m closing Jim Henson early , no longer FA |
m leaving Zelda a bit longer, hidden explanation |
||
Line 73: | Line 73: | ||
{{Wikipedia:Featured article review/Vanilla Ninja}} |
{{Wikipedia:Featured article review/Vanilla Ninja}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Featured article review/Coca-Cola}} |
{{Wikipedia:Featured article review/Coca-Cola}} |
||
<!--Leaving Zelda a while longer since improvements are being worked into article--> |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured article review/The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker}} |
{{Wikipedia:Featured article review/The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker}} |
||
Revision as of 22:03, 13 July 2006
Reviewing featured articles This page facilitates the review of featured articles and the removal of the featured status of articles that still fail to meet the featured article criteria after the review process. There are three categories in the process: minor reviews, major reviews and featured article removal candidates. A nominator places a featured article in one of the first two categories. Wikipedians are invited to comment on the articles being reviewed; suggestions for improvement are welcome. Older reviews are stored in the archive. |
Featured article candidates (FAC) Today's featured article (TFA):
Featured article tools:
|
Nomination categories<br\> When nominating an article please consider contacting the editor who originally nominated it as a Featured article candidate. Resolving many of the outstanding issues with featured articles, particularly providing in-line citations, require the editor(s) who were initially involved in making it a featured article. Minor reviews are for FAs for which updating and relatively light editing are required. These reviews include checking references and their formatting, and the scrutiny of technical articles to ensure that they are up-to-date. The nomination should last at least a week though it may remain while changes are on-going and it seems useful to continue the process. Major reviews are for articles that no longer meet all of the FA criteria. When listing here, a nominator must specify these criteria and may propose remedies. A major review should last two weeks. If the consensus is that the deficiencies have been addressed, the review is closed; if not, the article is placed on the FARC list. Articles are listed as removal candidates only after undergoing a major review. Nominations for featured article removal candidates (FARCs) specify the unaddressed FA criteria at the top, based partly or wholly on comments from the major review. Reviewers may declare keep or remove, supported by substantive comments that focus on the outstanding deficiencies in relation to the FA criteria. Reviewers who declare "remove" should be prepared to return towards the end of the process to strike out their objections if they have been addressed. If, after a period of review, the deficiencies have not been addressed and there is no obvious momentum to do so, the FA status is removed. If consensus has emerged that the changes have brought the article back to standard, the review is closed. Insofar as requirements imposed after an article was promoted, the consensus has been to hold older articles to the current standards, and defeature them if necessary, provided that sufficient advanced warning is given to the article's author(s). Nomination procedure
|
Minor reviews
- Place the most recent review at the top. Please do not declare "Keep" or "Remove" in this section; this is appropriate only in the FARC section below.
Medal of Honor
- Article is still a featured article
This article is quite well written, but the prose can be improved. In particular, a cursory reading of the first few paragraphs revealed the following problems with respect to Criterion 2a.
- "All branches of the U.S. military are eligible to receive the medal, though each branch has a special design." "Though" in wrong here, since it doesn't contradict the preceding clause.
- "The Congressional Space Medal of Honor is a separate award and not equivalent." Insert "is" before "not"; "equivalent" to what needs to be explicated for ease of reading.
- "Scott did not approve the medal; however, such a medal found support in the Navy." Either "approve of the medal" or "approve the proposal" is required here, whichever conveys the intended meaning.
- "In the rare cases (19 so far) where a service member has been awarded more than one Medal of Honor, regulations specify that an appropriate award device will be centered on the MOH ribbon and neck medal." The parenthetical phrase would be less intrusive if place after "Honor" (i.e., before the comma). Remove "will".
- Stubby, one-sentence paragraphs, including one in the lead and quite a few further down.
I note that Medal of Honor is displayed as the example of FA-class articles at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment, next to the statement that these articles require "no further editing ... unless new published information has come to light."
The problems listed above suggest that the article needs a close copy-edit if it's to continue to be held up as a shining example of the pinnacle of Wikipedia's achievements. Tony 16:23, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
- I'm happy to fix some of the specific problems you listed, but I'll still have the following content issues with the article:
- Not enough references. Unverified sections include Origin, Appearance, Versions of the medal, Flag, Evolution of criteria, and Similar decorations.
- Accounts of the meaning of the medal contradict each other. The quotation in the first paragraph leaves no clue as to its source, and the quotation in "Authority and privileges" is similar but different. The latter seems to quote the 1862 law, but it is inconsistent with the quotation at the end of "Origin".
- The introduction contradicts itself on the awarding body; does the President act on behalf of Congress or the people? What precisely does being commander-in-chief have to do with it?
- The image layout in "Appearance" obscures the connection between image and text.
- Data tables in "Recipients" should be moved to the subarticle and/or replaced with prose.
- Melchoir 16:57, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Message left at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history. Sandy 23:53, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
It's been a week with no progress, so I'll move this to a major review. Melchoir 19:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
- Please note that this comment was made just before the minor/major review processes were merged. Tony 12:07, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- Work is being done, though it is slow. Please give it time. — ERcheck (talk) 01:46, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- I just fixed the refs. There may be a few stragglers.Rlevse 02:05, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- I've added several refs and others have been working on this too. Rlevse 00:30, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
- Could someone please list remaining concerns as of this time. Thanks. Rlevse 02:50, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Sure! The following elements need either citations or revision to meet 2(a), 2(c), and 3(a). Feel free to interleave your own indented notes, but please wait for me to strike out items on my own. (fm Rlevse, those would be well-written, accurate, and lead section)
- All of the quotations:
"for conspicuous gallantry ... enemy force" (1p intro, infobox)"any singularly meritorious action" (1p Origin) Not found at website cited at the end of the paragraph."to be bestowed ... the present war" (3p Origin)"to such noncommissioned ... present insurrection (3p Origin)"The President may award ... call of duty." (1p Authority and privileges) This needs a citation including a date, since the U.S. Code may be amended. Or if this is the 1862 language, it needs to be identified as such; it isn't clear, especially upon comparing with the rest of the article.- found and added refs for all these, plus found one you missed-;) Rlevse
- Specific facts:
"awarded by the President on behalf of the Congress ... presented by the President of the United States, who acts as commander-in-chief on behalf of the American people." (1p-2p intro) This doesn't add up, and it's glaring. Does the President really change hats between "awarding" and "presenting"? Is he specifically acting "as commander-in-chief", and does that theoretically mean something?- It's better now but still not perfect. For example, do we really mean to say that the President signs the medal? And I still wonder if "as commander-in-chief" has some content or if it's fluff. Melchoir 23:04, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- The President IS the commander-in-chief of the US military, yes, that means he is in charge of them. Neither the Sec. of Defense, nor the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs is the top dog. I reworded it too.Rlevse 23:24, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- I don't question that the President is the commander-in-chief, but for all I know some constitutional expert at the White House has written an authoritative report stating that while the President exercises his commander-in-chief powers by approving a medal, during an awarding ceremony he is actually functioning as head of state. In fact, are you sure that isn't the case? Melchoir 00:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- The President IS the commander-in-chief of the US military, yes, that means he is in charge of them. Neither the Sec. of Defense, nor the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs is the top dog. I reworded it too.Rlevse 23:24, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- It's better now but still not perfect. For example, do we really mean to say that the President signs the medal? And I still wonder if "as commander-in-chief" has some content or if it's fluff. Melchoir 23:04, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
"The Medal of Honor is one of only two U.S. military decorations that are presented as neck orders." (3p intro)"This decoration is considered America's first combat award (and the second oldest, after the Fidelity Medallion)" (1p Origin) In what organization's consideration is there a distinction between first and oldest?"Scott did not approve the proposal, but such a medal found support in the Navy." (3p Origin) Who in the Navy supported the medal?- It's a bit of a stretch to point to Secretary Gideon Welles; [2] only has him requesting the Philadelphia Mint to work on the design.
- If he didn't approve it, he wouldn't have asked the mint to work on it and as the Sec Nav, he'd have to approve any new medal. You're splitting hairs here.Rlevse 23:24, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- The paragraph states that Lincoln signed a "Public Resolution"; I don't know what that means, but it doesn't sound like it comes from the Secretary of the Navy. The current wording, in its context, suggests that Welles was given the same opportunity as Scott to reject the medal. Was he really, if Lincoln was ordering him around? Melchoir 00:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- If he didn't approve it, he wouldn't have asked the mint to work on it and as the Sec Nav, he'd have to approve any new medal. You're splitting hairs here.Rlevse 23:24, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- It's a bit of a stretch to point to Secretary Gideon Welles; [2] only has him requesting the Philadelphia Mint to work on the design.
"The Air Force Medal of Honor is unchanged in appearance since its inception in 1965." (2p Appearance)"It is considered a conjectural decoration by the Institute of Heraldry."(3p Appearance)"On special occasions, the medal can be worn on civilian attire." (5p Appearance) Is this unusual for a medal? Who decided it?- (A) It's not only unusual, it's the only exception (lapel pins are provided for civilian attire for lesser decorations) (B) Nobody "decided it". It's part of previously cited Army regs. footnote added.--Buckboard 07:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- That would be an excellent addition to the article, but are you sure it's true? Army §578.4 only says the rosette is for wear on civilian clothing. The claim "Medal of Honor recipients also wear the Medal itself around the neck of civilian attire for special occasions" is, as far as I know, an invention of the website [7] that was blindly copied by [8]. Melchoir 07:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- I erred and footnoted the wrong regulation. AR 670-1 is the governing regulation. I added the proper footnote (it's in pdf) with the exact page number and also discovered something else--the Army allows retired soldiers to wear any of their medals with "appropriate" civilian clothing! 578.4 and AR 670-1 forbid only active duty personnel from wearing their medals except on the uniform--otherwise they must wear the rosette or pin. I changed the text to read "former military members".--Buckboard 08:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- Ah, that clears things up! I'll merge the information into the relevant item under "Privileges". Melchoir 17:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- I erred and footnoted the wrong regulation. AR 670-1 is the governing regulation. I added the proper footnote (it's in pdf) with the exact page number and also discovered something else--the Army allows retired soldiers to wear any of their medals with "appropriate" civilian clothing! 578.4 and AR 670-1 forbid only active duty personnel from wearing their medals except on the uniform--otherwise they must wear the rosette or pin. I changed the text to read "former military members".--Buckboard 08:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- That would be an excellent addition to the article, but are you sure it's true? Army §578.4 only says the rosette is for wear on civilian clothing. The claim "Medal of Honor recipients also wear the Medal itself around the neck of civilian attire for special occasions" is, as far as I know, an invention of the website [7] that was blindly copied by [8]. Melchoir 07:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- (A) It's not only unusual, it's the only exception (lapel pins are provided for civilian attire for lesser decorations) (B) Nobody "decided it". It's part of previously cited Army regs. footnote added.--Buckboard 07:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
"Many stayed four days extra, and then were discharged." (2p Evolution of criteria)For that matter, every example in "Evolution of criteria" needs a citation."Since the beginning of World War II, the medal has been awarded for extreme bravery beyond the call of duty, where a service member consistently and persistently put his comrades' safety foremost, to the utter disregard of his own life, while engaged in action against an enemy." (6p Evolution of criteria) Is this a quotation? Where is it from?"Due to these criteria, the medal is often, although not always, awarded posthumously." (6p Evolution of criteria) How often is "often"?"Various times after the Vietnam War, past heroism was recognized and previous awards have been upgraded to the Medal of Honor." (7p Evolution of criteria) How many times is "various"?"A 1992 study commissioned by the Army described systematic racial discrimination in the criteria for awarding medals during World War II." (1p Controversies) Does this study have a name?Same for "A similar study of Asian Americans in 1998"."The American Indian Movement has asked that the 20 medals awarded at the Wounded Knee massacre be rescinded." (2p Controversies)The section "Authority and privileges" still has no citations.(added, see USC template links too, RLEVSE)"The Medal of Honor is the only service decoration that cannot be privately bought, traded, or sold." (1p Legal protection)"When the patent expired, the Federal government enacted a law making it illegal to produce, wear, or distribute the Medal of Honor without proper authority." (2p Legal protection) What law?- I guess this can now be inferred from context, but it ought to be explicit.
"In 2003 Edward and Gisela Fedora were charged with violating 18USC704(b) - Unlawful Sale of a Medal of Honor. They sold medals..." (3p Legal protection) Does that mean they were convicted...?"However, legislation has been proposed to sanction those who falsely represent themselves as Medal of Honor recipients." (1p Impostors) Proposed when, and by whom?The statistics in the first paragraph of "Recipients".The second paragraph of "Recipients"."While current regulations explicitly state that recipients must be serving in the U.S. Armed Forces at the time of performing a valorous act that warrants the award of the Medal of Honor, exceptions have been made." (3p Recipients) Were these medals awarded before current regulations? If so, how are they exceptions?"The Public Safety Officer Medal of Valor is also typically considered the police equivalent to the Medal of Honor." (Similar decorations) Considered by whom?"The highest civilian honor of all is the Presidential Medal of Freedom, considered to be a direct civilian equivalent of the Medal of Honor." (Similar decorations) Considered by whom?"The following obsolete military decorations were equivalent to the Medal of Honor" (Similar decorations) Equivalent? Surely not in their awarding criteria?If their only similarity is that they're all top-level military awards, doesn't this information belong at List of highest military awards and not at the American article?
- Editorial problems:
The lead section contains stub paragraphs.The lead section does not summarize the article.The image layout in "Appearance" obscures the connection between image and text.Most of "Versions of the medal" is a duplicate of previous material in "Appearance".Why is the second paragraph of "Versions of the medal" in the past tense?The "Flag" section reads like a newspaper article. It's out of order, it consists of stub paragraphs, and it repeats itself."Awarding the medal" starts with three disconnected stub paragraphs."Nomenclature" is just one short paragraph long -- too short for a subsection -- and it is misplaced. It needs to be worked into the prose elsewhere or else just deleted for being redundant.Most of "Evolution of criteria" is passive voice."Legal protection" consists of stub paragraphs.The "By conflict" table in "Recipients" creates too much white space for being in the body of the article.- addressed all in "Editorial problems". Rlevse
Eh, that's enough. Melchoir 07:58, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- I've acted on each of Melchoir's inputs in some way. Rlevse 19:02, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- Well, here's something disturbing. http://www.medalofhonor.com/Summary.htm is such a good source for those hard-to-verify details because it's a copy of this version of our article! Note the minor edits not too long before and after that version and the provenance of the images, such as Image:KY Medal of Honor.jpg, for proof that they copied us and not the other way around. So, the good news is we're not committing a copyright violation. That bad news is that at least the page [16] is an unreliable source, and you've got to wonder about the entire website. Thoughts? Melchoir 01:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- I found Army Center for Military History refs for the racial citations, they're better info anyway. I also removed the question web site refs (GOOD CATCH!), using governemtn sites for that, again better anyway. Rlevse 02:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- Great! If you're looking for more reliable sources, I wonder if you'd be willing to replace http://neptune.spaceports.com/~kjb/medal.htm and http://www.homeofheroes.com/? Melchoir 03:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- Even better, I replaced it with 3 refs, two of them government ones. Are there any issues left, anyone? If so, place them below here so they're easier to find. I'm okay with all changes at this point.Rlevse 10:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- Great! If you're looking for more reliable sources, I wonder if you'd be willing to replace http://neptune.spaceports.com/~kjb/medal.htm and http://www.homeofheroes.com/? Melchoir 03:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- I found Army Center for Military History refs for the racial citations, they're better info anyway. I also removed the question web site refs (GOOD CATCH!), using governemtn sites for that, again better anyway. Rlevse 02:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- Actually, one more reference issue that I neglected to mention before: http://www.pownetwork.org/phonies/phonies1065.htm is currently our only source for the statement that the MoH is the only unbuyable medal. Any document that makes its point through varying combinations of center alignment, multiple fonts in various sizes and colors, SHOUTING, underlines, and italics... well, I find it hard to take seriously. Melchoir 18:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- Actually, if you click on the US Code link ((18 U.S.C. § 704)(b) - click on the "704"), it shows you the actual law from a Cornell University web site. The U.S. Code templates all link there , so I consider them valid references from a highly regarded university. If you prefer, convert the USC templates to cite php, but I prefer the USC templates. Rlevse 20:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- So, our reasoning is that the MoH is the only protected decoration because if there were another, it would be listed in §704? (I'd buy that, but I'd want to change the wording a bit.) Melchoir 20:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- Actually, if you click on the US Code link ((18 U.S.C. § 704)(b) - click on the "704"), it shows you the actual law from a Cornell University web site. The U.S. Code templates all link there , so I consider them valid references from a highly regarded university. If you prefer, convert the USC templates to cite php, but I prefer the USC templates. Rlevse 20:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- Feel free to change. The MOH has special protections, yes. Note that 704a says "any decoration", but that section b specifically addresses the MOH. Rlevse 21:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, I still intend to have a hard look at the lead section and copyedit the article one last time. Meanwhile, I wonder if anyone is interested in the following low-priority avenues for improvement:
- Is it possible to tighten up the "Statistics" section of the infobox, vertically speaking?
- not without changing the template, which would affect other articles. Rlevse 12:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- Is it possible to place the two tables in "Recipients" side-by-side?
- done Rlevse 12:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- For all the cite templates, it would be nice to determine if any of the empty fields can be filled out, and to delete those that can't. The latter would make the source code more readable.
- Apart from the new material in the lead section, there are still four paragraphs without inline citations: Origin 2 and Appearance 3, 4, 5. I'm pretty sure they're covered by existing references, so could someone tack on the appropriate ref tags on the ends?
- added refs Rlevse 10:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- What's the rectangular thing in commons:Image:MedalofHonor-3.jpg? Would that image be appropriate to left-float in "Legal protection"? Melchoir 02:51, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- That is the case that holds the medal, it's not a book or anything like that. While a nice picture, I would not add it into the legal section.Rlevse 10:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm certainly not going to cry FARC over any of those, but as long as we're here... Melchoir 02:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
I have two comments about the lead section. First, the Coast Guard MOH is not the same as the Navy's. My understanding is that the Coast Guard has authority to award their own medal, although they have never done so. Second, the wording Since it was first awarded during the American Civil War, the medal has been presented 3,461 times is misleading. It was awarded another 700+ times, but then later rescinded. Otherwise, this seems like great work. Ydorb 17:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- The approval for the CG MOH didn't come until 1963 or so. The CG sailor who has the MOH, Munro, got it during WWII, so he was given the Navy version of it. Reworded the CG intro and the rescinded ones are discussed later in text. Rlevse 17:47, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Status? A lot of work has been done to this article. Where does the copy edit stand? A quick look at a random section in the middle of the article reveals: "President Abraham Lincoln signed Public Resolution 82 into law by on December 21, 1861, containing a provision for a Navy medal of valor." Sandy 13:03, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
- Correct That statement is correct, PR 82 called it a Medal of Valor. I've clarified the confusion now in the article text. I'd like someone to state a valid reason this should not continue to be a FA or close this FAR out as I certainly think it is now still FA status. Rlevse 17:21, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
- Sorry, I've been dragging my feet on copyediting the article. The article is definitely a FA. I'm ambivalent over closing the FAR. Melchoir 18:50, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
- If it's definitely FA, why not close the FAR? That does not make sense. Who decides to close a FAR anyway?Rlevse 21:07, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
- For example, a quick check shows that the statement into law by on is still there: when will a thorough copy edit be completed? I'll be glad to have a second look: please let us know. Sandy 13:55, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
- If it's definitely FA, why not close the FAR? That does not make sense. Who decides to close a FAR anyway?Rlevse 21:07, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
- Sorry, I've been dragging my feet on copyediting the article. The article is definitely a FA. I'm ambivalent over closing the FAR. Melchoir 18:50, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
- I didn't see the other instance of that, so I've now reworded it. I also went through the whole article and tweaked some more copy. If you have more concerns, please be specific as I'm not a mind reader.Rlevse 14:15, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
- Correct That statement is correct, PR 82 called it a Medal of Valor. I've clarified the confusion now in the article text. I'd like someone to state a valid reason this should not continue to be a FA or close this FAR out as I certainly think it is now still FA status. Rlevse 17:21, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
- I've started going through the references for bibliographic details, and #3 turns out not to be the Army after all. It's actually Army.com, which says at the bottom "This website is not affiliated, endorsed, authorized, or associated in any way with any government, military or country." The article itself doesn't include an author or a dateline, which you'd expect from a news source. And, for that matter, it doesn't contain the quote "in the name of Congress", for which it is cited in the opening sentence. So, can we get a replacement? Melchoir 00:59, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- I've copy-edited the article and left a few inline queries. Once these have been addressed, I'm fine with closing the review. Tony 02:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- Tony left 3 questions, and in IMHO two are for whomever decides to close this to decide which of two wording choices he offers (like "have been" or "were"). The other, which appears first, is about Munro, the lone Coast Guardsman again. Munro was in the CG in WWII and got the Navy version of the medal as the CG version hadn't been conceived yet. The text clearly states this. In the "by service" chart he's listed as CG, just as Marines are listed as Marines, who also get the Navy version. Rlevse 02:34, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- I'm also fine with closing this review: nice work! Sandy 03:17, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- Cool, that's 4 votes that all the work by several of us results in a keep, with no objections. I'll close it now.Rlevse 14:07, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
StarCraft
Lastovo
Right whale
Sealand
Major reviews
- Place the most recent review at the top. Please do not declare "Keep" or "Remove" in this section; this is appropriate only in the FARC section below.
Economy of the Republic of Ireland
Lego
Mercedes-Benz 450SEL 6.9
Billboard (advertising)
Cyclone Tracy
Papal conclave
Wikipedia
Lord Chancellor
Asperger syndrome
- presently ongoing FAR February 2020
- previous FAR 3 September 2007
- previous FAR 2 August 2006
- previous FAR 1 September 2005
Wikipedia:Featured article review/George II of Great Britain
Featured article removal candidates
- Place the most recent review at the top. If the nomination is just beginning place under Major review, not here.
Wikipedia:Featured article review/Sarajevo
Java programming language
- Article is no longer a featured article.
Review commentary
Not enough citations. Ideogram 08:21, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
- There are two many external links too, which should maybe be put in a separate article. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 08:50, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
- Criterion 2a is not met. Examples:
- "compilers by compiling"
- "Note that, although there's an explicit ..."—Please don't tell our readers what and what not to note.
- "$20M"—New Zealand dollars? Which court gave the order?
- "success at that goal"—"at"?
- Some commas would make for easier reading.
- "Although it is indeed possible"—Avoid "indeed" in this register.
- "the burden of having to perform manual memory management"—Remove the three redundant words.
And much more. Please clean up the whole article. Tony 08:33, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
FARC commentary
- Main FA criteria concerns are citations (2c) and quality of writing (2a). Marskell 16:47, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
- Talk messages left at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computer science, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Programming languages, and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computing. Sandy 22:51, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
- Remove three weeks, negligible edits, no change in citations and prose, no indication anyone is working on it. Sandy 03:33, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- Remove. Someone's had a poke around it, but none of the substantial problems has been addressed in all of this time. I notice a prominent "The above example merits a bit of explanation." Tony 02:05, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
- Remove. This fails the criteria in 3 especially. I don't believe an article with large bullet point sections is in keeping with the style manual and the bullets are deployed even where not necessary (such as the criticism section). Shortish LEAD, lack of citations, and something of a link farm at the end. Marskell 12:51, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
C programming language
- Article is no longer a featured article.
Review commentary
Not enough citations. Ideogram 08:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Good, but not featured. I believe it could be a good article, but it has to cite more sources to be featured. Also, I'm not entirely comfortable with how the article covers C. This is an encyclopedia article on C, not a tutorial. The "hello world" example should not be so long. 70.17.41.123 17:30, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Comprehensive, and packed with useful information. But it sorely needs inline citations, both for some of the more controversial claims related to influence and usage, and for the history and philosophy sections. --Allan McInnes (talk) 23:02, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
FARC commentary
- Main FA criteria concerns are citations (2c) and encyclopedic style (5). Marskell 16:51, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
- Talk messages left at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computer science, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Programming languages, and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject C++. Sandy 22:44, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
- Remove three weeks, very few edits, almost no changes, no indication anyone is taking it on. The article needs to be referenced. Sandy 03:31, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- Remove as per Sandy. In addition, the prose needs a lot of work; for such a complicated subject, our readers need utter clarity. Take the second half of the lead.
"C has also had a great influence on most other popular languages[1], especially C++ which was originally designed as an enhancement to C. It is distinguished for the efficiency of the code it produces, and is the most commonly used programming language for writing system software [2] [3], though it is also widely used for writing applications. Though not originally designed as a language for teaching, and despite its somewhat unforgiving character, C is commonly used in computer science education, in part because the language is so pervasive. Note that C# is a very different programming language.
- It would be stronger without the "alsos".
- "Great" might be better as "significant".
- Comma after "C++" is required.
- "distinguished for" better as "distinguished by", I think.
- The second sentence is longish and needs to articulate the relationship between the three separate ideas. Ideas 2 and 3 are very close (contrastive), so why not: "C is distinguished by the efficiency of the code it produces; it is the most commonly used programming language for writing system software [2] [3], although it is widely used for writing applications."
- Two "thoughs" in a row; two "commonly used"s.
- "The language is so pervasive" is unclear; so is "somewhat unforgiving". Tony 02:00, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
- Remove Good article, but lots of opinion and too much of a how-to. Has a lot of good parts, and the subject is close to my heart :). In addition to the above, I'll add a few random points:
- "Maintenance" seems very opinionated ("drastically increases build times" [a comparison would be nice as well]).
- "Although the list of built-in features C lacks is long, this has contributed significantly to its acceptance" without attribution, this is probably a POV violator (I agree with it though after using C++ for several years, but that is besides the point :))
- The last paragraph of "Philosophy" is just too much of a how-to and an unneccesary reference to its popular cousin, C++.
RN 03:51, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Miscellaneous commentary
For what it's worth, this article is a textbook example of a Wikipedia phenomenon which, if it hasn't been named, should be called the "too many cooks spoil the broth syndrome". Many, many editors who know something about C have added (or deleted) their favorite hot-button statements, with the inevitable result being an undisciplined mishmash. Someone needs to (and I've wanted to) mount a concerted cleanup effort, though of course this (a) will take a lot of time and effort and (b) is guaranteed to result in N tedious discussions with various of those hot-button editors who won't be happy with the way the coverage of their issues has been resolved. (But I'm merely observing here, neither apologizing nor complaining, and of course the situation here is little different from any number of other Wikipedia articles, plenty of which have managed to overcome these difficulties.) —Steve Summit (talk) 04:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Volkswagen Type 2
United States Electoral College
Humphrey Bogart
- Article is no longer a featured article.
Review commentary
Previously nominated at Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/Humphrey Bogart/archive1, but the main points raised related to a lack of references, due to the fact that the article was written before this was a requirement.
I believe it needs to be reviewed for the following reasons :
- Insubstantial lead paragraph. The "overview" section, which I think is intended as a "de-facto" lead section, goes into too much detail of his "iconic" status so it would be unsuitable as an article summary. Therefore a lead needs to be worked from scratch.
- Too many headers and subheaders. Use of film titles as subheaders creeps towards POV.
- Not structured very well. The oddly titled "Bogart parties" section falls in the middle of discussion of his acting career.
- The years from approximately 1942 to 1952 - quite a substantial chunk of his career - is discussed only in relation to his marriage to Lauren Bacall, and even so is barely covered, with most of the section related to his personal life. There is a "request for expansion" link in the middle of the text ("Later career") - hardly inspires confidence that this is the "best of Wikipedia".
- Some of the writing style could be tightened to give it more of a "news report" (encyclopedic) tone, as some of it is colloquial, anecdotal and conversational in tone. There are other sections where the writing is too blunt and rather than flow from one idea to the next, there are several very choppy sections where consecutive sentences and paragraphs jump from from unconnected point to the next unconnected point. There are some POV issues with specific words used that could be substituted for something more neutral. example a couple of performances are described as "subtle" and unless we know who called them subtle, can only assume that the author of this article did so.
- Images - Image:Bogart stamp.jpg being a postage stamp, does not qualify as fair use and should be removed (IMO). Image:Humphrey Bogart - 1955 - The Left Hand of God.jpg, Image:Thebigsleep.jpg and Image:Casabl meetrick.jpg are either incorrectly tagged, or do not provide a sources or fair use rationales. This leaves only one image (Image:Humphrey Bogart by Karsh (Library and Archives Canada).jpg with a correctly detailed image description page.
- A lot of unsourced material, (or at least not sourced to the present standard). This alone is not reason enough for its featured article status to be removed, but is something that could and should be looked at as part of a review. Rossrs 14:38, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Another one with very substantial issues. This comes very close to hagiography. At the least perhaps the section headers could be rationalized. I'll try and have a go at that myself. Marskell 12:32, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I replaced two of the unfree images w freely-licensed ones. Jkelly 22:33, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
FARC commentary
- Main FA criteria concerns are LEAD section (3a), comprehensiveness (2b), writing style (2a), and images (4). Marskell 12:27, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
- Remove—None of the issues raised in the review has been satisfactorily addressed. Here's what's been done, or not ... [19] Tony 13:18, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- Remove - Problems not addressed, per diff above. Sandy 01:10, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
- Remove - Without even reading the article, I see an insufficient lead, images claiming fair use without rationale, an image with a bad tag, and insufficient inline citations. Pagrashtak 05:52, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Linus Pauling
- Article is no longer a featured article.
Review commentary
I am nominating this article for review due to a lack of references and the existence of incomplete facts. For example, the claim that Pauling was awarded his high school diploma after he was awarded his Nobel prizes. The other such example is the Marriage heading which is a two sentence paragraph. MyNameIsNotBob 10:11, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- I did the tiniest bit of work on this but there are indeed problems. Only eight refs and seven of them in the alternative medicine section... I'm not knowledgeable with this though. Maybe contact the initial nominator? Marskell 07:55, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- The criteria have changed sense 2004. I'll work on referencing this article. Thanks for bringing this review to my attention. Gentgeen 18:15, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- Like a lot of the reviews without in-line refs, I "trust" this article having looked it over but I think it needs a going over by a person who can actually cite specific claims. Any work would be great Gent and we'll leave this review open for a while. Marskell 22:37, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- POV: "widely regarded as the premier chemist of the twentieth century"—I know chemists who would violently object to that statement. No reference, either.
- perhaps "popularly", Pauling in the press and even in my organic textbook (M&B was #1?) would be cited as father of something - Modern Chemistry, Biochemistry and Molecular Biology. As a kid I thought I would be ill with all the public adoration of LP (even though Pauling was extrememly politically controversial).--69.178.41.55 22:57, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
- Prose needs fixing throughout, e.g.,:
- "Pauling was a pioneer in the application"—what's wrong with "Pauling pioneered the application"?
- "moved his family to and from a number of different cities"—"to and from" is an odd expression here.
- "Frances Lucille Pauling (1904-?)"—The question mark is not the standard way of indicating that a person hasn't yet died.
- "and at one point his father wrote a letter to a local paper"—Tell us when, please; we're in the business of providing accurate information.
- "Pauling failed to take some required American history courses"—spot the redundant word. Tony 02:37, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
- And it just lost it's intro pic. I think this should be taken to FARC as nothing is happening and the concerns are major rather than minor. Marskell 07:00, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
- Agreed. Tony 08:14, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
FARC commentary
- Main FA criteria concerns are citations (2c) and the comprehensive of info under headings (2b and 3b). Marskell 15:57, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
- Remove unless the prose and POV are fixed. Tony 16:04, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
- Remove again, I object more to lack of references than to prose problems. Good prose can camouflage POV. FAs must have inline citations. There are mentions of POV on the talk page, and a request to reference the article going back to April 2005. For gosh sakes, the article is part of History of Science WikiProject: they should have been able to muster the resources to reference the article by now. Sandy 22:52, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Vanilla Ninja
- Article is no longer a featured article.
Major review commentary
I'm nominating this for FAR for a couple of reasons. Firstly, I've become too irregular an editor of Wikipedia as is, but I'm now leaving as a full-time user entirely. I am the only editor of this article, and as un-Wiki as it sounds, I wrote it (check the contributions). If I'm not here it's going to end up out of date (it is already, as it happens). Secondly, I'm very, very annoyed about the requirement for inline citations. When it was made an FA, it wasn't required. Seems like they are now. Well, I know I'm not going to do that, because I think a list of sites used suffices. Regardless, this article therefore is allegedly not referenced properly. Plus the fair use policy has some problem with the images. Feel free to maul my article, but it's never going to meet your FA criteria again. Remove, and thanks. Esteffect 12:48, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
- Remove as all images lack fair use rationales. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 19:26, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
- I removed all but one of the "fair use" images. Jkelly 04:53, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment This does obviously have some problems with refs and pics. It's also a bit underweight. Este, why don't you look at the music section on WP:FA and see if there's something you can use as template there to bring this back up to standard. Marskell 10:24, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
FARC commentary
- Main FA criteria concerns are citations (2c) and image copyright status (4). Marskell 10:52, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
- Remove - insufficient citations and Image:Kivi-v-kivilaan.jpg lacks fair use rationale. Given the comments from Esteffect, this article seems unlikely to be improved to the featured standard. I understand that the band originally comprised four members, but it's confusing to the reader to have "Vanilla Ninja are a three-piece Estonian girl band..." as the first sentence with a picture of four girls right beside it. Pagrashtak 01:36, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- Remove - lack of citations, no improvement over a month. Sandy 16:08, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Coca-Cola
The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker
- Article is still a featured article
Major review commentary
The prose of this article is not "compelling, even brilliant", and it therefore fails to meet Criterion 2a. Here are some examples.
- A few more commas throughout would help our long-suffering readers, e.g., "struggling against his nemesis Ganondorf for control of a holy relic known as the Triforce that grants the wishes of its holder".
- "Unlike most Zelda games that take place predominately on land, The Wind Waker places the hero Link on an island." Um ... but an island is land. Unclear.
- "Link lives with his grandmother and younger sister Aryll on Outset Island, one of many islands in the Great Sea, although few are inhabited." "Although" is wrong here.
- "The people of the Great Sea pass down a legend of a prosperous kingdom with a hidden golden power." Is it the people, the legend or the kingdom that possess the hidden golden power?
- "The elders of Outset Island customarily dress their youths in green like the Hero of Time when they come of age, hoping to inspire in them the courage the Hero of Time knew." Who's coming of age: the elders or the youths? I guess we can work it out, but good prose doesn't force us to. Who's hoping to inspire in whom?
Nearly every sentence needs some kind of fixing. And why are dictionary items, such as "green", "boat" and "sail" linked?
I hope that the contributors can enlist support for a thorough audit of the prose over the next two weeks. Tony 07:53, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
- How could nearly every sentence require some kind of correction? This leads me to believe that all of the content that I have read is wrong one way or another. I disagree with "nearly". —Eternal Equinox | talk 23:01, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: I would like a reference for the It has also been confirmed that a novelization of the game is a WIP (work in progress). comment. -- ReyBrujo 12:51, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
- Added by a anon so I removed it. — Ian Moody (talk) 13:43, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
- I've fixed some of your concerns, but you (or someone else) may need to point out any other problems, as I wrote most of this article and won't be able to see my own mistakes.
- The first sentence you mention -- adding commas to that section wouldn't be correct. It seems readable to me, but that's just my opinion. Pagrashtak 03:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Neutral: the article is well-referenced, features images with proper copyright rationale, and is very enjoyable to read. However, I do not believe that the writing is of an unreadable standard, and I find most of the examples which User:Tony1 provided to be quite clear within the article (with exception to the "island" and "land" bit). Therefore, I remain netural. —Eternal Equinox | talk 22:58, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
I've fixed the problems I agree with and haven't heard any input in a few days, so I suggest closing this review unless anyone else has something to add. Pagrashtak 18:40, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
- More examples of substandard prose, from a section chosen at random:
- "a very realistic looking Ganon and Link"—"a"? Aren't there two of them? Should "realistic-looking" be hyphenated? Or changed to "realistic"?
- Fixed.
- "fall 2000"—see WP's guidelines on avoiding hemisphere-centric expressions.
- You'd have to talk to Sony about hemisphere-centric expressions, as this is a direct quote. However, the Japanese release date is earlier, so I switched to that, which avoids the problem.
- "Nintendo had several software demonstrations to showcase the power of their new system"—had demonstrations? This is not compelling prose.
- I'm using had in the sense of possessed; I've added the phrase "on hand" to make it more clear.
- Spell out "IGN" on first occurrence, even if it is linked.
- Just like KFC, there's nothing to spell out.
- I believe he is referring to the fact that the article supposes the casual reader knows what IGN is. In example, instead of "Staff at IGN referred...", it would be better to say "Staff at IGN, an online website dedicated to videogame reviews, referred..." or similar. Just like the first time Famitsu is mentioned it is clarified that it is a magazine (although it would also help wikifying it and stating it is a japanese magazine dedicated to videogames. Remember that a casual reader should understand everything without needing to click wikilinks. -- ReyBrujo 16:35, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
- Just like KFC, there's nothing to spell out.
- "The official translation of The Wind Waker was given on 2 December 2002"—to give a translation?
- I've reworded it.
- "A new Zelda game using a heavily modified version of the Wind Waker engine is currently in development"—I guess that commas aren't compulsory, but they'd make it easier for our readers. Perhaps even change the word order.
- "a very realistic looking Ganon and Link"—"a"? Aren't there two of them? Should "realistic-looking" be hyphenated? Or changed to "realistic"?
I don't think this is good enough yet. The challenge is to fix all of the article, not just the examples I've provided. Tony 02:43, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
- I realize that the examples you gave were just examples and not the entire problem; however, as I mentioned, I wrote this article and have a hard time finding my own problems, so I must rely on you (or another editor) to point out what needs fixing. I'm more than happy to keep this review open and improve the article as long as someone can tell me what can be improved. Pagrashtak 16:30, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
- Spell out? Well, what does IGN mean? Tony 01:39, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
- As I mentioned above, IGN doesn't mean anything. It's a company without an unabbreviated name. Pagrashtak 14:32, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
- Spell out? Well, what does IGN mean? Tony 01:39, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: I just gave a small hand and changed all dates from dd mm yyyy to mm dd, yyyy format, per date formatting guidelines. If you find some more, please fix them on sight. -- ReyBrujo 02:59, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
- Note that a good number of dates are in both formats, that is not really nice to see. -- ReyBrujo 16:35, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
I've copyedited the article. I fixed many of the example problems listed here and any other places I thought could be tightened. The dates should be consistent unless I've missed some. Please let me know what other problems you see, and I would appreciate it if addressed objections could be struck out for clarity. Tony, could you clarify the meaning behind "spell out" above? Thanks, Pagrashtak 04:40, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
FARC commentary
- FA criteria concern is quality of prose (2a) Marskell 15:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - This article is in better shape now than when it was featured. Pagrashtak 03:11, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delist - Quality of prose is a current requirement: standards have improved. Sandy 22:38, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
- Quality of prose was also a requirement in February 2006 when this article was featured. I don't think the prose standards today are that different than they were a few months ago. Would you mind pointing out the parts of the article that you feel do not meet the standard? Pagrashtak 01:07, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
- Neutral for now. This could get there and Pagra seems interested in continuing to work. I placed a fact request in the intro. Also, is it Ganon or Ganondorf (or are they used interchangeably)? This should be mentioned early. I'm also a little concerned that the citations don't start appearing until the article is more than half over. Marskell 16:49, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, I'm more than willing to continue addressing any complaints about the article. I removed the fact request in the lead, as the lead is a summary of the entire article, which is itself referenced. If others also feel that the lead needs to have citations, it should just be a matter of copying them from the text. The story and gameplay sections do not have any references because everything in those sections is directly supported by the game itself. Pagrashtak 01:07, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. Pagra, I re-inserted the fact request. As noted in the edit summary, it shouldn't be up to the reader to have to hunt through the article for a ref. I also removed some redundancy at the top (it's mentioned about four times that the game is set on a group of islands). I'll try and do more later and I would note that I'm still not convinced this needs to be removed. Marskell 09:33, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, I'm more than willing to continue addressing any complaints about the article. I removed the fact request in the lead, as the lead is a summary of the entire article, which is itself referenced. If others also feel that the lead needs to have citations, it should just be a matter of copying them from the text. The story and gameplay sections do not have any references because everything in those sections is directly supported by the game itself. Pagrashtak 01:07, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
- Remove per Tony, Sandy Zzzzz 18:52, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
- Tony has now: Remove. More random examples of substandard writing from just one section:
- "One new addition"—pick the redundant word.
- "He wishes for a future for Link and Zelda"—odd.
- "With the ocean falling all around the tower,"—odd.
- "in a body of water known as the Great Sea"—spot the six redundant words.
This is not FA material. Tony 01:45, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
- Fixing just the examples misses the point: they're intended as evidence of a wider problem. Tony 02:38, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. But he is fixing them. I think we should keep this open until the concerns have been exhausted. Marskell 09:27, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
- Fixing the examples improves the article, even if slightly. The examples you've provided here all (or at least nearly all) existed during both the peer review and the FAC without mention. This would indicate that few editors have the capability/time/energy to spot these problems. Since I wrote the majority of the text of this article, I'm at a disadvantage - it's hard to copyedit one's own writing, as you are surely aware. Therefore, I appear to be left with only two options - fix the examples you present or leave them as is. I think I'm choosing the better option, given the circumstances.
- You have made it clear several times that you feel the article is poorly written; you don't have to tell me again. I understand that fixing the examples is not correcting the entire problem, it's just the best I can do right now. Pagrashtak 00:51, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- And a question: what do we generally do with fictional character and place names? Quotes or italics or just leave it? Here things like "King of Red Lions" and "Din's Pearl" are simply presented as is. Marskell 09:46, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: this sentence is odd: "This disc, The Legend of Zelda: Collector's Edition, could be had by purchasing a special GameCube bundle containing the disc, by registering a GameCube and two games at Nintendo's website, or by subscribing or renewing a subscription to Nintendo Power." I don't know how to go about fixing this one. — Deckiller 23:16, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Overall, I think this clearly meets 2a in relation to the majority of the featured articles out there. — Deckiller 01:03, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
The prose is looking a lot better. Tony 04:15, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks, I'll try to make another run through the prose tomorrow. — Deckiller 04:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep After the various copyedits, I am comfortable moving to a keep. Marskell 06:29, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep after copyedits Jaranda wat's sup 23:59, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep as the prose was improved greatly. :) -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 22:04, 13 July 2006 (UTC)