Wikipedia:FAR

Reviewing featured articles
Shortcuts:
WP:FAR
WP:FARC

This page is for the review and improvement of featured articles that may no longer meet the featured article criteria. FAs are held to the current standards regardless of when they were promoted.

There are two stages in the process, to which all users are welcome to contribute.

Featured article review (FAR)

  • In this step, possible improvements are discussed without declarations of "keep" or "remove". The aim is to improve articles rather than to demote them. Nominators must specify the featured article criteria that are at issue and should propose remedies. The ideal review would address the issues raised and close with no change in status.
  • Reviews can improve articles in various ways: Articles may need updating, formatting, and general copyediting. More complex issues, such as a failure to meet current standards of prose, comprehensiveness, factual accuracy, and neutrality, may also be addressed.
  • The featured article director, Raul654, or his delegates Marskell and Joelr31, determine either that there is consensus to close during this first stage, or that there is insufficient consensus to do so and, thus, that the nomination should be moved to the second stage.

Featured article removal candidate (FARC)

  • An article is never listed as a removal candidate without first undergoing a review. In this second stage, participants may declare "keep" or "remove", supported by substantive comments, and further time is provided to overcome deficiencies.
  • 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.
  • The featured article director or his delegates determine whether there is consensus for a change in the status of a nomination, and close the listing accordingly.

Each stage typically lasts two to three weeks, or longer where changes are ongoing and it seems useful to continue the process. Nominations are moved from the review period to the removal list, unless it is very clear that editors feel the article is within criteria. Given that extensions are always granted on request, as long as the article is receiving attention, editors should not be alarmed by an article moving from review to the removal candidates' list.

Older reviews are stored in the archive. A bot will update the article talk page after the review is closed and moved to archives; the delay in bot processing can range from minutes to several days, and the {{FAR}} template should remain on the talk page until the bot updates {{articlehistory}}.

Purge the cache to refresh this page

Featured content:

Featured article tools:

Toolbox

Nominating an article for FAR

Nominators typically assist in the process of improvement; they may post only one nomination at a time, should not nominate articles that are featured on the main page (or have been featured there in the previous three days), and should avoid segmenting review pages. Three to six months is regarded as the minimum time between promotion and nomination here, unless there are extenuating circumstances such as a radical change in article content.

  1. Place {{FAR}} at the top of the talk page of the nominated article. Write "FAR listing" in the edit summary box. Click on "Save page".
    Note: if an article has already been through the FAR/C process, use the Move button to rename the previous nomination to an archive. For example, Wikipedia:Featured article review/Television → Wikipedia:Featured article review/Television/archive1
  2. From there, click on the "add a comment" link.
  3. Place ===[[name of nominated article]]=== at the top of the subpage.
  4. Below this title, write your reason(s) for nominating the article, specifying the FA criterion/criteria that are at issue, then click on "Save page".
  5. Click here, and place your nomination at the top of the list of nominated articles, {{Wikipedia:Featured article review/name of nominated article}}, filling in the exact name of the nominated article. Click on "Save page".
  6. Notify relevant parties by adding {{subst:FARMessage|Articlename}} to relevant talk pages (insert article name). Relevant parties include main contributors to the article (identifiable through article stats script), the editor who originally nominated the article for Featured Article status (identifiable through the Featured Article Candidate link in the Article Milestones), and any relevant WikiProjects (identifiable through the talk page banners, but there may be other Projects that should be notified). Leave a message at the top of the FAR indicating who you have notified and that notifications have been completed.

Contents


Featured article reviews

Bryce Canyon National Park

This article was promoted four years ago, and needs many inline citations to meet current standards, since it only has one currently. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:39, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I still have the same books used as the listed references and will add inline cites. --mav (talk) 01:00, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Whoa, nifty with the big pic there! Unusual usage but I do think it is justified in this case. I can look in on copyediting. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:05, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Off the top of my head (can't do much as I am enmired elsewhere but a couple of things stick out) - if the article were bigger, the gallery section could be integrated nicely in the article. As it is only 24k, there should be scope to do this. Things I'd like to see embellished are flora, and the two bulleted segment faunal regions could be expanded and made into paragraphs. National Parks are about preserving environments, so focussing on some of the biological is a fantastic was of introducing readers to the delights of biology. With most articles I do, especially plants, I slot in (or help the main contributor) scientific names - the Everglades is a good example. Be good to add a bit on the soil types as well. Can expand on the threats to the park, and are there any endangered plants or animals which depend on it? I will ping Moni3 too as she did all the Everglades ones... Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:12, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
    Many inline cites added. Please add fact tags as needed and I'll track down any remaining items that need inline cites. As for images: I would rather remove the gallery and reduce the size of the large photo than to expand the article solely to accommodate them. The amount of info in this article is already proportionate to its size and the amount that can be written about it. This is a small park that protects pretty much just the erosional features and small areas beyond them and therefore has the same flora and fauna as the corresponding life zones in the High Plateaus. --mav (talk) 00:30, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
    OK, I know next to nothing about US natural history, so am ignorant. Even small parks here in Oz often have something unique in them. Many restricted species do occur across an area of similar space to a park but the park is the only place that is protected by legislation. Agree that the sole reason for expanding the article should not be to accommodate images. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:37, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
  • In its present state, this article wouldn't get through GA, never mind FA. It needs to be much more thoroughly cited. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:21, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
  • I used Bryce and Zion as guides when I wrote Everglades National Park. I don't recall the citations being so slim (but seriously - who remembers what happened last week?). This place is spell-binding, so I hope it can keep its FA status with some improvements. Let me know if you need me to do anything. --Moni3 (talk) 21:27, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
  • I found some stuff on the Utah Prairie Dog and added it (as it was specific for the park), but there is more. Apparently the park is also important for the endangered southwestern subspecies of the Willow Flycatcher, and the California Condor. Also, what about reptiles in the park? I presume there are rattleysnake type critters (?) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:49, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
    • Cool - thanks. I'll take another look at that section and add mentions as needed. --mav (talk) 09:13, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Augustan literature

Users notified: Geogre, Bishonen, Portal talk:England

This article fails 1c and 2c of Wikipedia:Featured article criteria

  • Criteria 1(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;

Although there is a list of References at the bottom of the article, they are not specific to statements claimed. Some of the statements seem to be personal opinion or the opinion of a particular group, but not necessarily representative of various opinions given their due weight as in NPOV. The article can be seen as a scholarly essay representing a particular view or evaluation of the subject of the article.

  • Criteria 2c: :consistent citations—where required by Criterion 1c, consistently formatted inline citations.

This article was promoted in 2005 when the standards were more lenient. —Mattisse (Talk) 21:18, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

What statements do you believe require inline citation? Christopher Parham (talk) 23:17, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
  • This article has no citations whatsoever. Wikipedia:OR states: "Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented."

Examples:

  • ' "Augustan" derives from George I wishing to be seen as Augustus Caesar'
  • "Alexander Pope, who had been imitating Horace, wrote an Epistle to Augustus that was to George II and seemingly endorsed the notion of his age being like that of Augustus, when poetry became more mannered, political and satirical than in the era of Julius Caesar."
  • Outright quotations are not cited; examples,
  • 'Thomas Babington Macaulay would say of Anne that "when in good humour, [she] was meekly stupid and, when in bad humour, was sulkily stupid." '
  • '"we are not to describe our shepherds as shepherds at this day really are, but as they may be conceived then to have been, when the best of men followed the employment" '
  • ' "all ages and characters, from Walpole, the steerer of the realm, to Miss Pulteney in the nursery." '
  • Seemingly POV comments are not cited: "There were other satirists who worked in a less virulent way, who took a bemused pose and only made lighthearted fun."
  • Essay type statements are not cited: "The parodic satire takes apart the cases and plans of policy without necessarily contrasting a normative or positive set of values. Therefore, it was an ideal method of attack for ironists and conservatives—those who would not be able to enunciate a set of values to change toward but could condemn present changes as ill-considered."
  • And another essay sample: "These developments can be seen as extensions of Protestantism, as Max Weber argued, for they represent a gradual increase in the implications of Martin Luther's doctrine of the priesthood of all believers, or they can be seen as a growth of the power and assertiveness of the bourgeoisie and an echo of the displacement of the worker from the home in growing industrialization, as Marxists such as E.P. Thompson have argued. It can be argued that the development of the subjective individual against the social individual was a natural reaction to trade over other methods of economic production."
  • Many words are in quotes "updating", "learned" for no apparent reason. It would be nice to know why.
  • Seemingly OR statements are not cited: "To some degree, Pope was adapting Jonathan Swift's habit, in A Tale of a Tub, of pretending that metaphors were literal truths, and he was inventing a mythos to go with the everyday."
  • Even if statements are purported facts they should be sourced: "Ian Watt's The Rise of the Novel (1957) still dominates attempts at writing a history of the novel. Watt's view is that the critical feature of the 18th-century novel is the creation of psychological realism. This feature, he argued, would continue on and influence the novel as it has been known in the 20th century. Michael McKeon brought a Marxist approach to the history of the novel in his 1986 The Origins of the English Novel. McKeon viewed the novel as emerging as a constant battleground between two developments of two sets of world view that corresponded to Whig/Tory, Dissenter/Establishment, and Capitalist/Persistent Feudalist." - Is this the editor of the article's views or whose?
  • Another example: 'A particular play of unknown authorship entitled A Vision of the Golden Rump was cited when Parliament passed the Licensing Act of 1737. (The "rump" in question is Parliament, on the one hand, and buttocks on the other.)'

These are just examples. As I said, nothing in the article is cited. The references do not seem to include any current scholarship or reviews of the period. Most of the sources seem primary. Many of the historical ones are dated. And the references are not fully cited. Example

  • Thompson, E. P. The Making of the English Working Class

—Mattisse (Talk) 00:26, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Comments I agree with Mattisse's comments above and I would like offer some specific references that editors could use to improve the article. While much of this article is excellent, there are two ways in which it fails to meet the current FA criteria: sourcing and POV.

1) The article does not use inline citations in the way that has become standard at FAs (whatever the editors think of that practice). Readers need to be able to verify the information that they find in these articles since they have no idea who wrote them - footnotes and complete reference lists allow them to do that. Moreover, the references at the bottom of the article do not cover the claims being made in the article (most of the sources listed are primary sources) and the list does not include the major secondary works on the period. Some examples that should be included in any article about this topic:

  • Pat Rogers, Grub Street
  • David Fairer, English Poetry of the Eighteenth Century
  • Essays by Maynard Mack
  • J. Paul Hunter's Before Novels
  • Margaret Doody's Daring Muse

2) The article includes a specific POV on literary history rather than presenting the various scholarly views on the topic. For example, in the novel section, the reader learns that Defoe, Richardson, and Fielding were the important novelists who shaped the development of the genre. This is the view of Ian Watt, who wrote decades ago. While we in literary studies still read his work, his view has been serious challenged by many critics since then. Giving Michael McKeon a few sentences does not begin to address the complexity of the "novel debate". The exclusion of the entire amatory fiction tradition, for example, is egregious. Ros Ballaster's Seductive Forms: Women's Amatory Fiction from 1684 to 1740 is the seminal work on this genre and should obviously have been the basis for at least a few sentences in the article. To give an example of the extremely controversial statements in this section:

  • Daniel Defoe's Robinson Crusoe (1719) was the first major novel of the new century
  • Although there were novels in the interim, Samuel Richardson's Pamela, or, Virtue Rewarded (1740) is the next landmark development in the English novel.
  • The dismissive paragraph on women writers and the novel of sensibility is almost comical. It is as if the article is saying "oh, yeah, I have to say something about those 'scribbling women'". The debates regarding "sensibility" are enormous (there are many volumes written on them) - what is its origin? how far back does the tradition stretch? what does sensibility even mean? are there several traditions of sensibility? is sensibility different than sentiment? etc. See, for example, Barker-Benfield's Culture of Sensibility and Mullen's Sentiment and Sociability. The weight given to Defoe and Fielding in this section and the shortchanging of "feminine" genres such as novels of sensibility and amatory fiction clearly introduces a POV into the text. (Even Sterne, who wrote one of the most popular sentimental novels of the eighteenth century, is discussed as a satirist!)

I hope these comments are useful. Awadewit (talk) 18:41, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense. Watt remains standard. While it's true that there are other discussions, it is not true that any of them are either critical standard or that they are appropriate to get a survey in a survey article. Would anyone here really like to see every single literary theory get a sentence, with a citation? Let's get Paul Hunter involved. Let's get Edward Said's disciples. If you want some new Feminist approaches, then why not Marxist, why not queer, why not post-colonial, why not body? The authors here answered, silently: why not? because this is a survey article, and trying to jam in every book of the month is irresponsible to the reader. In fact, I would argue that Sentiment and Sociability is, in fact, not going to reject Defoe, Feilding, and Richardson as important. It is, instead, going to opt for a separate axis of analysis and therefore foreground a separate line, but without diminishing the old line at all. It's folly to suggest that a survey article have every possible, potential view.
Additional nonsense is the idea that the article reiterates Watt. Indeed, it does not. Watt's analytical principle is psychological realism. McKean's is the dialectic. The article offers nobody's critical principle. As for whether these are "really" the important novels, historically they are. You can argue that it's teleological, like Watt, to look for those things that engendered imitation, but it's also historically undeniable which novels sold best, which stirred imitation, and which were innovative. Take the whole mass of the "scribbling tribe" (an American novelist's complaint), and you won't match the sales. Whether it's unfair or not, it is the historical record, and reflecting the historical record needs no faddish recast.
Furthermore, to say that it is, on the one hand, the old view and then, on the other, that it's POV is contradictory. Which is it? Is it the author's nasty personal research, or is it the background view that informed 50 years of readers? If it's the one, then it's common knowledge. If it's the other, then I would suppose it to have flown in the face of common sense.
All I can say is that I shudder when I imagine what a "good" survey would look like, and I hope that no one attempts to write one, because it will be dreadful, outmoded as soon as written, and so infested with footnotes to obvious and indisputable facts as to be incomprehensible and unworthy of holding on a flash drive, much less a server. Utgard Loki (talk) 17:19, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but you are totally incorrect. Watt's Rise of the Novel (1957) is no longer the standard and I even read parts of the works I listed as an undergraduate. No one is claiming that we should include "every single literary theory", only the ones that shaped the field, per WP:NPOV. Whether you like it not, literary studies has changed quite dramatically since the 1950s (postmodernism, deconstruction, feminist literary criticism, etc.) Awadewit (talk) 17:38, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
And I'm sorry, but you are misinformed or miseducated. Watt remains standard. I'm not sure what "even read parts of the works" as an undergraduate, but it's quite likely that one will toss in fashionable issues-related critical works in an undergraduate class, but it is not likely that one will reorganize a survey class around such critical theories. Those that do will create undergraduates incapable of graduate school, because each of the major literary theories since 1965 has been a reaction against "canon": each is therefore tacitly recreating the positivist theories of the 1950's. That, however, is a complete side track, because your understanding of "what is current" is a series of side tracks. There is no formative, generative model of the organization of The Novel outside of Marxism and Watt. The Marxist view we find in McKeon concurs with Watt on who the major milestones are. To chase down every thrown stick over which other works have competing aesthetics is to lack the ability to speak in survey terms. One can have a survey of the novel according to the development of the woman, a survey of the novel as it encodes and rejects queer identity, a survey of the novel as expression of colonial and non-colonial voices, etc., but each of these requires a critical/analytical principle in the foreground and "history" in the background. The only historical analysis is Marxist and naive positivist. These form the backbones of the study still. I should point out, additionally, that Hunter also maintains Watt's mileposts.
Therefore, again, unless you want to shuffle and reshuffle to have everyone's history-as-determined-by-critical-principle, you can have none. I am sorry, but you completely fail to understand the difference between "literary theory" and "literary criticism," which is always faddish perforce and which has changed since the moment I began writing this comment, and "literary history," which is relatively unchanged since 1950, at least with the novel.
Oh, and please don't assume that those who do not organize information along a specific literary theory are ignorant of that theory. If you were truly an adherent of feminist literary theory, you would want to see this article deleted, as it implies an hierarchical and historicist organization. Utgard Loki (talk) 19:21, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for admitting that the article is organized around a single literary theory - that is my point. Although I myself am a historicist, I recognize that Wikipedia has not adopted historicism as an organizing principle for its articles, therefore I include other theories when I write articles to make sure that they conform to WP:NPOV. Thus, even though I have serious problems with psychoanalytic criticism, for example, I include it in the articles I write (when appropriate, such as in the case of Mary Shelley) because I recognize that I cannot impose my view of literary criticism onto Wikipedia articles. You do not seem to want to accept that we have to present theories that we disagree with. Awadewit (talk) 21:44, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Here are where the direct quotes mentioned above come from:

  • all ages and characters is from Lives of the Most Eminent English Poets* by Samuel Johnson (the edition I turned up on Google Books was published in 1866 in Philadelphia by Lippincott & Co).
  • shepherds is from Alexander Pope's *A Discourse on Pastoral Poetry* (in his Collected Works).
  • meekly stupid is from Macaulay's *The History of England*, Chapter 15.

I note that there are very few Google hits for any of these phrases outside Wikipedia (outside the texts they come from).

Also, the quote from Tristram Shandy's father in the section about the novel should be have you not forgot to wind up the clock?.

Throwawayhack (talk) 11:53, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

You do, of course, realise that FAR is the single most useless thing on the entire Internet. Filiocht | The kettle's on 12:36, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

does it get any credit for persuading you to pop back in...? I only know of you, but geez, it's good to see you :-) Hope you're wonderfully well :-) Privatemusings (talk) 05:43, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
is it possible to 'pan out' at all?

as I mentioned on the talk page of the article, I totally understand folk seeking to drive up standards across the encyclopedia, and I appreciate the dedicated work that many put in... I wonder however if it might be possible to take a little step back for a moment and just consider whether or not we think the article itself is simply wonderful! I do - and I'd hope the 'featured' process isn't unable to offer flexibility and or adaptability in clearly assessing the quality of this article as very, very high.... I don't think it's necessary for Geogre's points on the talk page concerning inline citations to be extrapolated to bring the whole featured system crashing down! - but I think the 'feautured article' crop will drop in average quality for this articles exclusion, and that's both a huge shame, and a dangerous direction. Just one chap's thoughts... Privatemusings (talk) 05:49, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

  • PM, as I explained above, there are serious problems with this article. It doesn't reflect modern scholarship and it avoids a discussion of female novelists and their traditions (see specifics above). These POV problems are in addition to the inline citation issue. Awadewit (talk) 05:56, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
I don't doubt your sincerity one bit, but would really really like to encourage you to consider a) how sure you are of such a strong statement and b) whether or not being 'right' in this matter genuinely serves the project / drives quality.. what I can say (as but a fule!) is that I do perceive the danger of a not-so-great dynamic here, and feel that this is one area where FAR might just might cause more harm than good.... I'll bow out here, and entreat folk to think about it.... :-) Privatemusings (talk) 06:02, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
You don't have to trust me, assume good faith or any of those things. You can check the sources I listed which outline the information that is missing from the article. That is why I provided the citations. Awadewit (talk) 06:07, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Just My Imagination (Running Away with Me)

I noticed someone tried this on the 9th but it was too soon. It's now been 3 days since this was on the main page, so here goes. I think this one is pretty obvious: The section about the song's content is totally unreferenced, there're only eight refs total, and a {{refimprove}} tag, so 1c and 2c apply. Obviously this was promoted ages ago, before the FA criteria were so strict. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 03:56, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment. I spent some time with this article while it was on the main page. I think it would help if we could be specific about what needs referencing, and where (if) those references could be found. If more references can be found, then I'd be all for it. But I'm no fan of references for the sake of it, and my feeling is that there's not much (I'm not saying not anything) that needs further referencing here. Admittedly, however, I've never worked on this kind of article before. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 04:01, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
  • The sections on composition, origins, and covers are almost entirely unreferenced, and there seem to be problems with OR as a result. I would imagine that professional writers have dedicated plenty of pages to The Temptations, so there's probably something in print. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 20:40, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm aware of that, but you haven't answered the question: what needs referencing? In the "Composition" section, I don't see anything that does, for instance. The information is either purely descriptive ("a full orchestral arrangement with strings and French horns adorning a bluesy rhythm track and guitar line provides the instrumentals") or is fully cited. Where would you require further citation in this section? --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 19:18, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Actually, this article is still linked on the Main page, so it's still too soon. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 15:31, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Meh. I thought it had to be only three days since it was a featured article. Either way, tell me this is still FA class. I dare you. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 20:40, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
  • In all probability, you are correct in that the article would not pass today's FAC. However, I agree with Jbmurray; it's not the worst article, and with some referencing and slight expansion, the article has a shot at being kept featured. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 20:46, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Okay, there, it's no longer linked from the main page. Also, you'd have to really, really work hard at sourcing and do some more copy editing to fix this up. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 01:02, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
I agree with TenPoundHammer that this article needs work on sources to be considered a FA. Further, I would argue that there should be no grandfather clause for FA. Either an article meets the (current) requirements, or it doesn't (and so isn't a FA). --Falcorian (talk) 18:21, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
I agree. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 19:21, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

By the way, here're some lines I have issues with:

  • "and constantly pressured Whitfield to produce something"
    • This, for instance, is explained (with citation) in the very next sentence. No additional citation needed, and to add one would be clumsy. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 19:30, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
  • "'Just My Imagination' is primarily a showcase for Eddie Kendricks"
    • This seems to me to be purely descriptive. No citation needed. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 19:30, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
  • "The song was recorded in the midst of a bitter feud"
    • Obviously, this is a topic sentence, and doesn't require a citation. To add a note here would again be clumsy. Another citation in this paragraph, however, might clarify things... --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 19:30, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
  • "were no longer on friendly speaking terms. Nevertheless,"
    • ...here, for instance. But it seems clear that this paragraph draws on the one source, as cited at the end. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 19:30, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 19:21, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

  • I thought they were examples of 1c concerns. Can you give examples of prose (1a) concerns? --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 19:18, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Verifiability. The lack of comprehensive referencing to reliable sources is a serious concern. Just to take one example, the following paragraph is unreferenced:
During the late 1960s and early 1970s, producer/composer Norman Whitfield and lyricist Barrett Strong crafted a string of "psychedelic soul" tracks for the Temptations. After the success of Sly & the Family Stone's fusions of psychedelic rock and soul music, particularly their 1968 hit single "Dance to the Music", several soul acts, including the Temptations, The Isley Brothers, and The Four Tops, began releasing similar records. By 1970, the Temptations had released three albums of psychedelic soul material (Cloud Nine, Puzzle People, and Psychedelic Shack), which also showed heavy influence from rock acts such as The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, and Jimi Hendrix. During this period, the Temptations released psychedelic-based hits such as "I Can't Get Next to You", "Psychedelic Shack", "Ball of Confusion (That's What the World Is Today)", and the Grammy Award-winning "Cloud Nine".

It it isn't possible to get a citation for the claim that Norman Whitfield and Barrett Strong produced several "psychedelic soul" tracks for the Temptations then it should go. If it is possible, then it needs to be done. The same could be repeated for every sentence above. Then there are all the other unreferenced or partially referenced parargraphs.

OK, as I'm sure you know, WP:CITE says that "Sources should be cited when adding material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, when quoting someone, when adding material to the biography of a living person, when checking content added by others, and when uploading an image."
Perhaps you can explain which of these conditions applies in each sentence of the paragraph you quote?
To me, it seems quite uncontentious and descriptive. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 21:14, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Whilst I don't think that it is particularly contentious, I still challenge the material (ipso facto the first condition applies). It is not unknown for editors, writing with the best of intentions, to misinterpret sources or just make plain and simple errors. Verifiability is hugely important. Greenshed (talk) 18:52, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Which material are you challenging? All of it? --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 19:17, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Having recently taken an article through the good article process I was required to cite everything and rightly so. Soul music is not a topic that particularly interests me and so I do not intend to work line by line through this article and so I shall just give one example. I am not trying to be contentious but every time I read uncited material in the WP, I think to myself that there is a markedly greater chance that it may turn out to be wrong that material from a reliable published source. To answer your question, I am challenging the claim that Norman Whitfield and Barrett Strong produced several "psychedelic soul" tracks for the Temptations. I suspect that there are reliable sources which could be cited. If this is to be WP's best work then we should have them. Greenshed (talk) 21:53, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

As it stands, this article is way below the featured article standard. Greenshed (talk) 20:02, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment. Seriously, guys, I think that this is a case where people counted the citations rather than reading the prose. Again, I suspect that someone armed with the Otis Williams book might be able to judiciously add another citation or two, or perhaps rephrase to clarify the that the same source covers multiple claims. But this article is not significantly uncited. Moreover, people are saying things along the lines that "someone must have written about this stuff." But people don't usually publish books about the obvious.
  • If, however, we can point to a significant source that has been overlooked, presumably one that's been published in the past few years since this article was featured, then of course it should be consulted. But I don't see anyone saying that. (Though I do think that this is quite possible.) --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 21:14, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: I just added refs for cover versions and removed the unverifiable Prince and whatever odd Texas Band covers. Still, needing citations are: The instrumental process and background info.--Andrewlp1991 (talk) 21:22, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Comments The prose is globally satisfying (though I am not competent on that part), and the recent edits by Andrewlp1991 have been greatly helpful on the verifiability issue for the 'Cover versions' section. A lot of unsourced material has been removed since the passage on the Main Page, but there are still entire paragraphs without citations and all sections except the aforementioned one lack citations, to which we can add the photo's description.
  • The only citation of the section 'Composition' is [4], it covers only the last three sentences of the first paragraph. This being an interpretation of the lyrics by one critics, other analysis are needed, in order to be comprehensive and not to rely entirely upon a single source, as required by our policies on verifiability and neutral point of view. Recent FAs I have read on songs, films or video games have multiple sources for analysis of lyrics and plot. The second paragraph is unreferenced and has been objected as probable original research.
  • The section 'Recording the song' has only two citations, to Williams & Romanows, again, it cannot be verified that it covers the entire section and even so, multiple sources should be used for this kind of sections where almost each sentence is challengeable.
  • I may comment later on the two other sections. Cenarium Talk 02:16, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Question Thing is: Where can we find sources that analyze this song? I've searched Google Books and found only the Bronson article, beyond that no luck. Could the Temptations biographical book by Williams & Romanowski cited have any more info that anyone missed? Google Books lacks a preview for that. I also searched the New York Times archive from the early '70s, no coverage from that time. Rolling Stone website has only a three-sentence summary from their "500 Greatest Songs" list.--Andrewlp1991 (talk) 22:12, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Hmm. There could be other print sources available, but if this is really all we have, I'd say there's probably no chance of this ever staying FA. I still strongly believe it should be delisted. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 00:29, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Why? It's as thorough an article as it could be, given the sources. There's nothing likely to be challenged that's unsourced.
  • Anyhow, you misunderstand FAR. This isn't a vote. Yet you're treating it as such. The point is not to say that you want it delisted, but for us to discuss how it could be improved. Until and unless you can point concretely to ways in which it could be improved, then there's no progress here. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 01:19, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
While voting for delisting is jumping the gun, I would support submitting this article as a Featured Article Removal Candidate. As regards the discussion above, the onus is on the contributor to provide sources and a lack of such sources does not eliminate the burden on the contributor. Rather, it points to verifiability and original research concerns. Greenshed (talk) 17:34, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, you're right I kind of jumped the gun. I still think that this article needs a lot of improvement, and have been doing a serach but found nothing that isn't already available. The problems of original research I'm not sure how to fix other than by simply removing them. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 18:25, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Photon

Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics/Article alerts automatically notified by bot

This article no longer appears to meet FA specifications.

  • The lead section does not comply with WP:LEAD. There are seven paragraphs, whereas WP:LEAD recommends a maximum of 4. It needs to be re-edited.
  • More importantly, there are multiple paragraphs and sections that are not properly cited.
  • There is overlinking. For example, momentum is wikilinked 5 times; wavelength 4 times; electromagnetic radiation 8(!) times, frequency 4 times, polarization 4 times, quantum mechanics 5 times, Albert Einstein 5 times, &c. Some obvious terms shouldn't need links, such as lens, matter, mass, energy, eye, physics, vision (twice),annihilated and chemistry. "Compton scattering" is not linked at first occurance.
  • "More daringly" and "perhaps more remarkably" don't seem neutral and the opinions are not explained.
  • Some of the citations are inconsistently formatted.
  • "position eigenstate" is not explained, per WP:Jargon.
  • There are minor format issues, such as spaced em-dashes, plus hyphens where an en- or em-dash would be appropriate.

&c. Overall it is still in somewhat decent shape, so some cleanup and references should be sufficient.—RJH (talk) 20:32, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

  • Many of these changes are relatively small. Don't you think it would be more productive to make at least some of the changes yourself, and/or to make some suggestions on the talk page, rather than starting the good 'ol de-featuring timer? -- SCZenz (talk) 13:07, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
    • Yes, normally I would often take care the minor issues myself. But, in this case, the problems with the lead and significant lack of references seemed sufficient in themselves to trigger an FAR, so I decided to do a review instead. The neutrality issues also seem like subjects that need to be addressed by an SME.—RJH (talk) 17:34, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
  • The lead is honestly utterly terrible, now that I look in detail. It appears that it has suffered bloating due to POV-pushing and arguments, with the attendant over-precision. It has inaccuracies, as have been discussed recently on Talk:Photon. I think it needs a complete rewrite, and I will work on this, along with the references. The rest of your points are minor as I said above -- and I still wish this had been handled through means other than featured article review, like an ordinary message to WP:WikiProject Physics. -- SCZenz (talk) 17:51, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
    • Thank you. I am not quite clear why you have a problem with the FAR process. If I had avoided it, then either the problems would get addressed or they wouldn't. If they weren't addressed, then an FAR would still be necessary. Otherwise it is the same net result.—RJH (talk) 17:37, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
      I'll reply on your talk page, lest we get off topic. -- SCZenz (talk) 18:00, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Ok, I rewrote the lead. Please let me know what you think! (I'll get back to referencing later.) -- SCZenz (talk) 18:26, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
    • Yes the lead is improved. Thank you.—RJH (talk) 22:17, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Young Diffraction.png source is a little weak. Can we have a reference to the original? DrKiernan (talk) 17:04, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Indian Railways

Notified: WP Business, WP India, WP Trains, User:Nichalp, User:Merits4, User:Brhaspati.

It doesn't meet the featured article criteria. --Obsolete.fax (talk) 21:18, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

For future reference, Obsolete.fax, please could you cite specific areas of the featured article criteria that you believe an article has failed. In my opinion, this article fails 1c of the featured article criteria, which states that the claims of an article are "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". I believe this because many paragraphs in the article do not have any citations at all, leaving a lot of the article unsourced. To note, there are only 20 citations in the article at the time of writing. OpenSeven (talk) 21:27, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Please complete the notifications. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:54, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

The sources should be fine (for any queries, see the FAC nom). It needs a copyedit and inline citations to remain a FA. =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:05, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Other than prose and inline cites, are there any other problems with the text? I will keep this open for suggestions till next week. =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:15, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
I have not found any other problems with the text. OpenSeven (talk) 14:33, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
I have to agree with Nichalp - I cannot find substantial flaws in the article, but I agree that it could benefit from a copyedit. -- Brhaspati\talk/contribs 02:23, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Notice to reviewers: Please mention the objections in bullet point fashion under the section below so that they can be efficiently addressed. --GPPande talk! 08:26, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Objections

  • Haven't any books been written on the subject? I should think there would be plenty, and books are always preferable to websites as scholarly sources of information. Starting searching your libraries people! indopug (talk) 15:39, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Improvements

  • Lead of the article has been updated, dubious links removed and copy edit done. If any problems exists with lead paragraph please mention in the above Objections section. --GPPande talk! 08:26, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Some more sections (as you can see from history of article) have undergone copy edits. --GPPande talk! 17:47, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Images

  • I think the image correctly carries the copyright information as per "Logo" rules.
  • Removed.
  • Should not be a problem. The copyright status seems correct.
  • The images should be alternated left and right, to prevent poor layout of the page (large white spaces between paragraphs or large white spaces between section headings and the text beneath the heading). DrKiernan (talk) 16:51, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
  • I have removed a few extra images which seem to have been added recently with no such high importance to article. I will keep working on layout as you said as it gets changed every time some text is added or removed. Thanks for your feedback. --GPPande talk! 17:47, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

First Crusade

Notified - Adam Bishop, Stbalbach, Shanes, Ghostexorcist, WP MILHIST, WP ISLAM, WP EGYPT, WP CATHOLICISM, WP Middle Ages, WP TURKEY, WP PALESTINE, WP RELIGION, and WP Christianity.

1c of the Featured Article Criteria states that, for an article to be FA-class, its "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". I do not believe this article meets that criteria, and that is why I have nominated it for an FA review. I have highlighted which sentences in the article I believe require citations with 'citation needed' tags (and to note, the article has 37 citations in total at the time of writing). Thank you in advance to anyone who gets involved in this review, and thank you for reading. OpenSeven (talk) 16:47, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Gwinva asked me to help fix this but I still haven't had a chance to do it. It should be pretty easy; it's just a big article and would take more time than I have had lately. I'll try to work on it before the FAR closes. Adam Bishop (talk) 21:16, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Adam, I'm throwing some citations at the sections I can get with my sources. (Hey, I wanted a break from bishops anyway!). There is just some stuff I don't have access to, my library tends towards English rather than Middle Eastern medieval stuff, so after I mine these books out, it'll be up to someone else. Also, OpenSeven, you'll note that this article was promoted over four years ago, in 2004, standards on citation have changed, and this article is actually in pretty decent shape for being promoted that long ago. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:33, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much Ealdgyth for the work you have done thus far on the article, it certainly is in a better shape from when I nominated it for a FAR. I'm afraid I do not see how a consideration of when the article was promoted is applicable to this discussion, as around the top of the Wikipedia:Featured article review article, it says "FAs are held to the current standards regardless of when they were promoted". I hope you will be able to improve the First Crusade article even further, so that it can get closer to satisfying 1c of the FAC.OpenSeven (talk) 21:41, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

You added tags to every sentence? That's insane. You even tagged at least one section that actually is cited. No wonder FAR is such a pain in the ass. Adam Bishop (talk) 12:42, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
I did not add a tag to every sentence, although the density of citation tags is high especially regarding the analysis sections, which offer the most controversial, unsourced points. If I have added citation tags to a paragraph which was already sourced, my apologies for that, and I would be entirely happy if my wrong citation tags regarding that paragraph are removed (I would do it myself but I cannot find the paragraph in question). Thank you in advance. OpenSeven (talk) 12:54, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
I'll keep plugging away Adam, in the next few days, hopefully I can whittle the number you need to mess with down. It'll be a few days, this is tedious work, I can only do it for so long. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:53, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Ealdgyth. If I can claim the majority of the work on the original version of the FA, then I assure you all I did not make anything up, which is why it should be easy to cite; but on the other hand, my knowledge of history and historiography was much poorer four years ago, so there are probably parts that need updates rather than just citations. (Of course, it's possible to have a whole paragraph or even a section cited by the same footnote; sorry if I was snappy earlier, but it's annoying when FAC busybodies stick tags everywhere when they have no knowledge of the subject.) Adam Bishop (talk) 16:54, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
I've thrown a few cites needed tags up, mainly when part of a paragraph is cited to a source I'm citing but earlier parts aren't necessarily cited there. I'm hampered by having misplaced my copy of Runciman's First Crusade, so I can't help much with that. I'll get to it again a bit later this afternoon. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:04, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
That's okay, we shouldn't use Runciman anyway. He's badly out of date even for the most basic information. Adam Bishop (talk) 21:15, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I think I've sourced everything I can. I just don't have the sources for anything but the narrative, sorry Adam. Hopefully this helped some at least. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:01, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: that is the most obnoxious citation-bombing job I've ever seen at FAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:32, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Is that good or bad?
By the way, the article still seems to be missing...something. I've been working on a section about some historiographical issues, which I suppose could go into the main Crusades article, but I think would also fit in this one; stuff like the Erdmann Thesis, common myths like the younger-sons-looking-for-glory idea, different opinions about the role of Islamic expansion, the cannibalism, the massacre in Jerusalem, etc. I guess I will have to intersperse it into the existing paragraphs. Would that be too much? Too boring? Best placed somewhere else? Adam Bishop (talk) 05:31, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
(It is currently in my sandbox, by the way. Adam Bishop (talk) 07:50, 16 November 2008 (UTC))
OK, I've reworked the background section. More to come later. Adam Bishop (talk) 18:12, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
I was just reading Erdmann the other day (as you can see here and here). Perhaps a whole article on his thesis would be possible? I wish I had more time to work on this article, but I am busy these days. I think the article needs to be restructured. Looking at the table of contents, it's not a very inviting article. I like the idea of refuting common misconceptions (which is just about every common conception), but I don't like the sharp division that currently exists between "chronology" and "analysis". And the choice of headings does not help the reader greatly in selecting which section he (or she) wishes to read. But in short: I think I'd prefer "interspersing" to the current situation, but the information will just get lost that way unless the whole article is restructured. Srnec (talk) 06:16, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
I think an article on the Erdmann thesis would be appropriate; I was also thinking that the origins section of the Crusades article could be expanded, but that article is in much worse shape than this one. At the moment I'm trying to sort out the background and the "east in the 11th century" section, and I haven't even begun to look at the rest of the sections yet. Adam Bishop (talk) 07:32, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Barack Obama

Notified: WP Biography, WP USPREZ, WP US Congress, WP Politics, User:Meelar, HailFire and User:Tvoz.

previous FAR (12:56, 19 September 2008)

It pains me to say this, but this article does not meet the featured article criteria for the following reasons:

  • 1a - well-written: its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard
    • The article fails this criterion because it has a maintainance tag at the top of the '2008 presidential Campaign' section complaining about proseline
    • In addition, the massive amount of information added/changed after he won an election makes the article inconsistent, slightly repetitive, and some parts are badly-written and out-of-sequence.
  • 1C - 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
    • The article is lacking citations for many claims.
      • With an article that is policed like this one, stick a tag anywhere you feel a citation is needed and it will very likely appear.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:15, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
    • The reflist it has causes visual problems for some users. Dendodge TalkContribs 16:03, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
  • To a lesser extent 1e - stable: it is not subject to ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process
    • The article has been placed on article probation - does that reflect stability?
  • 4 - Length. It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style)
    • This article (even though summary style is used) is too long, both for easy reading and for fragile connections.

As I say, it pains me to do this, but after 2 hours and 30 minutes, the most visited article on Wikipedia's problems were not solved, and FAs should be of a higher quality than this. Dendodge TalkContribs 19:58, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment The way I understood it, the article was placed on probation not because there are a lot of edit wars going on, but to enable administrators to get rid of SPA's and POV-pushers who are behaving in such a way that in normal circumstances, it would be nearly impossible to find a "legitimate" (so to speak) reason to ban them from the article. (e.g. they go to 2RR; don't revert the same thing, but always pecking away at the consensus version, etc.) J.delanoygabsadds 20:03, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
    • True as that may be, a few too many vandals and trolls have been blocked for my liking, and the article content changes rapidly (since he recently won an election). It's also a bit long for my liking - my laptop can barely handle it! Dendodge TalkContribs 20:11, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
      • Only a few are listed there, but vandalism and disruption isn't a stability issue. Previous FARs have shown that there is no actionable stability issue, and it's logic that following the election of Obama, the article is substantially modified. The prose issues in the election section can be addressed on the talk page. It's still featured quality, but needs some time to assimilate the recent events. Cenarium Talk 00:30, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
  • The prose for that particular section can be cut-and-slashed down to between three and five paragraphs, with a retrospective view - the rest should go into the sub-article. - New content will surely come once his term begins. - Mailer Diablo 21:40, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Aww, I suppose it was inevitable. FAR is simply not going to be able to handle Obama. I dunno what to do. Marskell (talk) 14:35, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Comment about article the lead paragraph needs more citations, i'ved tagged a couple places with the citation needed tag. - -' The Spook (TALK) (Share the Love with Barnstars) 21:37, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Actually, WP:LEAD says that content mentioned in the lead section, which is then cited throughout the article, doesn't require as much emphasis on citations. So I wouldn't be too sure about that. — Do U(knome)? yes...or no 21:57, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Comment I would agree that FAR might not be able to handle an article like this. I believe the whole system of featured articles is just not built to consider articles such as this one. This will be the recipient of constant editing for the foreseeable future. Maybe in oh, ten years, it may settle down to a stable state, when new information, both cited and uncited, is no longer being added. Further, my understanding is that a featured article need not maintain stability at all times, but that it shows that stability and agreement is possible during FAC and FAR.--Patrick «» 22:16, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, LukeTheSpook, for pointing out the citation issue - I, too, notice it is a problem now you mention it and have addded it to my list of concerns at the top. Patrick, I agree that the FA criteria were designed to prove that stability was possible - unfortunately, it isn't on this article, and probably won't be for a while. Dendodge TalkContribs 22:40, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment The issue of how Obama's racial background should be described, what issues are involved with his self-identification as an Afro-American, the status of the latter group in U.S. society, the attitudes of various ethnic groups in the U.S. towards the idea of "mixed race" --- all these issues have broader implications aside from how they impinge on Obama's story. Although I too have contributed a bit to the discussion, I now feel that in the main article this issue should only be briefly touched upon, but with a clear reference (blue intratextual hyperlink?) to another article in Wikipedia which goes into more detail on these inter-related subjects. What I don't appreciate is some high-handed Wiki-whiz hiding my Talk-Page contribution(s) inside some "archive", in effect deciding without general consultation which material should or should not be left in open view for those who come to read the Talk-page. The disposition of comments and suggestions from individual Wiki-editors should rely on informed consent in order to maintain a civil and harmonious atmosphere. Efforts should be spent on acceptable, orderly placement of contributions, not on hiding them inside "archives".Jakob37 (talk) 14:53, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Procedural Close Pending Cleanup I agree that there are some minor tweaks that can return this article to FA standards. It was set to probation, just like the other 3 major nominees, due to a mix of vandalization and "overlove" during wone of the most unique elections in many of our lifetimes. That does not mean that, like the last FA challenge, it has the grounds to be removed from FA, it merely means that the repair todo list must be swiftly documented, and immediately enacted upon consensus. Duuude007 (talk) 16:15, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
    • You can't close this before we've had time to gather consensus. Nobody has expressed a strong opinion yet. Dendodge TalkContribs 17:05, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - Typically I would do this myself, but since there is so much activity surrounding this article, I'll just comment and let the regular editors decide. The multiple-column reference list at the bottom malfunctions on many articles. The bottom of the article is cut off and the FA star disappears at the top. I would urge editors to stick with {{reflist}} by itself, and not use any multiple columns. I would direct editors to read this to become familiar with the problem. -- Veggy (talk) 03:58, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
    • I've added it to my list of concerns - I can't do it myself as my connection's not too good right now. Dendodge TalkContribs 16:03, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Comments on the various points raised:
    • This article, like almost all FAs, has a two column reflist, there is occasionally a problem with reflist with three of four columns, but it's not the case here.
    • The prose had recently to be modified due to external events indeed, some concerns have been raised and resolved and if you have any, please be specific.
    • I don't see any citation problem, the citations in the lead have been properly removed in accordance with WP:LEADCITE.
    • There is no actionable stability issue as I said and previous FARs concluded, vandalism and disruption is not a stability matter and articles must obviously be modified when external events with importance on the subject arise.
    • Length has been discussed many times and consensus is roughly that indeed it's quite long compared to other articles, but it can't be helped, and some similar articles have about the same length (Bush, McCain). Cenarium Talk 00:35, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Cenarium's comments seconded. Duuude007 (talk) 15:06, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm going to get around to a copy edit within the next 24 hours. —Ceran(dream / discover) 01:14, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
  • It alarms me when I look at the top of the page and see that so few of the projects on the article's talk page have been notified of this discussion. Surely, you understand that this might be the most important WP biography to WP:CHICAGO and WP:ILLINOIS as well as WP:USPE and a few others. The article continues to be vigilantly watched for current news and vandalism. I would probably prefer a two-column reflist to the current three-column one. I think the article is excised properly for forked topics. I think the article adheres to WP:WIAFA, and it continues to be an example of the best of WP, IMO.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:13, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
    • I see, the reflist is {{reflist|colwidth=30em}}, so on most configurations, it's a two-column, but it may be a three-column on certain configurations. It can be changed to {{reflist|2}}. Cenarium Talk 15:21, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
      • I really don't think many editors are even taking this FAR seriously. It seems this article has an FAR every month, and as mentioned above many editors don't even know anything about it. To me this is one of the finest FA biographies we have on wikipedia, and it is used as an example for so many wikiprojects. So after a few more minor fixes, I would doubt that this review would have to continue. -Marcusmax(speak) 03:50, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Asthma

Notifications to Ziphon, Davidruben, Knowledge Seeker and WP MED

According to Wikipedia:Featured articles/Cleanup listing, Asthma is among our most problematic FAs. Promoted in 2005, it is largely uncited, has been tagged as needing citations for more than a year, has an undeveloped History section, has numerous short, stubby sections, and has an underdeveloped WP:LEAD. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:43, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Yep this article has some big problems. Hopefully we can get enough people interested to get this article back into shape. It was peer reviewed in July. Wikipedia:Peer_review/Asthma/archive2#BirgitteSB. Most of the recommendations are still applicable. Ziphon (ALLears) 04:22, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
  • This is not currently meeting my definitions for FA. For instance, long inline quotes from researchers are completely out of place (section about long-acting beta-2 agonists). The history section is woefully inadequate (nothing to say apart from some random quote from a minor paper) and ignores about 2000 years of asthma research. JFW | T@lk 11:56, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Hey Sandy, whatever happened to "only one nomination at a time"? ;) Dabomb87 (talk) 00:53, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Damon Hill

Notified WikiProject Motorsport, WikiProject Formula One, 4u1e, and Skully Collins
previous FAR

My primary concern with this June 2006 promotion is that I believe it fails 1c. Much of the career summary is low on citations, leaving many facts unreferenced. An example of this comes from the 1993-1996 section: "as he had repeatedly complained of cramp in the tight confines around the pedals." The 1998-1999 section describes him appearing to lose motivation, a statement that really needs a reference. I also see some phrases like "who took an emotional win" that creep in, though these can easily be fixed. I left a message on the article's talk page a while back, and the page has improved quite a bit, but I think it needs further work to meet current FA standards. Giants2008 (17-14) 02:08, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Very quick first response - I'd say "some" facts unreferenced rather than "many", but it's irrelevant either way really, they still need to be ref'd. Would you mind putting in cn tags where necessary, Giants? I've deliberately left "emotional win" in for the moment because of the very specific and extreme circumstances: Hill's teammate Ayrton Senna was killed a few weeks previously in another race, leading to a massive worldwide media reaction. At the time one possible cause of the fatal accident was believed to be a breakage on Senna's car, built to the same design as Hill's. A direct quote to this effect from someone would be better though. All other comments welcome. Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 08:20, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Actually, there are more cites needed than I thought. Fair cop. I've marked up the ones that I can see. 4u1e (talk) 08:36, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
I added a couple more. One thing I want to point out is that the list of helmet sponsors strikes me as unnecessary. Maybe that could be reduced or eliminated altogether. Giants2008 (17-14) 18:20, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm a mind reader. It's already gone. :) 4u1e (talk) 18:25, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

OK. All cite needed tags are now gone. So has 'emotional win', in the absence of a suitable quote, and a couple of other bits of emphatic language. I believe that covers all extant comments. The article has in fact been re-written quite extensively since Giants' first comments. Are there any more comments from here? 4u1e (talk) 18:18, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I think the article is fixed. Since the original comments it's been significantly re-written (see diff), including restructuring of sections; a large percentage of the references have been replaced with more reliable alternatives; all of the refs have been moved to cite template format; a large number of refs have been added (71 now vs 46 before); and all wikilinks have all been checked and duplicates and low value links removed. Unless there are further comments, I suggest that the review should be closed before FARC. Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 22:15, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
My biggest concern as far as the references went was the lack of citations for race results in the body. 4u1e added a reference to the result table at the bottom; I'll leave it to others to decide if that's sufficient. Other than that, it is looking a world better than it was when I first saw it a while back, though someone might want to check the space after reference 22. It will be difficult, because there isn't one. :-) Giants2008 (17-14) 00:15, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Picky, picky ;-). I'll fix the space. Regarding references for race results, Giants and I have discussed this before, and my view is that it would be actively harmful to the article to put in a cite for every simple factual statement such as "Hill finished fourth" - these things are completely uncontroversial and have a vanishingly low chance of being challenged. Remember that WP:Verifiability says "Material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source." There is a full table of Hill's F1 results at the foot of the article, and this is referenced to the official F1 website. Pre-F1 results are inline cited, as there is no such comprehensive 'official' source for them. Where more detail on a race result is included (i.e. "Villeneuve took pole position, but Hill led away from the start"), there are (or should be!) inline cites. Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 10:18, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Final Fantasy X

Previous FAR
Notified User:Ryu Kaze, WP:Final Fantasy

This article has a lot of issues. Here are the highlights: several unsourced statements and the entire Sphere Grid section has no refs, an overly large storyline section, a poorly designed references Reception section, several one- or two-sentence paragraphs (