Wikipedia:Featured article review
This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article "Wikipedia:Featured_article_review".

Featured article reviews

W. Mark Felt

Have Notified:

• PedanticallySpeaking - the editor who originally nominated this article;
• WikiProjectBiography Here;
• WikiProjectFBI Here; and
• WikiProjectLawEnforcement Here

factually accurate Article needs a lot of work to keep up with current historical thinking. Specifically, Ed Gray and John Dean have both argued that Mark Felt could not possibly have been the only person to be Deep Throat, Gray even names another person that must have contributed to the Deep Throat we see in All The President's Men. For a summary of what I'm talking about, you can see the "composite character theory" section on the Deep Throat page. For details, you can look here[1] and here[2].

In this light, we see that much of this article depends on the idea the Felt = Deep Throat. At the very least, the sections on how Felt and Woodward stayed in contact need to be re-worked to recognize at least the possibility that when Woodward writes in All the Preseident's Men about how he contacted Deep Throat, he is not necessarily talking about Felt. And I think a new section should be added to talk about how Felt may not necessarily be the only Deep Throat out there. (Morethan3words (talk) 04:43, 25 July 2008 (UTC))

Alright, so the main issues here are factual accuracy (FA criterion 1c) and comprehensiveness (FA criterion 1b), correct? Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 12:58, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, yes, thanks, that's correct. (Morethan3words (talk) 08:02, 26 July 2008 (UTC))

Hydrochloric acid

Notified WikiProject Chemicals, Wimvandorst, Cacycle, Edgar181, Walkerma, Physchim62.

This article was promoted to FA status in April 2005. However, it does not meet current FA standards, namely criterion 1c (references). Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 13:43, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Please be more specific, otherwise you will only be creating WikiDrama, not helping to improve articles. Physchim62 (talk) 15:39, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I thought the same when I saw the very brief nomination, but after looking at the article I think the nominator is right. The article is almost completely unreferenced, and there is absolutely no chance that it would pass a featured article candidacy today in its current form. --Itub (talk) 15:47, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Physchim62, I thought it was pretty self-explanatory. FA criterion 1c: "(c) factually accurate: claims are verifiable against reliable sources, accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge, and are supported with specific evidence and external citations; this requires a "References" section in which sources are listed, complemented by inline citations where appropriate;" This article is almost completely unreferenced, therefore it fails 1c. Regarding your edit summary, I keep my comments brief. I've written two lines for other FAR noms and no one else has complained. Perhaps you should take a look at WP:FAR. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 15:55, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I've been thinking to nominate this for a review since putting it on my watchlist some months ago, but have been hesitant due to the fact that nominators are asked to provide help in improving the article. That said, the one area that should be completely referenced is the History section. I believe just by having looked over the rest of the article that it is easily verifiable (college textbooks and what not should serve) and should have inline references as per the nomination.

I would also say the prose could be spruced up, for what little there is of it. --Izno (talk) 16:50, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

The prose needs tidying up. Some points don't appear to make any sense. For example, the boiling points depend on "the concentration or molarity of HCl in the acid solution. They can range from those of water at 0% HCl" Huh? Surely 0% HCl is water? DrKiernan (talk) 10:52, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Eifel Aqueduct

Notified WP Germany and WP Architecture, principle editor no longer active.

A 2004 promotion, this article is lacking citations and needs a MOS tuneup and images check. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:35, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Iowa class battleship

• Notified: Milhist, Ships, Bellhalla, MBK004, Bschorr

There are not enough words in the English language to impart to the community the extent to which I really do not want this article up on FARC, but its been three long years since the article was presented here, and much has changed in that time both on the article itself and in the FA/FAC procedures and standards that we now hold such articles to. It is with much difficulty today that I finally managed to find the courage to place this article here, with the recognition that as the user who has worked on it the most these last three years, including its initial run through FAC back in '05, I am in all probability the user who will work the hardest to ensure the article stays at FA class.

Thanks in part to those of you who commented during the Montana class battleship FAC, I know for an absolute fact that some of the articles source are of questionable value (FA criterion 1c), and I am aware that in the three years since the article was at FARC both weasel and peacock words have wiggled back into the article. Aside from adding specific examples here for my benefit, I need to know what else needs to be done to ensure the article remains top notch. I am in summer school at the moment, so if I appear slow to respond here please be patient with me, in all probability I am occupied with school work, but I intended to throw my all into this after summer school ends (about the first week of August). TomStar81 (Talk) 02:52, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, the need to maintain this article to the FA standards is made more important by the fact that this subject (the class of battleships) is about to become a Featured Topic once two more articles attain FA status. -MBK₀₀₄ 02:55, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

• Here goes what I can turn up, but be warned that I may not be the most level-headed when dealing with this article since I've tried to maintain it. -MBK₀₀₄ 06:17, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

  ...tell me about it ;-)

  • Keeping up on current events, the section on reactivation potential and the Zumwalt-class destroyers needs to go under a microscope because of the recent announcement that the Zumwalt class will only have two vessels because of costs. Hence, what are the effects to the NGFS picture? Also, thinking about the summary style of the article, it might be about time to split this section out to its own article. If it isn't at that point, it will be shortly because of these recent events.
    • This latest move by Navy with regards to the DDX will likely impact the upcoming National Defense Authorization Act, if it does, then we can break out the section and building it into an independent article. At the moment though the descion to stop construction at two DDX destroyers doesn't directly impact the Iowa's, though I suspect that will change soon.
      • Ok, I did a little digging on the Zumwalt class and it appears from the wording in the NDAA that at the moment the DDX program is being suspended to that the CNO can review his options; at the same time it appears that the USN has reversed its postion on the DDG-51's and is now considering constructing additional DDG-51 class destroyers. Taken as a whole this seems to be a good indicator that the DDX progam is dead, but I think a wait and see aproach here may be best to ensure accuracy.
  • Make sure that each paragraph in the History section has at least one reference (some don't have any), and more than two would be ideal. Also, try to merge the short paragraphs together (remember what they taught you in Comp I at university about paragraphs, multiple sentences).
  • Article could use a thorough copyedit by someone who hasn't seen the prose before.
  • I know it will be tough, but the Engineering plant could use more references and I know I'm beating a dead horse but that section is rather thin overall compared to the armament and history.
    • Looking into it. This one's kinda hard becuase I can not find any online sources to start with, but I do have the library so I can check there. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:00, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
      • I will take a look as well, since I might have something here in my collection. -MBK₀₀₄ 03:14, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I may add some more bullets later if I see some other things. -MBK₀₀₄ 06:17, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• I won't list all the spots where the references lack page numbers, etc., but they need to be addressed.
• Some MOS issues with webpage links having all capitals (picky, yes, I know) Curly quotes used for block quotations
  • I put the quotes in curly boxes to compensate for the lack of pictures in the section, and becuase the original quote boxes I had unexpectedly got xfd'd. I can go shopping for a better quote box if you like.
• Numbers of web page references lacking publishers and or last access date. I'm pretty sure that some of the sources may have authors/other bibliographical information known also.
• The following sources may be dodgy:
  • http://www.factplace.com/index.html
  • http://www.navweaps.com/ (I can't remember what was decided about this site at the last FAC I questioned it at! Oops!)
    • This one has been cleared for use on wikipedia after being checked by the people at the reliable sources noticeboard.
  • http://www.voodoo.cz/battleships/usa/iowa.html
  • http://www.hazegray.org/ (Likewise can't remember what was decided... oops!)
  • http://www.microworks.net/pacific/
    • A print reference for http://www.microworks.net/pacific/road_to_war/london_treaty.htm is now provided; this link was left in as a convenience copy (my spot checks seemed to show a reliable transcription). — Bellhalla (talk) 07:10, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Don;t know about this link yet: http://www.microworks.net/pacific/ships/battleships/iowa.htm — Bellhalla (talk) 07:10, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
  • http://www.daveswarbirds.com/usplanes/american.htm
  • http://unsd.macrossroleplay.org/iowaclassbattleship.html
  • http://www.nmc.edu/~mhochscheidt/STEAM%20NOTEBOOK/sstg.htm
    • This is not for a citation. It is for further information on the SSTG; note has been updated to reflect. — Bellhalla (talk) 20:04, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
  • http://www.warships1.com/?prvtof=8b2VkUqfXDCVzkFctB15NB9VVMbzDwLYa2vD44pnnR%2FbbIzD12rZAHUS
  • http://home.comcast.net/~shipsoftheusn/
• http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/pre-war/1922/nav_lim.html is from a printed book, list it as such. And likewise for any such books/websites
  • Updated to reflect book title, page numbers, etc. — Bellhalla (talk) 03:07, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
• http://brokenlink.mst.edu/cgi-bin/cgiwrap/brklink/handler.pl/web.umr.edu/~rogersda/american&military_history/World is a dead ref doing a redirect. Double check all your web links for redirects to not found pages.
  • Included archivedate/archiveurl to fix broken link — Bellhalla (talk) 03:07, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
• http://books.google.com/books?id=HH_VZID81rkC&pg=PA96&lpg=PA96&dq=mastiff+uss+new+jersey&source=web&ots=tgOP85ETmW&sig=8WbIg2rvNLa-PQpV9tPEvS8W6C0 is a book and needs to be listed as such. Generally, I don't favor using google book snippets to source articles, its too easy to miss context with the preview restrictions.
  • Updated using {{cite book}} (eliminated URL to Google books) — Bellhalla (talk) 20:02, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
• You've mixed using the Template:Citation with the templates that start with Cite such as Template:Cite journal or Template:Cite news. They shouldn't be mixed per WP:CITE#Citation templates.
  • This has been fixed now, I believe. — Bellhalla (talk) 15:55, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
• Generally, I see an overreliance on web sources to the detriment of printed sources. Nothing wrong with using printed sources. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:05, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Trying to handle that, albeit slowly. Will continue to work on it. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:00, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments

1. Dump the pop culture section, all this does is attract people to add more silly entries. Try to work the more important mentions into the article if they directly effected the subject ie: Missouri in a movie and not one of the ships in a video game etc. If it won't fit in the article, dump it.

   Not nessicarly, there are very strict guidelines in a hidden notice at the top of the page explicitly outline what can and con not go into the section. So far, the notices has worked as intended by redirecting attempted inclusion to the talk page first. None the less I will look into removing the section via the suggested methodes.

Please read some of the recently passed FA's that Bellhalla wrote. They're nicely done and introduce pop culture topics in a way that remains encyclopedic and doesn't attract people into adding references about GI Joe cartoons (the bane of my existence over at Constitution) This saves the effort of having to explain over and over again to people trying to insert trivia. --Brad (talk) 20:26, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

1. For all of the DANFS citations use <ref name="Ship">{{cite DANFS|title=|url=|accessdate=}}</ref> it creates uniformity in the references.

   Done. — Bellhalla (talk) 20:05, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

2. In the references section use: <ref name="NAME">{{cite book|id=ISBN|title=|last=|first=|publisher=|year=}}</ref> for the same reason as 2.

   This has been addressed with the exception of one source (noted on article talk page). — Bellhalla (talk) 02:19, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

3. Dispense with the Discovery Channel as a major source.

   Actually, it was (originally) added to cite two statements, but as with the pop culture section I can scrap it if the need arises. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:00, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

4. Use the ability of the infobox to have separate sections for the various changes it went through over the years.

--Brad (talk) 20:28, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

1. Here are some book sources: Battleship Missouri : an illustrated history ISBN: 1557507805, The complete encyclopedia of battleships : A technical directory of capital ships from 1860 to the present day ISBN: 0517378108, Mighty Mo, the U.S.S. Missouri : a biography of the last battleship Newell, Gordon R. ; The Iowa class battleships : Iowa, New Jersey, Missouri & Wisconsin ISBN: 0806983388, Battleships of World War Two : an international encyclopedia ISBN: 185409386X , American battleships : a pictorial history of BB-1 to BB-71, with prototypes Maine & Texas ISBN: 1575100045, U.S. battleships : an illustrated design history ISBN: 0870217151 , Battleships of the U.S. Navy in World War II ISBN: 0517234513 , United States battleships in World War II ISBN: 0870210998 ,

--Brad (talk) 20:28, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I own a few of these if you need access for page numbers and verification, see: User:MBK004/Library. -MBK₀₀₄ 03:14, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments by doncram
(numbering to allow easier reading; this is really just one comment:)

1. What attracts my attention is the use of DANFS material and the very small text note This article includes text from the public domain Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships. at the very end of the references section. I think that the incorporation of public domain text into the article, with this small disclaimer, undermines the quality of this otherwise great and obviously well-researched and well-sourced article.
2. There is now only a guideline on plagiarism in draft form, and no explicit policy yet, in wikipedia on this issue. I am one who believes that any appearance of plagiarism is worth taking steps to avoid, and I hope that discussion here will eventually provide more explicit policy for featured and less-refined wikipedia articles. I think it should give specific guidelines that public domain sources should be treated like any other, with the important exception that very long quotes from PD text are possible, unlike for other sources where only shorter passages can be quoted under "fair use" rules.
3. I, and at least some others, believe that "incorporating" public domain text into an article without use of quotation marks and other treatment that is necessary for referencing non-public domain text is not good practice in general, and I further believe that it should be disallowed in featured articles. Although great swathes of wikipedia were built by pasting in public domain texts such as from the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica, it is also believed by some that there were mistakes in doing that, or that was a different time, and there is sentiment that different practices are needed.
4. One way that it compromises the value of wikipedia articles, that I focus upon, is that it makes others' reliance upon the articles difficult. How is a scholarly work, or a student term paper, supposed to cite a featured wikipedia article, as of a certain date, of mixed sourcing? With the public domain incorporation, it is not correct to cite the collective wikipedia editorship as being the author of some pithy phrase; the phrase may well have been the exact wording of the public domain text that should be credited instead. A conscientious consumer would need to understand the significance of the public domain disclaimer at the bottom of the article, and go and explore all of the DANFS articles mentioned, in order to ferret out how to credit properly any quote from the wikipedia article. This is an unreasonable burden, and it would be costly to try to educate those who would be conscientious of the necessary machinations.
5. Because I have analysed other ship articles, I am in a position to understand the meaning of the fine print notice, and to link that to the occurrences of DANFS mention within specific references further above. Without performing an exhaustive review, I believe that use of DANFS material is located in only a few locations in the article, specifically at the four instances of footnote 30, and the single instances of footnotes 40, 42, 44, 45, and 49. These are 9 instances from 5 footnotes out of a total of 110 footnotes in the article. It is possible that directly copied passages of DANFS material existed at those locations at one time, but have been combed over and revised so much that they are no longer recognizable as DANFS quotes. So it is also possible that only a very little editing would be required to treat the DANFS material like any other source (adding a quote or two of any particularly apt phrases, and rewording some other passages to avoid using DANFS's words).
6. I ask that the wikipedia editor, revising this article, give some consideration to the value of avoiding different treatment of the DANFS source material, and consider revising the article to allow fair removal of the small-print template about DANFS use. doncram (talk) 21:43, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

• I have been reworking some of the references for this article and am not the article creator, nor was I involved in its writing. Given that, I don't know that the {{DANFS}} template is even appropriate on this article. In the Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships (DANFS), there generally are not articles about ship classes, so I'm not sure why the tag is in place. Specific information about each ship in this article is cited to each ship's entry in DANFS.
• With that said, making an accusation of plagiarism beating around the bush with hints of (and the implication of) plagiarism in this article is a pretty extreme example of not assuming good faith on your part. If you have specific instances of plagiarism in this article, please list them so they may be corrected. Otherwise, please strike your comment, because it is entirely inappropriate. You and I (and others), have butted heads before over the use of attributed public domain text in Wikipedia. I am aware of your positions on the issue, and believe that they are against the general consensus in the Wikipedia project. Those discussion are best held in appropriate fora, and not here, where we are reviewing the featured status of this article. — Bellhalla (talk) 22:22, 25 July 2008 (UTC) 12:18, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

(thread edited for clarity - complete thread as of 05:03 26 July 2008 is at the FAR talk page) Franamax (talk) 05:28, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

So the question here seems pretty simple: has the copy-pasted PD text been substantially rewritten to the point that the general reference is no longer required? Note that this extends beyond just the original wording to the original structure of the text. Also note that words such as "battleship" and "campaign" do not qualify as original wording, and simple timeline descriptions do not need attribution to the original PD authors. So what is left? Are there distinctive phrases remaining from the PD source, like "the old lady tiredly went once more forth to battle"? Is there a distinctive structure to the text that was copied from the PD source, telling a story rather than laying out temporal facts? If not, the footnote attributing to DANFS -IMO- should be removed - it has no justification. If those distinctive traces remain, they should be individually identified for purposes of FA review. Franamax (talk) 01:02, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Simply put, the answer to your question is yes, but I believe the cites to DANFS need to remain in. Understand that this article is part of a series, drawing material from each of the other six battleships for the ships section. Right now we could remove the {{DANFS}} template, but not the cites to the individual DANFS ships histories; as that would be in itself a form of plagerism by dening the role that DANFS material had in the building of the ship section. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:19, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I was just suggesting removal of the general DANFS template disclaimer, if there is no longer any use of "incorporated" but unquoted text. I was not suggesting removal of the separate DANFS references that support the facts. doncram (talk) 05:03, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the {{DANFS}} template from the article. Does this meet your request? TomStar81 (Talk) 05:35, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. I accept completely that your familiarity with the current text removes any need to perform the kind of automated cross-checking that I was offering to perform, and I am glad of that as it would not really have been very easy to do. doncram (talk) 05:52, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments 2 by doncram

• The formulas for speed and for capital ship speed in the article are interesting, but lack units. Is it speed in terms of knots per hour, as a function of ship length measured in feet? Depending on the units of measure used, the constant in the formula would be different. I kinda like how succinct the statements are in the article proper, without getting bogged down in what are the units involved, so perhaps the clarification --perhaps with a relevant example on the scale of one of these ships-- should be in the footnotes. doncram (talk) 07:58, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
• I find the following passage convoluted, and wonder if it represents some unfortunate compromise:

"When firing two broadside per minute a single Iowa-class battleship can put 36,000 pounds (16,000 kg) of ordnance on a target per minute, a figure that can only be matched (and in some cases beaten) by a single B-52 Stratofortress of the United States Air Force,[53] which can carry up to 60,000 pounds (27,000 kg) of bombs, missiles, and mines, or any combination thereof." I assume the main point is that the Iowa-class battleship can deliver 36,000 pounds of ordnance in one minute, and in the next minute and the one after, while a B-52 can only do it at that rate for 1.6667 minutes and then it is done. Perhaps something like: "When firing two broadside per minute a single Iowa-class battleship can put 36,000 pounds (16,000 kg) of ordnance on a target per minute, a rate of delivery that can only be beaten for a short time by a single B-52 Stratofortress of the United States Air Force,[53] which can carry at best 60,000 pounds (27,000 kg) of bombs, missiles, or mines."

I'll look into this and much more tommarow, right now its 4:00 am and I am exhausted. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:23, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

My (admittedly quick) read of the B-52 source seems to find only a payload of 10,000 lbs., not the 60,000 currently quoted. — Bellhalla (talk) 23:46, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

The Cantos

Notified the nominator and main contributor User talk:Filiocht, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Poetry, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Books‎ and Wikipedia talk:Version 0.5‎.

1(c) Needs more in-line citations for quotations and opinions. Also some of the sections seem a little lengthy. Pictures seem small which shouldn't take as long to sort out as the inlines which will take quite a lot of work. Tom (talk) 15:32, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment in-line citations are an issue fair enough, but luckly some strong online sources have been left in the "References" section. I deforced the picture sizes (about 4 seconds work), but is "some of the sections seem a little lengthy" really any reason to remove a featured article. Do you mean the article is too lenghty to get through, or it strays off topic in areas, or it needs to be broken in sub-sections. Ceoil 19:45, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

had put 'lengthy' point as an additional thought but you're right that it is not a reason for removing so have struck and thanks for sorting images. Tom (talk) 17:20, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment About a year ago I raised some concerns I had with The Cantos on its talk page (and I almost nominated it here then). I, like the nominator, thought that, to reach current FAC standards, the article should have better inline citations and structural issues. As I noted in my criticisms then, the very flat structure of the article makes it difficult to navigate and daunting to approach; there is little concentrated discussion of the work as a whole; also, some of the subsections are way too large. Please see the extended discussion that has already taken place under the heading "Sorely lacking". -- Rmrfstar (talk) 20:39, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

The wisest Wikipedians will fix the mising images to this version [3] and then preserve it for posterity. This is my one and only comment on this ludicrous nomination. Giano (talk) 20:47, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Rmr, I would'nt go as far as 'lacking' but you do have a point. My openion is that its a fine article that needs a small amount of though and work (structural issues can often be fixed using ctr/c ctr/v!), and inlines. Some of the prose reads as essayish - The most striking feature of the text, to a casual browser, is the inclusion of Chinese characters as well as quotations in European languages other than English, but again a ce can fix that with a few days effort. I'd be hopeful for this one; lots of sources, and well, it was written by Filiocht, so its quality is a given, IMO. ( Ceoil ^sláinte 21:59, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't know how else to say this, so I will be completely blunt: this article is probably one of the best that Wikipedia has to offer, and an article of this scope should be approached, first and foremost, on the basis of content, and not form. That questions over this article should be raised over inline citations is akin to discussing Abraham Lincoln's presidency in terms of his acne. Nandesuka (talk) 04:22, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I do not think this article is necessarily doomed; but for it to remain an FA, people need to fix the problems, not ignore them. Calling this nomination "ludicrous" or this article "one of the best", does not in any way address the serious concerns brought forth, that in its current state, The Cantos is illegibly structured and not verifiable. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 09:07, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Its very early days yet though, mrfstar; and its just the way of FAR that words like thoes get tossed around. Rather than get bogged down on these things, maybe just focus on actionable issues. ( Ceoil ^sláinte 02:01, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

• Move to FARC Way too much original research. The language style seems more like a critic at a news paper giving his opinion, dropping a few names, and lacking any in-depth critical approach. I'm surprised it hasn't been given the "essay" tag, since it reads like a freshman term paper. Grammar errors and run on sentences are through the roof. This needs to be removed, since it would require more than a month of work to bring it up to par. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:08, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, with the amount of critical review and interpretation, there should be at least 40 sources for references. Those given do not represent an adequate portion of critical theory, let alone the main stream theory behind the Cantos. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:11, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Please see the WP:FAR instructions; the review period is at least two weeks; moving to FARC is not an option one day into the review. The purpose of the review is to identify issues and discuss improvements. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:25, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Nandesuka on this; it is a damn fine article, with or without inlines, and other issues can be fixed without too much effort, and IMO the addition or not of footnotes is just a small detail. The "concerns" about inlines are formalism concern only as its not doubted that anything in the article is untrue. Structural problems can be resolved, and the language style Ottava mentions just needs a few hours copyediting to rectify. I'm going to commit to this, but I'd hope that the argument here is more constructive than principaled. ( Ceoil ^sláinte 01:44, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Fine article? The sentence structure is horridly sloppy and reads like a report. There is nothing academic in the actual page, let alone something useful. Cliffnotes has a better summary than the page. I wouldn't want any of my stdents to use it as a critical resource. The whole page needs to be deleted and started from scratch. There is nothing worth salvaging. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:27, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Added - excessive amounts of red links. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:42, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

A thats a little harsh, Ottava! Deleted? Ppfff, come on man. You have to admit at least it has nice pictures ;) Ceoil 11:16, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

What happened with the Samuel Johnson page is it required a lot more work later to purge all the inconsistencies and strange things left in. Language like "The most striking feature of the text, to a casual browser" is strange on multiple levels, with the abrupt pausing/asides, with the dramatic claims to knowledge, and the lack of really telling anything explanatory about the piece. Then the next line follows with, "Recourse to scholarly commentaries is almost inevitable for a close reader", which is obvious that any close reader would use scholarly commentary (unless they didn't care). However, it doesn't actually say why they would need it. Thats another problem that I forgot to mention - the paragraphs tend to operate on a logical progression that leaves out a lot, as if they assume a certain audience that comes in with that piece of information. It is almost a "wink wink, nudge nudge" in words. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:02, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Work is underway Rima, or at least will be soon. So you dont have to judge it at this stage; wait until it gets to FAR/C. Now is the time for offering constructive suggestions only, or editing directly as you did earlier. ( Ceoil ^sláinte 15:10, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I thought this was the FAR? Wasn't it moved up to the top because it moved on? Or perhaps I am just confused. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:55, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Your confused ;0 First stage (FAR) comments, bitching and cat fighting; second satge (FAR/C) voting, moaning and groaning. ( Ceoil ^sláinte 16:40, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I thought I was clear when I said I doubt that it could be completely recoverable without deleting a large amount of text and starting over. :) Remember, if it does fix everything, then it wont be the same page as it was before, or even close. Plus it will take a long time. Either way, the page it was wont exist, so, it will be removed one way or the other. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 16:54, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

• Ottava, please note that declarations of "Remove" and "Keep" are not made in this section. FAR aims to assist in the improvement/updating of FAs, and if at all possible should be a positive process. I find your angle negative and combative, especially given the expertise of at least one of its main contributors, who made a comment further up. I note that your strong assertions come without supporting detail. At this stage, they can't be taken seriously. I'm sorry to speak firmly, but I think you're misconstruing the aims and the tone of this process. Please provide specific examples and details if you intend to persist in your critiqueing. Not happy. Tony (talk) 16:57, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Ottava: "a long time": you got that right. So what, its worth it. Ceoil 17:06, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Tony1, the policy of Wikipedia requires consensus, which means that all opinions must be heard. I am saying that this needs to be moved to the next phase. That is clearly stated in the clause I quoted on Sandy's page. If you do not like it, please remove the clause from the FAR guidelines. Furthermore, "expertise" means nothing. No one owns the page. This is Wikipedia. The language is incredibly poor. As Wikipedia states, everything will be heavily criticized and edited, and if you cannot handle it, do not submit. This process is to remove articles that do not meet FA standard. It is clear that this article does not, and probably can not. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:10, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

No, the process is not "to remove articles that do not meet FA standard", and this page is carefully designed with the intent that articles aren't defeatured as long as editors are willing to work on them. At minimum, FAR lasts a month, some last as long as three. Settle in and identify actual, actionable, concrete issues that need to be changed; vague comments about it being an awful article will only be ignored. Articles move to FARC if no one is working on them and no improvement is seen after two or three weeks. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:32, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Either show where it says I am not allowed to express my concerns that it must proceed to the process, or strike your comment as being patently absurd. No where does it say that I have to wait two weeks to say such. You are clearly wrong. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:23, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I think Ottava is being remarkably specific about his concerns with The Cantos. Certainly he is being more specific in his criticisms than other editors are in their praise. There is no need to jump on him for mentioning "FARC" a bit too early. He's not denying anyone the chance to fix all of the issues he has mentioned. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 06:44, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Woah Ottiva; The next phase will happen after time, and after the people working on the page are happy to offer it for judjement. I hope you will be one of these people, because we need all hands on deck on this one. ( Ceoil ^sláinte 17:14, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I still don't think this can be accomplished. Each individual Canto set is notable on its own, and to cover the required breadth of material would justify many splits from the pages. This would require sections to be summarized and broken down. Then there needs to be indepth analysis of the critical themes and interpretations. Then there also needs to be an extensive background section added to explain what happened during the publishing. There are hundreds of references that would be needed to be added. From what I can see, just adding in 10 references and making it work takes about 5 days for one person. There needs to also be a community consensus on a lot of other additions and changes, which I doubt can happen during this time. The Cantos are large and have a lot of critical theory behind them. You could almost justify having a WikiProject devoted just to Ezra Pound because of them. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:18, 20 July 2008 (UTC)#

Good Christ, could you please be more optimistic. If complex articles such as WB Yeats, Shakespeare or Mary Shelly can reach FA, well, why not this. ( Ceoil ^sláinte 18:05, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I know it can get to FA. However, it would be completely new and take a lot of time. There would be a lot of splits, which would require significant consensus. Can this process handle such a thing? Thats my only concern. I would suggest that the league of copy editors be brought in at least once its done. Also, can someone take the "posterity" edition and place it on a subpage and then possibly link it to the milestone so there is some idea what it was before. Everyone knows that the page will end up being vastly different, but the original was an FA, and there probably should be some linkage back to that FA edition so people can see what was originally made an FA. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:12, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

The "posterity" editions are listed in articlehistory. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:32, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

The discssion between Ottava and myself has been taken to our talks, as there is no pont in publicly airing openions such as above. Its going to be a long project though, most likely ;) ( Ceoil ^sláinte 02:02, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comments: I've never commented on an FAR before, so forgive me if I suck at this. :) The lack of inline citations has already been mentioned, but I'm also concerned with the article's lack of comprehensiveness. Most of it deals with the individual cantos, but nothing is said about the project's genesis, inspiration, or even Pound himself. I would suggest implementing a "Background" section, or something similar, to describe in detail information that is somewhat addressed in the first section of the lead; otherwise, the article does not adhere to WP:LEAD. I'm not a fan of Pound, but although I have studied him somewhat, I was mostly confused by the article. It has promise but, wow, is it confusing. I could possibly provide some reference help, but I currently have two projects (one at FAC and one at GAN) of my own to handle. Let me know. María (habla conmigo) 15:50, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Battle of Hampton Roads

Notified Vaoverland, WikiProject Military history, and WikiProject Virginia

This article was promoted to FA status in December 2004. The article may have met the FA criteria back then, but it doesn't meet the current criteria. Criterion 1c seems to be the biggest problem for this article at the moment. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 15:55, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I know that I have also nominated another article for FAR, but be assured that I can handle commentaries on both pages. I've had multiple FACs and FLCs run simultaneously, with no problems. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 03:35, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

This had struck me as a clear FAR candidate in the past. Referencing is virtually non-existent, and there are also some style problems e.g. the list-section for order of battle. There are also some stubby subsections. Content is by-and-large fine, though the article is a little on the short side, and the 'impact' section certainly needs to be considerably bigger. The Land (talk) 18:31, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

• I must say the article in current form barely meets the current B-Class criteria for Milhist articles. Apparently it has not been maintained over the years. --Brad (talk) 05:08, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
  • It doesn't even meet that because it has only 5 in-line citations. -MBK₀₀₄ 06:42, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
• The lack of in-line citations is paramount. With the amount of work needed, you must be a masochist. If this wasn't an FA, I'd plaster the article with {{Morefootnotes}} at the top and a whole slew of {{fact}} tags. -MBK₀₀₄ 06:42, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
  • The citations might be lacking but they are not 'difficult' citations, if you know what I mean - no profound understanding is needed, just a couple of history books, it's mainly narrative. The Land (talk) 12:30, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
    • I didn't bother reading the article (perhaps I should?), but is referencing the only issue? If it is, we might be able to save this article. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 12:52, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
      • Not quite the only issue but certainly the leading problem. The Land (talk) 15:56, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Taiwanese (linguistics)

Notified Kaihsu, Jiang, WikiProject China, WikiProject Taiwan and WikiProject Languages

This article was promoted to FA status in May 2004. The article may have met the FA criteria back then, but it doesn't meet the current criteria. Criterion 1c seems to be the biggest problem for this article at the moment. I haven't looked at prose yet, but I will review later to see if it meets 1a. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 15:43, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Definitely needs a whole host of references to stay featured. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 15:26, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Her Majesty's Most Honourable Privy Council

Contacted User:DrKiernan, Wikiprojects Spoken Wikipedia and Politics of the United Kingdom

• This article needs more citations, as it has only a few, meaning that large parts of the article are totally unreferenced. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 00:52, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll see if I can hunt up some references. Might be a little while, since I'm quite busy at the moment. Dr pda (talk) 11:47, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Helen Gandy

Wikipedia:WikiProject FBI notified. Sole editor User:PedanticallySpeaking last contributed to wikipedia in November 2007.

Nominating due to criterion 1c, no inline cites. --RelHistBuff 15:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Renominated July 13, 2008: criteria 1c, no in-line cites. Buckshot06(prof) 04:42, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Please contact the editors involved in bringing this article to FA status and post notices on WikiProject talk pages. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 15:46, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

• Numerous issues, article is in pretty bad shape and it doesn't look like anyone is working on it. If anyone does begin to work on it, I'll supply a list. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:56, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

December to Dismember (2006)

Major editors and Wikiproject have been notified by IMatthew.--Peter Andersen (talk) 20:31, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I am nominating this article here, not because I want to, but because I feel it is what's right. The article was promoted a while before the criteria for a Featured Article became more challenging. The article does not go into the storylines the best that it could, and there are other flaws as well. My main reason for nominating this is that judging by this and this, the article needs major improving to meet the criteria. -- iMatthew _T.C. 15:44, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Please follow the instructions at WP:FAR to list this correctly and to notify relevant parties and projects. This page is not listed at FAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:31, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Per this, I withdraw this nomination. -- iMatthew _T.C. 14:54, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

This article doesn't have the sourcing problems seen in some other wrestling articles, but while it's here, it could use a tune-up and prose review. Errors are easily spotted, including at least:

• Less than twenty-four hours ... (WP:MOSNUM issues)
  • Changed to "24" - D.M.N. (talk) 08:04, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
• In early-2008, in ... (faulty hyphens)
  • Shouldn't there be a hyphen then, or should it be – ? D.M.N. (talk) 08:04, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
    • None at all. Daniel (talk) 09:13, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Removed hyphen. D.M.N. (talk) 09:18, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
• Meltzer, Dave (2007-01-22), ... (unformatted dates in citations)
  • I don't see the need to change it, otherwise it becomes inconsistent with the other date formatting used for the references in the article. Or does that particular one need to be Wikilinked? D.M.N. (talk) 08:04, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Wikilinked, yes. That allows a users' preferences to auto-change it when the view the page. Daniel (talk) 09:13, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Done. D.M.N. (talk) 09:18, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
• (Campbell, CA): 1-12 (WP:DASH errors)
  • Done. D.M.N. (talk) 08:04, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
• ... stating "the two matches that were promoted saved this thing from being a debacle." (WP:PUNC issues)
  • Done (I think) D.M.N. (talk) 08:07, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
• ... December 5, 2006). ECW December to Dismember - REVIEWED. The (MOS:CAPS#All caps)
  • Done. D.M.N. (talk) 08:07, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:17, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

• • • Those were samples only; has someone checked the entire article for MoS cleanup? User:Epbr123 is good at cleaning up MoS issues, but first you might check the text yourself to be sure similar issues are clean throughout. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:01, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
      • OK. I'll probably ask someone to look through the prose tomorrow. I don't think there are any other MoS violations in the article. D.M.N. (talk) 19:22, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
        • MOS cleanup carried out by Epbr123 (talk · contribs) - D.M.N. (talk) 17:00, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
• Cr 1a: distinctly substandard throughout.
  • "which would have meant there would be"—clumsy, and exposed in the lead.
    • Reworded. D.M.N. (talk) 08:28, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Let's take one sentence, close to the top. "Outside of the weekly ECW broadcast, the pay-per-view received very little buildup on either Raw or SmackDown!, with WWE concentrating more on the Survivor Series pay-per-view that aired one week earlier." The second word is redundant. "Very" actually has the opposite effect—get rid of it. The old "with + noun + -ing" construction, which is very poor. That had aired, I think.
    • Done. D.M.N. (talk) 08:28, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
  • "an entire month and a half before the event occurred."—"entire" is excessive. Can six words be conflated into just two, "six week"?
    • Yeah, guess it can. Changed it to six weeks. D.M.N. (talk) 08:28, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Urgent reconstruction required. TONY (talk) 03:13, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

• • Note: I am going on vacation this Saturday for two weeks until August 3rd, meaning I will have no internet access and will therefore be unable to deal with any comments that come towards this FAR on Saturday or after. D.M.N. (talk) 07:27, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I am going to leave this in the FAR section until the beginning of August. Marskell (talk) 13:21, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Featured article removal candidates

Place the most recent review at the top. If the nomination is just beginning, place under Featured Article Review, not here.

Military history of Canada

Review commentary

Notified WP Military History, WP Canada, SimonP, Michael Dorosh‎ and Brian Crawford.

• Factual accuracy is lacking. Claims, with the exception of the most modern events, are largely unverifiable against reliable sources.

• The article has a number of style issues including dead wikilinks, an overwhelming table of contents and a number of cases of POV

• Images that lack source information and possibly inappropriate copyright status of multiple images:

Image:Canadian 1918 antiaircraft team.jpg

Image:Sopwith Dolphin photo2.jpg deleted

Labattblueboy (talk) 15:41, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

• I agree with those comments. The article's structure is rather odd and the amount of space given to various topics doesn't seem to match their importance (eg, why are there seperate sections on the formation of each of the services and a section on the Invasion of Iraq which basically states that Canada didn't participate in this war?). The article is also overly focused on Canadian military deployments, and has next to nothing on changes to the military's structure and equipment - for instance, there's nothing on the amalgamation of the services into the Canadian Forces! The article also needs a lot more citations. Given the amount of work required, I don't see any alternative to eventually de-listing this article. Nick Dowling (talk) 08:38, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

• It's a valiant effort, but for the length, it lacks references. It also needs to be edited for style. The Americans in 1775 were not rebuffed by locals; I'd say they were rebuffed mostly by indifference. Rebuffed is a strong word to use here, and needs to be disussed. This is just one example. --soulscanner (talk) 08:01, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

• Incorrect layout, incorrect lead, unformatted citations, I didn't look any further. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:54, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

• I too agree with these comments. There are some unnotable inclusions such as dramatizations. We can't list every film in which the Canadian military was included. The article has overly emphasized land-based units/the army. I've tried to rectify this, but more work needs to be done. I have also just completed a section on unification. Still some POV that needs fixing, and lots of copyediting to do. Also, the heading structure/organization needs a major overhaul.--BC (talk) 17:56, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are factual accuracy (1c), style issues (2), and images (3). Marskell (talk) 12:49, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Objectivist poets

Review commentary

User:Christian Roess and WikiProject Poetry have been notified.

Article lacks consistent in-text citations, as required by FA criterion 2c, and all but one of the references are simply listed at the bottom of the article, with no footnote links. –Dream out loud (talk) 03:12, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Multiple issues. You name it, it has it. 5 edits since 05 feb. ( Ceoil ^sláinte 20:29, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

• Move to FARC - this article lacks a lot of key features and would require a lot of work to bring it up to par. It seems from lack of interest that this will not happen any time soon. It is best to remove it until someone in the future wishes to bring it up to par and then try to put it through FAC. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:09, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

  See WP:FAR instructions; keep and remove are not declared in the review phase. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:13, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

My remove means that there is no possible way to repair it. This section is reserved for suggestions on how to repair or thoughts on the matter. I'm following the instructions quite clearly by letting people know my thoughts now. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:03, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I edited the above to make it clear. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:14, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

• Move to FARC, no improvement. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:52, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns is referencing (1c). Marskell (talk) 12:47, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

San Francisco – Oakland Bay Bridge

Review commentary

Notified WP NRHP, WP Bridges, WP SF Bay Area, WP California, Sam‎ and Leonard G.‎.

An August 2005 promotion, this article is largely uncited (including hard data and direct quotes); has an inadequate lead; needs an image review and is burdened with excess images; has several sections tagged; has an WP:MSH issue (strange section, "The Bay Bridge at a glance"); has unformatted citations; the text contains external jumps; needs a MoS tuneup (example, dash issues throughout); and needs attention to Wikilinking. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:08, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

It looks like overview section could be combined into the lead with some rewrite, but I'm not sure if the entire set of information in the third paragraph should be included. I've moved all of the images to commons, and removed the excessive ones, but I'm still trying to figure out how to format the earthquake damage and retrofitting images to make them work. The "Bay Bridge at a glance" section seemed like a rehash of the infobox so I removed it. I've moved the external jumps into ref tags and formatted them. I'll try to template the citations next. -Optigan13 (talk) 11:20, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I fixed the dash in the page title and text (it is now a spaced en-dash as per the MOS). I've also fixed all the redirects. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 20:17, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments - Just had a quick look, and found plenty of reasons why this should be delisted:

• Lead needs expanding per WP:LEAD
• "Overview" section has one reference only, could probably be merged into lead.
• Article is full of uncited paragraphs/sections, fails FA criteria 1c-desperately needs better referencing throughout.
• "In fiction" section needs to be removed or merged with another section-its too short.
• The prose is poor fails FA criteria 1a, one example at random: "James Rolph, a mayor of San Francisco from 1912 to 1931," - Why "a" mayor?
• What makes http://www.check-six.com/Crash_Sites/BayBridgeT33.htm a reliable source?
• Dead ref: http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist4/trivia.htm#Little_known_facts
• Current ref 1 is missing publisher info.
• The references listed under the References section should be used as footnotes appropriately instead.
• In conclusion, this article is all over the place. Fails to comply with MOS guidelines, let alone the FA criteria.

— Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 19:46, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

• Move to FARC, still largely uncited, no lead, MoS issues, image layout issues, numerous tags. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:51, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are referencing (1c), LEAD (2a), and images (3). Marskell (talk) 13:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

• Remove per my comments at the review. Serious problems with referencing, MoS issues and other problems throughout which have not been attended to. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 14:47, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

• Remove Major lack of referencing. The lead is too short, and some of the prose is choppy, as well. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 16:45, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

History of Limerick

Review commentary

User:Seabhcan (only major contributor and nominator), WikiProject European history and WikiProject Ireland notified

Article needs FA review fundamentally for 1c, having only a single footnote and that without a page number. There is a list of references, but without inline citations its impossible to know where or how they are used. I think there are also some deficencies in 1a, 1d and 2a as well as an image claimed as fair use without an adequate rationale, but these are all fixable fairly simply, unlike the dearth of citations.--Jackyd101 (talk) 09:32, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Comprehensiveness (1b) is a greater concern to me. There is a rather sudden jump from 1200 to 1642, meaning much of the later medieval period, the Tudor period and the plantations is completely excluded. There is another sudden jump within the misnamed "The famine" section, which actually includes details of a time of prosperity. The source of the famine and why Limerick's prosperity fell is not explained thoroughly enough. Half the article is on 20th century history with the remaining half covering over a thousand years; that seems unbalanced. I would like to see more information on the earlier history added to the article. DrKiernan (talk) 15:50, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Limerick is a small city and there just isn't very much documented history for the periods you discuss. For the medieval and tudor periods there is a good deal of information in other articles, but little information is known of how Limerick was specifically faired during these times. ... Seabhcan 15:51, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I can probably accept that but the article on the Plantations mentions the Munster Plantations and that estates in the County of Limerick were seized after the Desmond Rebellions. Is anything furt