Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article review/archive: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Marskell (talk | contribs)
22,422 edits
→Kept status: archive 1
Marskell (talk | contribs)
22,422 edits
→Kept status: archive
Line 49: Line 49:


==Kept status==
==Kept status==
{{Wikipedia:Featured article review/Kylie Minogue/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article review/City of Manchester Stadium/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article review/City of Manchester Stadium/archive1}}


Revision as of 22:22, 20 September 2009

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.

Archives

Kept status

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

The article was kept by Marskell 22:22, 20 September 2009 [1].

Kylie Minogue

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

FARC commentary

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

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

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

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

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

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

The article was kept by Marskell 23:30, 15 September 2009 [3].

City of Manchester Stadium

Review commentary

WikiProjects notified

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

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

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

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

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

FARC commentary

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

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

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

<edit conflict>

  • <groan> This is the curse of the internet era. i have corrected one URL, and found an alternative source for a second. My view for the remaining four is as follows: delete the fact and ref for the claim that the poll showed it was UK's second most popular ground. I don't know how reliable the source was in the first place, and in the long run who cares about a reader poll in 2005 or whenever it was. The others: these were valid media releases from the Club, and their retrieval dates are shown. The Club appears simply to no longer retain old releases on its site. That doesn't make the release invalid. It was a real piece of info from a reliable source at the time. Remove the URL, and leave it as an offline source. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:49, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • How are you defining "problematic links"? What's the problem you've identified? --Malleus Fatuorum 23:09, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wouldn't presume that it is, nor that it is a solution to all of the world's ills but it does helps to fix links rather than tag them. Instead of focusing on its shortcomings I encourage you to use the inbuilt tools to help fix broken links. Woody (talk) 23:16, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh and you were wrong about the Arup link: <Quote>:"2003: Institute of Structural Engineers, Special Structural Award; 2003: Structural Steel Design Award; 2003: Building Services Awards, Major Project of the Year; 2002: British Construction Industry Award "</Quote> Woody (talk) 23:16, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I define problematic links as links that go to a site that does not contain the referenced material. The link checker is often inaccurate, and often its suggestions for a fix are inaccurate. —mattisse (Talk) 00:15, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Woody, I'm not familiar with the operation of the tool to which you refer, but I'm with Mattisse I think - first, the Arup link is now OK because I changed it to a new address - I must have forgotten to remove an alert tag, sorry. On the others: they linked to valid web addresses, but the facts in the article were not found at that address, and my attempts to search the relevant site for them failed to turn up the cited media releases (as outlined above). hamiltonstone (talk) 00:24, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, it wasn't you, check the diffs. Matise added it after you had made your edits and I presume the website didn't update itself in the hour between that edit and my check. In terms of checklinks, I use to add links to the webarchive/wayback machine. Using it I have recovered those press statements that you talk about. It is quite easy to use when you get the hang of it. Regards, Woody (talk) 00:39, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Checklinks does not provide suggestions it only provides information on what's going on with the link. Only tools for manipulation of links. The tool was originally designed mass link fixing and included analysis on how redirects behaved. An interface redesign has been sorely needed, but I haven't found a good design for it. Also, related to this article I've fixed a bug in commonfixes that cause Wayback links containing single '{' and '}' to be treated as the end of template when correcting url=/archiveurl= links. — Dispenser 22:14, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Significant work has been done on the article, and it appears that the problems raised in the FAR have been addressed. After reading the article, I don't have any significant questions about the subject, so I think it does a good job of explanation. Good work! JKBrooks85 (talk) 07:39, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as someone who has done some work on this. Frankly. I don't think it needed to get to FARC but that is my opinion. I think all of the little niggles with sourcing have been rectified now and this article complies with all of the FA criteria. Woody (talk) 08:59, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Wasn't in bad shape when the FAR started, and it still meets FA criteria with the recent improvements. One picky thing: two Gary James books are listed in the references, but only one is actually used in the cites. Giants2008 (17–14) 00:29, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like one got mislabelled when some ref formatting was tweaked. Now fixed. Oldelpaso (talk) 15:28, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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 YellowAssessmentMonkey 00:53, 14 September 2009 [4].

Thomas Pynchon

Review commentary

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

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

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

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

FARC commentary

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

    The article was removed by YellowAssessmentMonkey 00:40, 11 September 2009 [5].

    Final Fantasy IV

    Review commentary

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

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

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

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

    Siliconera is owned by Crave Online, so it should be fine as a source. The others though are another story.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 13:05, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I've stricken Siliconera. The Prince (talk) 13:07, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding the unreliable sources, I changed the publisher in Chudah's Corner to Square, which originally published the liner notes in the soundtrack (which is the real object being cited), and left the url to Chudah's Corner as a convenience translation (which is acceptable in WP:VG, since as in this case, a lot of good information is in Japanese, and readers enjoy being able to read a translation at leisure). The things FFCompendium and Neoseeker are citing seem like they could stand without references, so someone can remove those. ZeaLitY [ DREAM - REFLECT ] 17:58, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Formatted those last 2 refs. --PresN 19:28, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Agree with the above comments by Prince. Examples:
    • The "Plot" section, with its three subsections (Setting, Characters, Story) is way too long and mind-numbingly complex for the general reader who may not be familiar with it. Needs to be more succinct.
    • The "Development" section, normally one of the most crucial in game article, is extremely sparse and does not set the stage. The reader learns nothing about the people behind the games development, or the process, relationship to other games, etc. (other than the info regarding the audio).
    • The "Versions and re-releases" section is very long and detailed; it overwhelms the rest of the article.
    • "Merchandise" should be removed or added to, as it has and {{expand}} tag.
    • Just curious what this means: one of the sources says, " All in all, Final Fantasy IV is a solid and ground-breaking RPG, which also brought about the end of an era in gaming."[6] What end of an era did it bring about? Perhaps more is needed as to the game's place in game history. —mattisse (Talk) 16:54, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    FARC commentary

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

    The article was removed by YellowAssessmentMonkey 00:40, 11 September 2009 [7].

    Norman Borlaug

    Review commentary

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

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

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

    Here are a couple of recent sources I suggest looking at:
    No doubt there are others. Eubulides (talk) 04:21, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for that. I'll start working on this article after I finish up with George F. Kennan. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 14:25, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    FARC commentary

    Suggested FA criteria concern are citations, prose, alt text. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. FAQ? YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 00:39, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I've taken this into account YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 05:40, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was removed by Marskell 23:19, 4 September 2009 [8].

    History of New Jersey

    Review commentary

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

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

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

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

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

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

    FARC commentary

    Suggested FA criteria concern are citations, comprehensiveness, alt text. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. FAQ? YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 00:38, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was removed by Marskell 23:19, 4 September 2009 [9].

    Louisville, Kentucky

    Review commentary

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

    Article fails more than one criteria:

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

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

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

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

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

    FARC commentary

    Suggested FA criteria concern are citations, comprehensiveness, undue weight, alt text. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. FAQ? YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 02:36, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was removed by YellowAssessmentMonkey 00:47, 1 September 2009 [10].

    Médecins Sans Frontières

    Review commentary

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

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

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

    FARC commentary

    Suggested FA criteria concern are citations, comprehensiveness, reliable sources (bias?), citations, alt text. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. FAQ? YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 01:53, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was removed by YellowAssessmentMonkey 00:47, 1 September 2009 [11].

    Franklin B. Gowen

    Review commentary

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

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

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

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

    FARC commentary

    Suggested FA criteria concern are citations, lead, alt text. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. FAQ?
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was removed by YellowAssessmentMonkey 00:47, 1 September 2009 [12].

    Sequence alignment

    Review commentary

    Notified: Opabinia regalis, WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology

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

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

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

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

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

    FARC commentary

    Suggested FA criteria concern are citations, alt text. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. FAQ? YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 01:55, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was removed by YellowAssessmentMonkey 00:47, 1 September 2009 [13].

    Yuan (surname)

    Review commentary

    Notified: WikiProject China

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

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

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

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

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

    FARC commentary

    Suggested FA criteria concern are citations, prose, alt text. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. FAQ? YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 00:37, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was removed by YellowAssessmentMonkey 00:47, 1 September 2009 [14].

    Baby Gender Mentor

    Review commentary

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    • I've never thought this was a particularly brilliant article -- good, and maybe good enough, but with odd flaws. For example, ref [32] is to Pamela Prindle Fierro. "Vanishing Twin Syndrome". About.com. [17] Why the heck are we citing About.com for the percentage of pregnancies that involve vanishing twins? Can't we cite proper papers or medical textbooks? Or is this statistic so generally rejected that we have to stoop to what is essentially a self-published source? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:33, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note It is very unfortunate that the editor is working on the version of the page that reverted the links marked {{deadlink}} and links marked {{Failed verification}} and {{rs}}. These included many named references that were repeatedly cited. The editor should agree to check the this version before declaring that these link problems have been rectified. Altogether, approximately 40 citations fell into these categories. Many links are to unreliable or irrelevant sources. I don't understand all the links to the "vanishing twin" issue. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 19:21, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sample of dead or dysfunctional or misleading links:
    • Many sources are unreliable or have very limited reliability, and some are used repeatedly. Examples:
    • Some sources are irrelevant:

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

    FARC commentary

    Suggested FA criteria concern are citations, alt text. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. FAQ? YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 02:37, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delist per above concerns (many, many "[dead link]" and "[not in citation given]" links; editor reverted the tags[18] without fixing problems); too many links to commercial sites; concerns about source quality). I don't understand the many reference citations to the "vanishing twin" issue, at least three to PMID articles. What is the relevance to the apparently fraudulant Baby Gender Mentor? Seems at best like WP:UNDUEWEIGHT. —Mattisse (Talk) 16:42, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Not sure it looks too bad at first glance - is work still being done actively on this? Cirt (talk) 06:05, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I have gone through the article once again and marked the many, many {{deadlink}} and {{failed verification}} tags. Before when I did this, the tags were reverted without the article being fixed. I don't think anyone but me has really checked the article out and looked at the citations. I am at a loss how this article ever passed FAC to begin with. It has a lot of seemingly relevant (but actually irrelevant to the topic) information to give it a clothing of respectability, like so many links on the "vanishing twin" stuff. Basically, this is an article about a fraudulent product. Please check that the numerous faulty links (which I have checked individually) are actually fixed and not just reverted without fixing.[19] Also, there are links to blogs and old {{verification needed}} tags in the article. Many links are to the company sites and to press releases. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:20, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delist per Matisse's comments. A lot of tags need to be repaired, but I think it can be done. JKBrooks85 (talk) 02:50, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was removed by YellowAssessmentMonkey 00:47, 1 September 2009 [20].

    Douglas Adams

    Review commentary

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    FARC commentary

    Suggested FA criteria concern are citations, reliable sources, comprehensiveness, quality of research, structure alt text. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. FAQ? YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 02:31, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was removed by YellowAssessmentMonkey 00:47, 1 September 2009 [21].

    Stanisław Koniecpolski

    Review commentary

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

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

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

    FARC commentary

    Suggested FA criteria concern are citations, alt text. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. FAQ? YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 02:39, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Hold on. It's summer - activity is bound to be sporadic. A good bit of citing has already been done but then I had to take ten days off for real life reasons. I can now resume work on this.radek (talk) 10:45, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks!radek (talk) 23:53, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Also it would be helpful if someone could fact tag [citation needed] all the text that needs to be referenced. In several cases multiple sentences can be sourced to the same ref but I'm not sure if I need to inline after every comma (if one's familiar with the person one might miss a need for a ref). This would make the work easier and direct my efforts to where they need to go.radek (talk) 23:57, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • To try to help out a bit, I added a toolbox to the upper right corner of this review page. For example, you can visit its "alt text" tool to find out the alt text problems I mentioned above. Eubulides (talk) 00:07, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delist The article is riddled with citation tags and the alt text has not been added. There are also prose concerns (random examples):
    • Stanisław Koniecpolski lived a life that involved almost constant warfare, and during his military career he won many victories.
    • With inferior forces fought the Swedish forces of Gustavus Adolphus to a stalemate in Prussia.
    • In 1615 and 1616, Koniecpolski gained experience in Ukraine fighting against Tatar hordes, but he failed to break or capture any sizable enemy units.
    • Soon afterward, Koniecpolski was defeated by the Tatars near Oryn, where he made a mistake of charging in front of his army against overwhelming odds and consequently barely made it out of the battle alive.
    • They returned to Poland in spring 1623 during the aftermath of the Ottoman defeat at Khotyn and the stabilization of Polish-Ottoman relations that was helped by the diplomatic mission of Krzysztof Zbaraski which bought the freedom of captives for 30,000 talars.
    • He also repelled a counterattack by Swedish raitars, who were pushed in the direction of Pułkowice, where another counterattack was led by Gustavus Adolphus with 2,000 raitars. This counterattack was also stopped, and the Swedish forces were saved by the last reserve units led by field marshal Herman Wrangel, who managed to stop the Polish attack.

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

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/archive&oldid=315181763"