeral1936.jpg lacks a source.
~~As there are two images of swastikas, the fair-use one *must* go since it can be replaced easily with a free-use image. Consequently, I have deleted it.~~ DrKiernan (talk) 08:55, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are referencing (1c), prose (1a), MoS (2), and images (3). Marskell (talk) 11:25, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Remove Comments not addressed, for the most part. DrKiernan (talk) 14:47, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Remove. Agree with DrKiernan (talk · contribs) that many issues from above remain unaddressed. Cirt (talk) 11:00, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

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

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
+Pages are moved to sub-archives based on their nomination date, not closure date.
-{{merge|AIG}}
-{{underconstruction}}
+See the [[Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/archive]] for nominations under the previous FARC process.
-AIG Financial Products is a subsidiary of [[AIG]], based in London.   [[Joseph Cassano]] helped start the group in 1987.
+==Archives==
-AIGFP's trading in credit derivatives led to enormous losses, (...).
+<!-- All numbers updated to account for month FAR closed, with the exception of June. -->
+* [[/to June 8 2006]] (previous FAR process)
-== External links ==
+* [[/June 2006]] (5 kept, 4 removed, combined old and new process)
-* [http://www.aigfp.com/ AIG Financial Products] home page.
+* [[/July 2006]] (7 kept, 16 removed)
+* [[/August 2006]] (11 kept, 21 removed)
+* [[/September 2006]] (10 kept, 24 removed)
+* [[/October 2006]] (9 kept, 21 removed)
+* [[/November 2006]] (5 kept, 30 removed)
+* [[/December 2006]] (6 kept, 17 removed)
+* [[/January 2007]] (13 kept, 24 removed)
+* [[/February 2007]] (11 kept, 18 removed)
+* [[/March 2007]] (12 kept, 17 removed)
+* [[/April 2007]] (10 kept, 17 removed)
+* [[/May 2007]] (11 kept, 23 removed)
+* [[/June 2007]] (6 kept, 9 removed)
+* [[/July 2007]] (11 kept, 17 removed)
+* [[/August 2007]] (10 kept, 14 removed)
+* [[/September 2007]] (9 kept, 15 removed)
+* [[/October 2007]] (7 kept, 13 removed)
+* [[/November 2007]] (7 kept, 12 removed)
+* [[/December 2007]] (8 kept, 13 removed)
+* [[/January 2008]] (14 kept, 9 removed)
+* [[/February 2008]] (11 kept, 10 removed)
+* [[/March 2008]] (8 kept, 16 removed)
+* [[/April 2008]] (12 kept, 10 removed)
+* [[/May 2008]] (4 kept, 16 removed)
+* [[/June 2008]] (12 kept, 14 removed)
+* [[/July 2008]] (10 kept, 8 removed)
+* [[/August 2008]] (9 kept, 12 removed)
+* [[/September 2008]] (17 kept, 18 removed)
+__ToC__
-== References ==
+==Kept status==
+{{Wikipedia:Featured article review/Schizophrenia}}
-* [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/28/business/28melt.html Behind Insurer’s Crisis, Blind Eye to a Web of Risk], New York Times, September 27, 2008.
+{{Wikipedia:Featured article review/Chelsea F.C./archive1}}
-* [http://www.forbes.com/2008/09/28/croesus-aig-credit-biz-cx_rl_0928croesus.html Why Wasn't AIG Hedged?], Forbes, September 28, 2008.
+{{Wikipedia:Featured article review/Half-Life 2/archive1}}
-* [http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=abA6LSQ.3KPM&refer=home AIG Former Auditor Warned About Derivative Valuation in 2007], Bloomberg News, October 11, 2008.
+{{Wikipedia:Featured article review/Death Valley National Park/archive1}}
+{{Wikipedia:Featured article review/The Adventures of Tintin/archive2}}
+{{Wikipedia:Featured article review/Aaron Sorkin/archive1}}
+==Removed status==
-{{American International Group}}
+{{Wikipedia:Featured article review/2004 Indian Ocean earthquake/archive1}}
+{{Wikipedia:Featured article review/Battle of the Bulge/archive1}}
+{{Wikipedia:Featured article review/The West Wing/archive1}}
+{{Wikipedia:Featured article review/Russian Ground Forces/archive1}}
+{{Wikipedia:Featured article review/Felix the Cat/archive1}}
+{{Wikipedia:Featured article review/Battle of Incheon/archive1}}
+{{Wikipedia:Featured article review/Absinthe/archive1}}
+{{Wikipedia:Featured article review/Rudyard Kipling/archive1}}