This is the archive of Featured Article Removal Candidates for January 2006. For the active archive and list of previous archives, click here.

Contents 1 Kept status 1.1 Buddhist art 1.2 Chariot racing 1.3 World War I 1.4 Hey Jude 1.5 University of Michigan 1.6 Rainbow 2 Removed status 2.1 Peer review 2.2 Spam (electronic) 2.3 Jet engine 2.4 Leet 2.5 Noam Chomsky 2.6 Simon and Garfunkel 2.7 Cold fusion 2.8 Mark Latham 2.9 Ralph Yarborough 2.10 Christmas 2.10.1 Discussion 2.11 Garry Kasparov 2.12 Erich von Manstein 2.13 The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask

Kept status

Buddhist art

Article is still a featured article

Here is the difference between now and when it became featured.

My main reason is the lack of references [2 (c)] for this article. It is surely no longer anywhere near Wikipedia's best work [1] and it is not comprehensive I don't believe [2 (b)]. It could be salvaged but it was an FA from another era and needs to be updated for new expectations. gren グレン ^? 10:16, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose removal. This is not an FA from "another era", except if beginning of 2005 is indeed another era. References are there, except someone relabelled them "Other Readings", which I corrected. The article has a high level of comprehensiveness, especially in its geographical treatment. Regards. PHG 10:43, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per PHG. As a suggestion though, it would be nice to have something on contemporary Buddhist art. Mark¹ 11:49, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per PHG. Given the length of this article (already 31K), I'd suggest that "Contemporary Buddhist art" or "Buddhist art after year N" or whatever be a separate article anyway. Anville 08:53, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

• Remove per nomination. The article lacks inline citations (also 2(c)), and should be split up per Wikipedia:Summary style. AndyZ 01:19, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Chariot racing

There is no consensus. Article is still a featured article

Chariot racing was featured long ago and meets few of today's standards. No lead section to speak of; not comprehensive; improper image use; no inline citations. Chariot racing certainly does not, "exemplify our very best work". -- Rmrfstar 13:03, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

• Can you be more specific, like making reference to featured article criteria? FWBOarticle
• Remove per nom, the lead is only one short sentence. --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 19:59, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Remove this is quite an good article, but the lead section does need work and the lack of references is unacceptable... Mikkerpikker ... 22:05, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, with the condition being that the lead section is improved within a week or so. While I'd certainly expect inline citations of every new FA candidate, I'd be willing to let the older ones stay grandfathered in, as long as they give a comprehensive list of sources as this one does. Andrew Levine 03:08, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I think it's fair to say this article is mostly my work; I can't do anything about the lack of sources or references, since I am no longer in the same place as the books I used and to be honest I no longer particulary care about the subject. As for the lead section, I'm sure any reasonably competent person could fix that in less time than it takes to make a FARC page. I would also like to say that inline citations are horrible and ugly. Are we writing essays here, or encyclopedia articles? I hope this trend of demanding inline references does not continue. But enough ranting... Adam Bishop 03:25, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment The new lead seems fine, and the article overall also...seems fine. I read the article and nothing bothersome jumped out at me (although it might benefit from more subsectioning). The References seem suitably comprehensive. I didn't review it as thoroughly as I might a FAC, and I have no special knowledge about the topic. Based on that, I don't have an objection to it keeping its FA status. Remove It needs an intro, plain and simple. If the introduction gets written before this FARC nom ends, I'll read the article more closely and possibly change or withdraw my opinion. (In passing, I happen to very much agree with the inline citations comment above -- in general, citations are horrible and ugly indeed -- for all but the most controversial of statements, where a link to footnotes would be useful.) --Tsavage 17:29, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment More or less for the sheer joy of it, I added a lead paragraph. I don't care that much if the article keeps its FA status or not, though I thought it was interesting and well-written. And I couldn't agree more with the comments about the current mania for footnotes. They're ugly and usually unnecesary and almost always nitpicking and often added only to get an article through FAC and did I mention they're ugly? I had to plaster Henry James (the article, not his ashes) with a couple dozen of the little cruddies just to push the article through FAC. Wouldn't you know, the two articles right after Henry James on the FA list, James Joyce and Rudyard Kipling, don't have any footnotes at all. Oh, for the good old days... Casey Abell 15:32, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep article improved --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 23:40, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Still remove. I still don't think the article is up to current featured article standards: it is not particularily well-written, with unprofessional anecdotes and stated assumptions; it is poorly organized, with very little subsectioning. This article is not "our very best work". I say send to peer review. -- Rmrfstar 13:10, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
    • As I said, I'm not real enthusiastic one way or the other. But there certainly seems to be no strong consensus for removal, so I'd say the article is a Keep. Casey Abell 18:23, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Rmrfstar: I (quickly) reread the article, and modified my comment a bit towards the negative. For one, the writing is not at all as tight as it could be; combined with lack of subsections, it makes the whole article somewhat bloated and a dense read (which right there isn't FA quality). But, if you could be more specific with your problems (um, examples...)... It's tough, partially because based on the fact (IMO) that current FACs quite often get promoted despite having big problems, I'm in favor of, when in doubt, remove, but that often takes a detailed, protracted argument. Here if I did some quick research, I suspect I'd find significant stuff that's missing, but that takes time, and I believe FARC is based on "consensus", so a couple of keeps may scuttle the nomination in any case. It may sound odd, but for FAC and now FARC, after three months of participating quite heavily (mainly FAC), I've taken to reserving my energy for the noms I see as the most problematic (as, in FAC at least, some of these reviews run on for literally WEEKS). It's not an...ideal situation, with objectors facing much hard work not required of supporters, but it's what we're working with... --Tsavage 18:40, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

World War I

Article is still a featured article

I am renominating this page for FARC for two major reasons:

1. This was never put through the FAC process. I went searching for the original FAC page and found this link, placed on 14:46, 15 February 2004, which shows that the page was simply tagged with an FA templete without going through the FAC process in 2004.
2. The article has no inline citations.

I feel that these two issues put togather are enough to make this a canidate for FARC. This was previously nominated, the results can be found here. TomStar81 04:50, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

PS: This is my first ever FARC, and I am sure that i screwed at least two things up, so if someone more familar with this process than I am please check to make sure I did not make that big of mess? I would really apreciate it ;) TomStar81 04:54, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep (presuming the unusual tagging is a relic of the "Brilliant prose" conversion rather than a fraudulent FA). The lack of citations is regrettable, but there are numerous references listed; there's no reason to retroactively apply current citation standards to old FAs at this time, as we'd have to remove most of them. —Kirill Lokshin 04:59, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  • If this is a "Brilliant Prose" hold over then we need to nail down exactly when the change from "Brillant Prose" to "Featured Article" was made and place that date on this page. In this manner we can determine with absolutle certentity whether we are dealing with a "Brillent Prose" hold over or a "Featured Article" fraud. TomStar81 10:06, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
    • The "Refreshing Brilliant Prose" vote was held in December of 2003 (after which something like 80-90% were removed) and the official switchover was made in January 2004. Raul654 03:13, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Given that the featured article message was added by Lord Emsworth, I think we can safely say this isn't a fraud :-) —Kirill Lokshin 04:14, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - there is a third, even older, FARC here. -- ALoan (Talk) 08:21, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment see Wikipedia:Archive/Refreshing brilliant prose - History and religion. Anville 07:15, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I didn't comb through the entire article, but I read the lead and Introduction section, and they do seem to effectivley summarize the much longer text that follows, which is critical for such a broad topic. I also skimmed and selectively read parts of the rest, and the writing appears to be clean and clear and not obviously skewed to a particular bias. Checks for basic info, like casualties, economics, technology and methods, were positive. (The absence of inline citations is IMO, a very good and lucky thing, reading an article of this length with inlines would likely be near intolerable.) Also, the edit history shows high and steady activity over time, so with the article in this orderly state after all that, I am much more confident in it now than at the time it was promoted. There is a bit of an inconsistency here: since the article has changed significantly since the nomination, one could argue that it requires a new FAC, as it is a different article. So, my vote is essentially a speedy FAC pass, something I might not agree with in other FARC cases, or on FAC. But, such is the wiggly world of WP process, and mine is only one opinion. Based on my review as described, I don't think FA will be badly served by keeping this one. --Tsavage 17:55, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

---

Too late I know, but if anyone wants to renominate this I would agree with a removal. I won't do so just yet as it is too soon since this last one. violet/riga (t) 09:23, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Hey Jude

Article is still a featured article

Where to start? It uses way way way way way too many quotes... The Awards and Acclaim section has too little on acclaim from people... Featured Articles shouldn't have trivia... the image of the Beatles on the Frost Show has no fair use rationale... some phrases seem too over the top or weaselly, such as "exuberant"... too little on the chart performances... some of the claims made in the article should probably need inline cites of some sort... the section about the trial should probably be expanded as it doesn't provide enough info... the prose is certainly not brilliant. Nominate for removal for all of those reasons. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 00:52, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - Featured in August 2004 - nom - diff. -- ALoan (Talk) 01:28, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as it now stands. Well done, Johnleemk. -- ALoan (Talk) 17:00, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - Shouldn't these problems be brought up on the talk page before FARCing? Anyway, tidying up these Beatles song articles is on my to do list - I recently cleaned up Yesterday (song). Johnleemk | Talk 10:50, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• After much slicing, dicing and footnoting (diff), I'm ready to say I think this should be a keep. Johnleemk | Talk 16:28, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Johnleemk rewrite --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 20:52, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
• The numbers of the inline cites are out of order. Furthermore, here is your fair use rationale for image:heyjude.jpg
  • {{TV-screenshot}}

The Beatles performing Hey Jude on the Frost Programme. Apparently there are some people who for unknown reasons insist on mindlessly hewing to "process" even though it's blatantly clear why this is fair use: it's a TV clip, bla, bla, bla, fair use when it comes to "Hey Jude", the Beatles or the Frost Programme, bla bla. Johnleemk | Talk 14:24, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

• • I do not understand what purpose your comments serve. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 23:51, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
  • The numbers are supposed to be "out of order". I'm using the new m:Cite footnoting process, which obliterates all the problems Wikipedia:Footnote3 had (including previewing and section editing), and this is what it's supposed to do. Even if I converted back to Footnote3, the recommended procedure is to make the footnotes "out of order". And I think the fair use rationale is blatantly obvious, which is why I get pissed off when people demand a fair use rationale when it stares them in the face (see my comments on the Erich von Manstein FARC). The image was broadcast on a television programme. Under US law, discussion of the television programme with the fair use image is legal. You don't need anyone to tell you that -- it's right in our fair use article or WP:FU. Johnleemk | Talk 04:38, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep The m:Cite footnoting system works well here, and in this case, the boilerplate fair use justification provided by the {{TV-screenshot}} template is adequate. Maybe this only happened after Johnleemk's cleanup, but I think this article reads very well: it establishes greatness in a sweet and succint way, rather than straining for it like, oh, others I won't name. Anville 07:09, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

• This article is not comprehensive. There is very little on acclaim from individuals and no mention of cover versions. The section about auctioning off lyrics as it is written implies that it was just one person's word against another. Is this true? With the footnotes the way they are it is hard to tell which of the references go with which inline cite. Also, this article uses quotes way too much. I don't see how something that just regurgitates what others have said is exemplifies "our very best work", and has prose that is "compelling, even brilliant". Lastly, it is imappropriate to express your displeasure on a non-discussion namespace. Your comment (not the template) should be removed from the image page. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 21:58, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Acclaim from individuals is not really important; I find they often cause more problems than they solve, in that quoting reviews often makes the article sound POVed (just look at Anville's example, or some other stuff I've worked on like Autobiography (Ashlee Simpson album)). There's no need for it. The auctioning section is correctly implying that it was just McCartney's word against the other fellows -- that's all there was to it. The footnoting is in full compliance with the way m:Cite was designed, and also with the recommendations of Wikipedia:Footnote, which seeks to create some uniformity in how we footnote our articles. While I agree the old article used quotes excessively, I don't think it does so here -- most of them have been pared down to only the relevant parts. If the article doesn't flow well, I would agree they're a problem, but it flows well and it's clearly not a mere collection of quotes, so I don't see the problem. These problems are clearly a matter of opinion, not fact, so I suppose it'll just depend on which way FARCers lean. Johnleemk | Talk 06:26, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

University of Michigan

Article is still a featured article

I've done a massive lead-section copyedit, but this article is still not FA-shape for a university of 39,000+ students. It reads at times like an admissions brochure and has lots of weasel words. Neutrality^talk 22:12, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. I haven't read every word, but on a first look it seems fairly neutral to me. Can you be a bit more specific, particularly as to problems which can't easily be fixed? I find it a rather dull article, but that's because I have no particular interest in the subject- it's not obvious to me how it could be much better. Mark¹ 22:40, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Again, not a single concern brought up on the article's talk page, nor have you given any specific criteria it lacks or what can be fixed. The primary author has actively sought advice on how to improve the article and has implimented everything he's gotten. Your edits to the lead improved nothing I saw. You just rearanged information and arguably made it flow worse. In addition you introduced what appears to be a factual error in changing the conversion of 1920 acres to 776 hectares instead of the 777 which appears more correct. Why would you even do that? - Taxman ^Talk 23:28, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I won't even dignify the "made is flow worse" comment with a response. The 776/777 change was the result of an edit conflict. --Neutrality^talk 23:35, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I make comments here quickly to limit the time wasted on meta conversation. But if you want to focus on that and ignore the more important points we're making go ahead. - Taxman ^Talk 00:15, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm with Taxman on the confusion here. I'm shocked that people seem to be so emotional about this University - both for and against. Little constructive discussion has occurred, but lots of vandalism, and a NPOV tag got slapped on a featured article. --Habap 02:14, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I corrected much of the POV issues, and the user who placed the NPOV tag in the first place has since removed it. Pentawing^Talk 07:48, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. The fact that the FARC has been put up without any in-depth discussion concerning POV on the article's talk page is beyond me. Usually, FARC is done as a last resort if no one is willing/able to work on the article further. Pentawing^Talk 04:56, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I have been working on getting U-M's in-state rival, Michigan State University up to Featured Article status, but I support U-M's inclusion in the FA category. I have worked hard to give a balanced view of MSU (most notably our frequent riots), and I think that the U-M article can stay a featured article with just a few extra "cons" to balance the numerous "pros". While I agree that the article is POV (for example, I've never heard anyone call it a "public ivy",) puting this article up as a FARC the day after it appears on the Main Page is the online equivalent of MSU students spray painting the U-M Diag green and white. For you non-Michiganders, that means it's not cool. — Lovelac7 05:15, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I have moved the "public ivy" reference out of the lead, changed the peacock language to a matter-of-fact statement, and added a footnote. Please see the this talk page section for more details. — Lovelac7 05:28, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. The article is practically the same version as the one that was first put up as a candidate for featured article. If there are too much favorable POVs been added since the time the candidate was elected as a featured article, perhaps a selective reversion to the "feature article version" would suffice. An AFRC a day after the article managed to get to the front page is just too fast and shocking. __earth 06:20, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
• The campus map needs to be rotated 90 degrees counterclockwise. (Unsigned comment by 68.54.242.34 15:04, January 12, 2006.)
• Keep - unless substantial, specific problems are pointed out by the nominator (or someone else) this is not a productive exercise. Johntex\^talk 18:34, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep—insufficient grounds for removal, as yet. Convince me .... Tony 10:56, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Rainbow

Article is still a featured article

The organisation of this article is horrible. All of the scientific information is condensed in the introduction, while the body part is for rainbows references in culture. CG 12:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Remove. Poor organization, and the science section is incomplete -- no mention of what causes supernumary rainbows. There's also a surplus of photos, and the "popular culture" section shouldn't be lists. --Carnildo 22:16, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

• Remove as per Carnildo (emphasis on poor organisation!). Also, inline citation is radically inadequate and poorly done when it is included. The article could be brought back up to FA standard with some TLC but it is undeserving in its current state... Mikkerpikker 23:38, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

• Remove, per Carnildo. -- Hurricane Ericarchive -- my dropsonde 03:14, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Some extra headings were added by Nuj on 6 January to improve the seggregation of information. It currently has an adequate lead (although it could expand into another paragraph), then scientific explanation and history, then mythology and religion, then literature, and finally mnemonics. What else would you suggest to improve organisation?

Are there any particular photos that you think are unnecessary (since this is a visual phenomenon, doesn't it make sense to show several examples?).

I'll try to add an explanation of supernumary rainbows and turn the "Popular culture" section (presumably you are referring to the one currently called "Rainbows in religion and mythology", which has its own sub-page at [Rainbows in mythology]]?) into prose in the next few days. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:41, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

The article seems to have turned into a "my favorite rainbow picture" collection, sort of like what keeps happening to Cat. I'd suggest keepign all the diagrams, and reducing the photos to Image:Double Rainbow.jpg to illustrate double rainbows, Image:Supernumerary rainbow 03 contrast.jpg to illustrate supernumerary rainbows, Image:Rainbows.jpg to illustrate reflected rainbows, Image:TakakkawFalls2.jpg as an example of a waterfall creating a rainbow, and either Image:Regenbogen-gesamt.jpg or Image:Regenbogen Zürichsee.jpg as the lead image. --Carnildo 22:01, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Right - I have put most of the images in a gallery at the end, prosified the listy section, and added an explanation of supernumary rainbows, and, as mentioned before, someone else dealt with headings. It even has (one) inline citation now ;) Is that better? (And I wish some other people would try to help our poorly FA rather than just saying "remove per nom". It sometimes feels like no-one else cares about our content if they have not written it themselves.) -- ALoan (Talk) 21:18, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the gallery. Commons already has a gallery with those pictures, and many more as well. --Carnildo 00:10, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough: you are right; I thought that is where we may end up. The German page (de:Regenbogen) is actually very good: I shall try to translate the relevant parts into our page (rainbow flag and rainbows in art are obvious missing pieces, as well as mentions for other phemomena such as the glory and fog bow). -- ALoan (Talk) 01:31, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Removed status

Peer review

Article is no longer a featured article.

Fails criterion 2(c) - Un-referenced. Fails criterion 2(b) - not comprehensive (one section is actually a stub). «LordViD» 14:13, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

• Remove per nom. There's also a link-farm at the bottom, but that's a rather minor issue in comparison. —Kirill Lokshin 14:24, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• Remove per nom. Johnleemk | Talk 18:28, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• Remove per nom. Needs to be peer reviewed. (Sorry, I couldn't help it!) *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 14:56, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• Remove Tobyk777 21:24, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Remove — the external links section needs a major cleanup. --zenohockey 00:05, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Spam (electronic)

Article is no longer a featured article

No references section or Notes section, no use of footnotes at all. Very choppy Table Of Contents and general layout. Lots of short sections/subsections. (particularly the 'Spamming in different media' subsections, all one short paragraph each). Could do with more photos (although this is not an FA requirement). Too many external links. This is not an example of Wikipedia's best work. — Wackymacs 11:49, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

• Remove per nom. Although there is one footnote—at the bottom of the "Overview" section! —Kirill Lokshin 17:12, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
• Remove. This one is not so easily fixable. It has terribly short paragraphs, poor balance of coverage and no real references. - Taxman ^Talk 18:26, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. A lot of work has clearly gone into this, and it'd be a pity to see it de-listed. I'll try to have a go at it soon. Mark¹ 19:25, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
• Remove, per nom. «LordViD» 07:13, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
• Tentative remove—let's see what Mark can do. Start by fixing the pointillistic paragraphing? Tony 06:58, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Jet engine

Article is no longer a featured article

While not a bad article, there are no references of any kind, the lead is not comprehensive and there are empty sections, remove--nixie 07:11, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

• keep - I am not sure this subject needs as many references as, say, a history article. Wizzy…☎ 08:01, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I doubt the authors of this article received the information from the ether, the consulted references, and should have provided them. Without references, which make an article verifiable, they do no meet the featured article criteria (something you should familiarise yourself with if you are going to vote on such matters).--nixie 08:25, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Having watched this (outstanding) article grow, I am in no doubt that the writers know a great deal about their subject, perhaps being aerospace engineers themselves (as I have been). The knowledge came from their profession. I am in no doubt that this article represents some of the very best work on wikipedia, references notwithstanding. Wizzy…☎ 07:52, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I still think it is a great article. How about adding {{cite}} to items you find problematic ? I wouldn't know where to start though. Perhaps some references to historical engines ? The pictures do a good job of explaining the text, but I understand that is not a cite. Wizzy…☎ 15:29, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Another outstanding engineering article, TGV, made it to the front page yesterday. It has some references, but hardly important ones. Wizzy…☎ 08:30, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
• Remove: No references --Carnildo 08:55, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
• Remove per nom. Saravask 17:08, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keeeep, per Wizzy...Phoenix2 07:40, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
• Remove, no references. Absolute requirement. Even if their knowledge came from their profession, it has to be recorded somewhere to be verifiable per WP:V. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:49, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
• Remove Good article but I agree, a FA cannot lack references, WP:V is very clear Mikkerpikker 01:02, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• Remove. Lack of references. --Allen3 ^talk 13:43, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Leet

Article is no longer a featured article

This article was made Featured in 2004, but seems to have fallen prey to the culture it tries to describe. No references whatsoever. It lacks a good formal structure- history should be split from overview, Leet#Leet in other languages needs to me moved down, and have the tables reduced in size. The page overall is too much of a glossary and the section on Leet#Leet in videogaming contains far too many examples. The Leet#Pwn section particularly seems badly written and probably belongs in Pwn. In parts, including the infobox, the article asserts itself as a constructed language rather than a simple slang, like Cockney. This is no longer an example of our best work. -- Netoholic @ 22:22, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• This nomination appears to be making a WP:POINT. Neto objects to a template on the Leet page, which he has waged a slow revert war over in the last couple of days ([1], [2], [3], [4] and [5]). There is now a discussion on the talk page about this template. FARCing an article because of a template on it seems rather silly. Radiant_>|< 23:32, 17 January 2006 (UTC) (and by that I mean keep, in case it wasn't clear). Radiant_>|< 12:18, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• I take this FARC in good faith, but it seems like to me that much of what Netoholic brings up are not necessarily objections to the quality of the article and whether or not it meets our standards, but easily fixable structural differences and issues with the content that should be discussed in Talk (i.e. conlang vs. slang). The article could use some serious pruning and minor reformating, but overall I think it is worth keeping featured. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 03:23, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • The article fails against even the most basic featured article criteria, specifically, it does not even have a reference section nor does it use inline citations. It needs major work to bring it up to those standards. Removal today does not mean it can't be renominated later. -- Netoholic @ 05:17, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep:
  • 1. The article covers an informal slang concept, and furthermore a relatively new subject area, and as such it is not feasible for it to have "reputable" references as to most other articles. There are no "experts" on leet culture per se, and thus there is little or no "expert opinion" either. Even if you did get some other information, they would just get their sources from the same people, the same environment, as those who wrote it in Wikipedia in the first place. In short, while references would not hurt this article, they are comparatively not vital.
  • 2. This article suffers from "starsickness" as other popular-subject featured articles where it is more of a matter of opinion than fact. People start contributing bits and pieces fine on their own, but gradually degrading the article. Ironically, this happens because the article is GOOD, not because its bad. The solution to that is selective reversal and systematic copyediting.
  • 3. And to top it off, the article is a prime example of Wikipedia being able to produce very well written and comprehensive, and comparatively neutral to most other sources, information about a popular subject few are willing to tackle precisely because of its popularity. Leet is the kind of article Wikipedia can and does show its unique qualities through. If it has side effects, deal with them, rather then demoting the article.
  • Personally I hate online "leet" when I see it, but I do appreciate the article ABOUT it as being one of the best neutral references about it, and one of the very few places to read about "leet" without the article beeing "leetified" itself.Elvarg 03:51, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Remove Ignoring all issues of "slow revert wars", I have to agree that this article falls terribly short of modern FA standards. I can't pass up the references requirement, simply because people who speak and grok leet also edit the Wikipedia. By that logic, we should let all articles on ethnic groups be filled by people who claim to belong to those groups, never mind what is actually verifiable. The prose is far from brilliant, or even compelling, and the unorganized deluge of inessential examples makes large sections more unreadable than C code. "Leet in videogaming" is particularly bad: it's a trivia section in all but name. This page is drowning in the cruft its subject naturally attracts, and requires extraordinary measures to return it to useability. Anville 08:53, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: This article is still of great status and was constantly being improved above the original article. I agree that this is simple a WP:POINT on the part of Netoholic. This seems like little more than a very un-wikilike attempt to "get back" at the users who opposed and ultimately trumped his removal of the language template from the article page. Unfortunately as a result of the relative fame of its subject matter among the internet community, it is subjected to a great deal of cruft and personal agendas of one-time editors. Which is frequently under discussion and is usually reverted on sight for a more consensus-formed approach. While there may be a section or two that is slightly questionable, to revoke its featured status would be a grave overreaction thaty will achieve nothing. There are several other articles that warrant this debate far more than this one. A much more productive approach would be to adress the issues in question rather than simply cause further harm. Unlike the article below these are all things that can easily be adressed on the talk page.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 11:37, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  
• Remove Changing my vote. While I stand by the majority of my statements, I have come to the conclusion that the article would be better served by having this status revoked, and possibly even tagged for cleanup, so that it may get the attention it needs to be properly repaired.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 07:01, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
  • "get back" at who? This article is the result of dozens of editors, only three of which I have disagreed with. I'm not petty. I made this removal nomination only because, having first read it, then objected to the language assertion, I discovered it was actually featured (which seems to have been a mistake since this poll indicates it should have been removed). I cannot imagine the present article ever being featured on the Main Page at this point in time, so I made this nomination in good faith. -- Netoholic @ 17:15, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Remove -- regardless of whatever other points are being made by this nomination, references are an absolute requirement. Christopher Parham (talk) 16:29, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I disagree. See WP:IAR for details. In general, there are only one ABSOLUTE rule to WP (apart from legal issues such as copyrights) and that is NPOV. Everything else must be approached with some elasticity, and I think this article, due to its nature (see my reasons above) is the exception that makes the rule. Elvarg 21:14, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Indeed, IAR is perhaps the best page to make the point, since the explicit driving force of it is to remind us that we are here to make an encyclopedia. Which is why our featured articles require references. To say that references don't exist is simply to say that the information is unverifiable; verifiability is defined in terms of references. Christopher Parham (talk) 00:13, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
      • The statement "the sky is blue" is verifiable and can be referenced, but do you REALLY need to see references for it every time it comes up? Elvarg 07:16, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
        • It seems that, even for a statement like "the sky is blue", it's still appropriate to have a verifiable source cited (see Diffuse sky radiation). -- Netoholic @ 09:36, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
          • The sky is blue, unless it's cloudy, or you look at night, or if an oil well is burning nearby, or if it's during a solar eclipse... or if you're standing on another planet. Often, we only make blatantly obvious statements when there are in fact subtleties involved. Otherwise, what would be the point of speaking at all? In an encyclopaedia, if I see the phrase "the sky is blue", I expect to see a phrase following it, like "due to Rayleigh scattering". A statement like this then deserves a source. Anville 21:13, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Remove -- falls short in terms of accuracy, citations, and has far too much flame war drama on it. How bad is this that we're accusing people of "getting back" in this section? Also, if this were just getting back, there wouldn't be as many removes as there are, especially from users like me, who aren't involved in Netoholic's e-drama. Swatjester 20:46, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Conditional Removal -- I think that this would still be a good FA if it had some references, I don't really buy into the other critiques levelled against it. If some resources can be found for this page, I would support its status as an FA. KrazyCaley 18:46, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I would also like to halt this process while I take time to copyedit (per above) and further neutral-ize the article. Finding sources would be difficult if not impossible. I have asked ([6], [7]) for help from other communities which would have more... "expert" advice. I can't see this as being anything less than a transparent attempt by the nominator to harm the article after a protracted argument with other maintainers of the article. It's a classic "I'm taking my ball and going home" action. I also find it rather comical that after we had been arguing about the infobox for some days, Netoholic chooses to read the article. After strenuously objecting to its status as a polyglot/pidgin/dialect/language/whatever. That, too, is rather telling of this little crusade of his. Avriette 23:06, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

• Halting the process is not going to happen, however if genuine improvement occurs, and objections are met, I am open to extending the deadline. But there needs to be progress, not delays. --(Farc closer) Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:54, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

• Remove Appears to largely consist of original research; lacks reliable sources. An example: editors are attempting to decide whether it may be classified as a constructed language based on personal interpretations of Webster's Dictionary definitions and other Wikipedia articles. If that's not original research, what is?
  Much of the prose is tortured. (e.g. This is symptomatic of the desire or affected desire to elude comprehension by others unfamiliar with the foreign art form.) The "Leet in Videogaming" section is excessive and would probably be best split to its own page. An article that ventures so far from RS and so close to OR is not among the best Wikipedia has to offer as a reliable encyclopedia. --Tabor 23:44, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

How is that an interpretation? Its a dictionary definition used as such.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 06:00, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

The problem is in applying a dictionary definition to a settle a technical question by making interpretive claims. For example, suppose the question under discussion was: Is arsenic a metal? I go to my trusty dictionary and find that a metal is: Any of a category of electropositive elements that usually have a shiny surface, are generally good conductors of heat and electricity, and can be melted or fused, hammered into thin sheets, or drawn into wires. So taking that definition I say, "well arsenic looks pretty shiny to me, heat and electrical conductivity seem pretty good, etc. so I've determined it is a metal." It is just as inapproprate to follow this sort of heuristic using a dictionary definition of language—which, it should be noted, describes language in the aggregate and says nothing about what constitutes "a language" as distict from another—to decide whether Leet may be considered a distinct language.

On a different topic, I don't think adding unpublished student papers really helps the references section, save to make it look less empty.

The article promulgates implausibly precise but unreferenced facts. Created in 1980? Where did this "fact" come from?

For anyone that has not looked at WP:V, WP:RS and WP:OR recently, I think it is instructive to take another glance back at the standards outlined there just as a sanity check on how we evaluate article quality. And keep in mind that I am not saying that there shouldn't be an article for Leet—just that it genuinely falls short of lofty moniker: "the best Wikipedia has to offer". --Tabor 04:24, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

• Remove I agree with the previous reasoning this article is below standard you need to work to get FA back Discordance 06:51, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
• Remove - Fails to meet current featured article standards. FCYTravis 19:13, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
• Remove - There is too much in this article that needs referencing, and some content is even speculation. In addition, many parts are just silly, such as the random mention of the J/ψ particle or the claim that most major websites are run by people who people who, having formerly been in the "1337" stage, have transended to "stage three", using proper grammar and sentences. There are several little inconsistencies, such as referring to "pwn" as a misspelling; wouldn't pwn be misspelled in English, but properly spelled in 1337? The prose is not compelling or brilliant; too much of the article is given to lists, some of which is duplicative. --Pagrashtak 07:20, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Remove - contains alleged original research, doesn't adequately cite references, and needs improvement. Further, this article will probably always be undergoing rapid change, so I'm not sure if it's ever going to remain in a featurable state for long without some very diligent copyediting on an ongoing basis. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 04:49, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
• Remove - too many examples, trivia, lists, list-like paragraphs and general cruft. Absolutely agree with Anville above that "this page is drowning in the cruft its subject naturally attracts". Needs serious cleanup. Kosebamse 10:37, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Noam Chomsky

Article is no longer a featured article

Fails criteria 2(b) and 2(d): not comprehensive or NPOV, because all criticism has been removed. Fails criterion 5: inappropriate length, 86 kb mostly describing Chomsky's views. Hoziron 01:05, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

• Comment.Remove Referencing is pretty haphazard. Article clearly needs some trimming into Wikipedia:Summary style. I'm really bugged by "Political contemporaries" as a list... who is making these comparisons? The "Criticisms" section needs a much better summary of the child article, and the structure probably should not be arranged that way. That said, all of the above seems like it could be accomplished with some WP:BOLD editing. Jkelly 01:13, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
• Remove, for a variety of reasons. Here is the version that was promoted; the article has now nearly tripled in size, mostly by including Chomsky quotes on every subject imaginable. The article terribly overuses quotes in general; a large portion of it is not original prose. All criticism of Chomsky's views has been removed to a separate article, leaving a one-line section in this one. There is no explicit references section; and the bottom is a linkfarm. —Kirill Lokshin 01:24, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
• Remove as per above. Also, it fails 2a & all those quotes make the article nearly unreadable... Mikkerpikker 11:24, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
• Remove. More a bulletin board than an article. Mark¹ 00:29, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
• Remove. --Alabamaboy 16:16, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
• Remove - per nom. FCYTravis 22:26, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
• Remove. Poorly organised and difficult for a new reader unfamiliar with the subject. David | Talk 22:28, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Simon and Garfunkel

Article is no longer a featured article

I'm an experienced editor who has just opened an account. I hope this does not affect the validity of my argument.

This might have been a good article once, but now it pales in comparison to other music articles:

• Major

1. it has NO notes and references WHAT-SO-EVER.
2. the lead is choppy and does not provide enough context.
3. the music samples are disruptive to the article (yes, you still have to consider aesthetics). I suggest moving them to the bottom of the article.
4. no fair-use rationale of images.
5. The entire article is choppy; there are many paragraphs with only one or two sentences (this is not enough to state and expand on a point), and the prose does not flow. If this is what Wikipedia's very best work is, then I'm extremely disappointed. Traitor 22:50, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

• Minor

1. it uses unsightly conventions : #12 instead of the preferred "number twelve."

• Comment- You should bring these points up on the article talk page before listing the article here. Mark¹ 23:31, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

• Remove as per Traitor. Mikkerpikker 23:40, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
• Remove per Traitor. Things can be brought up on Talk but this requires a massive overhaul if it is to remain as an FA. Marskell 18:19, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
• Remove per nom. FCYTravis 22:24, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
• Remove per nom. Even the fourth word in the article, the first after the title, is wrong. We can do better by Paul and Art than this. David | Talk 22:25, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Remove per nom, also seems to be using album cover images as illustration instead of to identify the albums in question, has no sound samples, and half of the article is an awkward table-formatted discography. Lots and lots of work needs to be done. Jkelly 19:10, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
• Remove. Neutrality^talk 23:21, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
• Remove as per nominator. Tony 08:27, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Cold fusion

Article is no longer a featured article

This page has been radically transformed since it became a feature article. The fringe view that this phenomenon actually exists has been extremely active, while the scientific mainstream that does not believe it exists has been relatively absent. The article as is clearly fails at 2(d)- it is neither uncontroversial nor neutral and 2(e)- it is rapidly changing, with over 600 edits since it became featured in August 2004- more than a hundred of which were in the last two weeks. It also fails at criterion 5 - it is far too long (currently 60kb) and it repeats itself often. Finally, I would argue that the prose is not of adequate quality to satisfy criteria 1 and 2(a), and the sources used in much of it are too disreputable to well qualify for 2(c). --Noren 18:05, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

• Remove or Revert and Keep - FrancisTyers 18:06, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
• Remove I don't think there are any well informed cold fusion skeptics editing this page to keep it NPOV. –Joke 18:45, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
• Remove or revert. Lunatics running the asylum. Mark¹ 18:50, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
• Remove or keep and revert. This is a case where the article was better before. So lets go back to the version that was featured. This is an unfortunate example where a determined POV pusher (or possibly one posing as two) can be successful, at least in the short run. I fear the article may be removed anyway, but I'd like people to try improve/resolve issues with the article instead of voting remove. - Taxman ^Talk 21:11, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  • That's not a realistic suggestion. The cold fusion advocates would just revert it. Nathan J. Yoder 16:51, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Sure it is. It appears we are already establishing consensus the recent changes are ruining the article. Consensus can be enforced since reverting in violation of consensus is a blockable offense. A sockcheck may be in order here too. - Taxman ^Talk 02:50, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Nonsense. The cold fusion advocates have reverted NOTHING. Not one sentence. They have written some rebuttals to the skeptical claims, and they added material drawn from the experimental literature. Only the skeptics have erased and reverted material, (and only a few of them do that). What you want is a one sided diatribe against cold fusion without a single reference to objective, peer-reviewed science. You want to see only your own point of view, and your unsupported opinions and biases. Stop being a crybaby. We have left your opinions and fantasies intact, and added only a few well-documented facts to counteract them. --JedRothwell 21:34, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Please remain civil and refrain from making personal attacks. - FrancisTyers 15:12, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

FrancisTyers writes: "Please remain civil . . ." I suggest you redirect that comment to people who claim that cold fusion researchers are "lunatics running the asylum." and that I am a "pusher" posing as two people. As the Japanese say, "hotoke no kao mo san-do made." (roughly: 'That would try the patience of a Buddha.') --JedRothwell 16:58, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

No-one referred to you as a lunatic. You referred to Taxman as a crybaby. Please be careful in making assumptions. - FrancisTyers 17:15, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

You wrote: "No-one referred to you as a lunatic." Ah, I see what you mean. Mark1 wrote: "Lunatics running the asylum." Since he favors reversion, he means that all supporters are lunatics, not only me. It is okay to insult opponents en mass, but not individually. And it is okay to make insinuations about "pushers" "posing as two people," as long as you do not say specifically who you have in mind. Okay, let me apologize and rephrase: "Don't be one of several unspecified crybabies."

Let me suggest that you stop splitting hairs. --JedRothwell 18:41, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I haven't the faintest idea who you are. Mark¹ 18:45, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Greetings. I am one of the people you referred to as lunatics. Whether you know me personally or not, you have still violated the Wikipedia rules regarding civility. See: [8]. You are forgiven, and have a Happy New Year. --JedRothwell 18:54, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Jed, first of all, thanks for the apology, although I am not entirely convinced of its sincerity. Secondly, please remember that Wikipedia is not a battleground. If you would like to swap insults please keep it to private communication, not a Wikipedia talk page. Thanks :) - FrancisTyers 18:55, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. One only has to go to the LENR website to recognise that this is far from being pseudo science. Frank Grimer
• Remove or Revert absurd changes have gutted this article. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 00:23, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment which particular revision of the article would be reverted to in this case? - FrancisTyers 00:36, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
• Remove For now. Until this article in no longer being stalked by POV warriors, I fear it will continue it's slide into the realm of the bizarre. Ronabop 02:29, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
• Remove Suffers from serious POV issues. One of the main editors of the article has even admitted that he doesn't abide by NPOV policy and that he doesn't even think it's possible, despite not having even READ WP:NPOV. I agree with Joke137's sentiment. I don't think there even is a single well informed skeptic editing the article anywhere near as much as the cold fusion supporters are. Even I haven't bothered to do any edits because I know it's not worth the effort. Nathan J. Yoder 16:03, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

• Replace entire article with the new version written by E. Storms. (See Discussion) I think this version fixes many of the problems described by people on both sides of this debate. I will upload it in a few days unless someone objects. I have temporarily uploaded an unformatted version to the Discussion section. --JedRothwell 17:06, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

• (Was "Keep and expand" -- this vote deleted. See above.) The article finally has some real science based on actual, credible, mainstream journals. Before it was nothing but unorganized "skeptical" POV hot air written by people who have not even read the literature. --JedRothwell 20:59, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

• You should reallize that expand doesn't even make sense considering that expanding an article that is already too long would only make it further not meet the FA criteria. Also the problem is that you have no credibility because your POV and that you want to promote it is so obvious. - Taxman ^Talk 02:50, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

You lack perspective. Most cold fusion researchers say that I am unbiased and I am merely reporting their results without commenting on them or inserting my own opinions, whereas they believe that people like you are highly biased, and you are writing only your own opinion, without any reference to the experimental literature. Naturally, you disagree, but you should at least be aware of the fact that my views are a mirror image of yours, and I consider you every bit as biased as you consider me. You see the mote which is in your brother's eye; but you do not see the beam which is in your own eye.

As a practical matter, if an article describing experimental results and quoting theorists such as Schwinger is biased, what would you suggest the article consist of, instead? What would be unbiased? --JedRothwell 16:16, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

That's humorous. Most people that agree with my views think I'm unbiased too. We have a unique situation where few bother to report results negative on cold fusion because that is the accepted scientific position. It's fine to disagree with that, but as it is a minority position it should get only a minority of coverage in the article. In other words there isn't space in this article to describe the results of each of 237 (just throwing out an example number) papers that claim to have found something because they are generally not accepted. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and that has not so far been demonstrated to the satisfaction of the scientific community. The reason that's easy to see is that if a cold fusion result really was beyond reproach it would make major waves. That has not happened, and the theories proposed by cold fusion advocates are not accepted yet. Again that's fine to disagree with the establishment and history may show the cold fusion proponent's view to be correct, but that's not our job right now. If this were 1900 we would need to characterize Newton's laws as dominant and that they model reality to a very high degree of accuracy. History would later show there to be more to the story, but the story can only change with conclusive evidence. There is not that conclusive evidence for CF to the satisfaction of the scientific community and that is what we need to report. Right now we need only to accurately describe the debate in a balanced way. - Taxman ^Talk 18:16, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep and expand. The article seems fair and balanced enough. The opening paragraph makes it abundently clear to the uninformed reader that cold fusion is still highly controversial and not accepted by the mainstream of science, so the tone is set front and center, not hidden. The rest of the articel just goes on to inform of developments in the controversial field of cold fusion. Seems fair enough to me, anyone looking for information about cold fusion would find the page very useful and informative. --Rock_nj 20:59, 28 December 2005 (UTC) User has a total of 8 edits.
• Remove. I don't think reverting it will do any good. I do not presume to know whether cold fusion is real or not, but I do know that my college class that covered it was "Fraud and Error in Science", and this article fails to show that side well.--Prosfilaes 00:05, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
• (Was Keep and expand). Remove. Short term: replace with Storms version. Long term: rewrite from scratch, then go through the process to make it featured again. Especially after the recent major revert going to a version more than a year old, and in view of the major omissions and generally poor writing and lack of sources for claims in the text, I cannot in good conscience recommend keeping this as a featured article. It will take considerable work to get it to that level of quality. If it is removed from featured status, it can and should be nominated for an Article Improvement Drive WP:AID. I have also listed it as an RfC in order to get more people involved. ObsidianOrder 01:38, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep There is far too little good information on cold fusion available, and very little that's actually balanced. Far too many people hear about it only in the context of articles and classes on pathological science, and get the impression the field died in 1990. The field is controversial, and the article makes that clear; the field is not dead, however, and the article makes that clear, too. Far too few people are aware of this. -- Salaw 03:06, 29 December 2005 (UTC) User has a total of 10 edits.
• Remove. Fails Criterion 2(a) miserably. Let's take a look at the second sentence in the lead, which would fail at high-school level:

The most well known claim in this area is one that cold fusion can occur in palladium electrodes in electrochemical cells under the correct conditions. In a recent review of the topic by the US DoE was mixed, mainly negative. (See 2004 DoE Review below.) The majority of professional chemists and physicists do not believe this phenomenon exists, referring to it as pseudoscience, while some regard the subject to be an example of pathological science.

The most well[-]known claim in this area is one that cold fusion can occur in palladium electrodes in electrochemical cells under the correct [certain] conditions. In [The findings of] a recent review of the topic by the US DoE [spell it out] was [were] mixed, [and] mainly negative [(see the] 2004 DoE Review below). The majority of [Most] professional chemists and physicists do not believe [deny that] this phenomenon exists, referring to it as pseudoscience, while some regard the subject to be an example of pathological science. Any reason for the itty-bitty paragraphing?

The itty-bitty paragraphing is caused by two things: 1. The controversy and 2. People being polite. Most people, both supporters and skeptics, take pains to avoid deleting text written by the opposition, so the article becomes fragmented. That is unfortunate. The changes you recommend to the paragraph above are good, but I would not implement them because this paragraph is skeptical, and I would not want to step on the skeptics' toes. --JedRothwell 16:17, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

JedRothwell did edit that paragraph, adding the false statement that ', and only a third found it "somewhat convincing."' I corrected it, and a third party had changed it again prior to the revision quoted in green above. This instability does not inspire quality prose, both directly and because editors will tend to take less care when aware that their contributions are likely to be hacked to pieces. --Noren 20:10, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Noren wrote: "Jed Rothwell did edit this paragraph, adding the false statement that ', and only a third found it "somewhat convincing."' I corrected it, and a third party had changed it again prior to the revision quoted in green above." Well, if I did edit this, it was an accident. I moved it to the new section on the DoE review. The part about "two thirds" is a direct quote from the DoE summary, and it is intact, so I do not see what you are complaining about. Please note that there are two separate documents: 1. The DoE's own summary; 2. The DoE review panel reviewer's remarks. You were writing about #1, and you correctly noted that it says "two thirds . . ." I mentioned that #2 seems be split more evenly. (You may disagree.) Let us not confuse the two. --JedRothwell 18:35, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I linked above to the edit you made, you may follow the link if you do not recall making it. It is clear that you have not refrained from editing paragraphs that you label skeptical. In reference to the statement you added, I quote from the summary document: "Two-thirds of the reviewers commenting on Charge Element 1 did not feel the evidence was conclusive for low energy nuclear reactions, one found the evidence convincing, and the remainder indicated they were somewhat convinced." As there were 18 reviewers, this sentence means that 12 of 18 found it inconclusive, 1 found it convincing, and the remaining 5 were somewhat convinced. The clause you added that ', and only a third found it "somewhat convincing."' is false, as 5/18 is not equal to 1/3. Let us not confuse the true '2/3 were unconvinced' statement with your false 'and 1/3 were somewhat convinced' claim. --Noren 04:21, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Noren wrote:

I linked above to the edit you made, you may follow the link if you do not recall making it.

I will take your word for it! As I said: Sorry about that! It won't happen again. I encourage you to put back the exact phrase you had before, in a 35 KB introduction to cold fusion written entirely from the skeptical point of view. Then I will add in the 15 KB Storms draft, and everyone will be satisfied. --JedRothwell 02:28, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Will those who assert that it should be kept, reverted, and/or expanded please be more specific and perhaps lend a hand to implement what are mostly their vague directions? Tony 03:53, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I have uploaded a completely new draft written by an expert that I think addresses all of the issues raised here. See the Discussion section. --JedRothwell 18:35, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

• • To clarify my position: revert to the featured version, with enough neutral editors involved in the long term to keep it neutral. No, I'm not volunteering. Failing that, remove. Mark¹ 11:24, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
• Remove. The historical narrative about the original experiment has very few citations, and is very much in need of them, at practically every sentence. Where are the links to the announced agreements with the original results, where are the retractions? What's the source of all the quotes? I'm a graduate student in particle physics, for what that's worth, but I'm not really able to bring whatever expertise I have into reviewing the article because of the lack of citations. I think the article, which has other problems as well (see above), needs a major cleanup, and would benefit from being re-reviewed and re-nominated for FA status. -- SCZenz 05:18, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

SCZenz writes: "The historical narrative about the original experiment has very few citations . . ." Good point. I have no idea where most it came from, and I have read a lot about the early history of cold fusion. The whole history section should be chopped, in my opinion. ". . . where are the retractions?" What retractions do you have in mind? The only one mentioned in the article was Paneth & Peters. Paneth wrote a letter to Nature in 1927 "partially retracting" their 1926 paper in Berichte der Deutschen Chemischen Gesellschaft. I am not aware of any other retractions. --JedRothwell 15:36, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

• • I'd also like to note that lenr-canr.org, which is extensively and repeatedly used as a source of documents and arguments, does not appear to be an even remotely unbiased source. -- SCZenz 05:26, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

• • LENR-CANR has original, peer-reviewed source material: reprints of the research papers and data. When you judge a scientific issue, you are supposed to look at original sources. Calling them "biased" is a novel, new-age take on the scientific method. What would you suggest people look at, if not the actual research results? --JedRothwell 15:36, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

• • My issue is that the article currently, in parts, draws from LENR-CANR exclusively. The papers, scientific and peer-reviewed though they may be, are chosen selectively, as far as I can tell. We need sources on both sides, and we need to be sure that they reflect the scientific consensus. I've not been able to verify that, so I don't think the article is up to featured standards at the moment. -- SCZenz 20:06, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

With all due respect, you have it backward: LENR-CANR is drawn exclusively from the literature. It is a library open to any author, skeptic or supporter. The skeptics have contributed some papers, and they are welcome to contribute more. If the selection of papers is unbalanced it is up to them to make it right.

Our master list was put together by Britz and Storms and it includes over 3,000 papers. There are hundreds more, especially in Chinese and Japanese, but I doubt there are thousands more. If this is unbalanced, where are the missing papers? Send me the titles. Better yet, have the authors send me the papers!

Of course the comments that I have added to the article are selective; I cannot summarize hundreds of papers in a few paragraphs. It is the skeptics' job to read these papers and add statements reflecting their point of view. I cannot do that for them. Frankly, I think they have a tough job. I have read HUNDREDS of cold fusion papers, and I do not know of many by skeptics. Please suggest a few titles. The skeptical papers I have seen are of such low quality, they would embarrass me if I were a skeptic. If you think the skeptical viewpoint needs beefing up, I encourage you read whatever literature you can find and beef it up. --JedRothwell 21:13, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Just because some people can't understand the work does not mean that it is invalid. Science is not about neutrality it is about truth. The truth is that cold fusion and its related discoveries are an expanding field of science and that ongoing work exists and will in all probability result in significant technology. The debate will not end until we reach commercialisation. Wiki handles well theology debates (many of which will never be finished) but seems to think it can judge science debates before they are ended. If cold fusion is wrong then it should be dead. The fact that there is on-going work means that we aren’t finished yet. If any of the sceptics can tell us conclusively what is going wrong in these experiments then they should submit papers to the relevant journals. So far every proposed error has been countered with an experimental proof that CF did not make such errors.-- Wesleybruce 13:33, 29 December 2005 (UTC) User has a total of 1 edit.

• Hello? Don't mention 'sockpuppet'. Tony 14:00, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
• Remove. Biased sources and a major article dispute doth not maketh a featured article. Ambi 14:03, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep but Edit. Good material but clearly English was the first language of most contributors. -Hohlraum User has a total of 1 edit
• Keep and modify What is the point of this exchange? As any intellegent person can discover by reading the extensive literature, the phenomenon called cold fusion is real. The issue here is how best to describe the subject. Of course any description of any subject can be improved. The problem is, can any description provided here survive the changes made by people who know nothing about the subject? Apparently not, so what is the point of making an effort?--((User:EdmundStorms|EdmundStorms)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.35.57.25 (talk • contribs) 18:08, 29 December 2005 User has a total of 1 edit.

  This is not a discussion of the subject; this is a discussion of the article, which as it is appears to be biased and not terribly well-written. Thus we're just removing it from "featured article" status, not doing anything else to it. -- SCZenz 20:09, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

You wrote that the article ". . .appears to be biased and not terribly well-written" so it should be unfeatured. Your solution seems counter-productive. If you think it is biased, I suggest you add material to make it less biased. Do something to counteract the bias. (But please refrain from simply erasing statements you consider biased.) If you think it is poorly written, I suggest you rewrite it. This article attacts a lot of attention and revisions, so it is noteworthy. --JedRothwell 22:11, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

You misunderstand the critera for featured articles. See Wikipedia:Featured article criteria. The article must be more than noteworthy; it must be an excellent article already. If it's not good, it shouldn't be featured until it is. I've made specific suggestions on how to fix it, but I personally don't have the time or motivation for the extensive research needed to do so myself at the moment. -- SCZenz 02:59, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Well I think parts of the article are excellent, so I think we should keep it. Excellence is a matter of opinion, after all. The only parts that should be cut out are the skeptical assertions that are not referenced to any scientific literature. Ed Storms is working on a revision of this article that will make it even better. --JedRothwell 17:11, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. Now, we need to clarify something here: there's no expectation that reviewers should fix what they criticise in an article. On the other hand, those who want to keep an article will improve the likelihood that it will be retained as a FA by picking up a spade and getting to it, directly, before the crunch comes. Tony 04:00, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I do not think that the critics arguments' have any merit. I cannot think of any way to "fix" the nonexistent problems they point to. The critics claim that papers have not been written, but I have uploaded hundreds of papers. The critics claim that plasma fusion theory overrules replicated experimental evidence, but I think that violates the scientific method. Do you expect me to defend invalid, irrational and factually incorrect points of view? If you agree with them, it is up to you to defend them. Their skeptical arguments are, in any case, fully represented in this article, and supporters have not touched them or altered them in any way as far as I know. --JedRothwell 17:11, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

• Remove, pooly written, not adequately referenced, and clearly unstable.--nixie 11:12, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

nixie says this article is "not adequately referenced." I can fix that! The article contains over 40 references to peer-reviewed, mainstream journal papers (whereas the article on plasma fusion contains only three such references). But if that is not enough to suit you, please let me know how many more references we need. I can add hundreds more. I agree that parts of this article are poorly written, but only the parts written by skeptics. I cannot help that. --JedRothwell 19:09, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Jed, I think you're confusing creating an article through consensus with a battle. There are no sides, we are all here to make a high quality article. If the parts written by the sceptics are not well referenced then why don't you reference them? Go the extra mile. This isn't a fight; skeptics vs. you. You don't have to take sides and refuse to work with certain parts of the article just because you don't agree with them, that there is a recipe for disaster which has resulted in this FARC. I can see that cold fusion is a very emotive subject for you, but please try and help make the article better as a whole not just represent your point of view :) - FrancisTyers 19:19, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Please do not think I am being sarcastic here! I am sincere. Nixie says this article is not adequately referenced. I take him (or her) at his word, and I stand ready to correct this fault. I personally think it is adequately referenced, but perhaps because this is such a controversial subject, more footnotes are called for. If nixie and others want to see more, and if they will revise their opinion of the article, I can add more easily with the EndNote program. For example, I can insert footnotes here: ". . . similar autoradiographs have been published by the China Lake Naval Air Warfare Center Weapons Division [FOOTNOTE], Iwate U. [FOOTNOTE], SRI [FOOTNOTE] and many others [THREE MORE]." That is what I would do in a formal paper. It is not unusual for a scientific paper to have many footnotes. At this moment, I am working on a cold fusion review written in 1991 that has 174 footnotes. (See the article's ref. 1, which I will upload soon.) Actually, Ed Storms is working on a revised version of this Wikipedia article, and he just asked me whether to include many footnotes or not. He typically adds hundreds. I told him 40 or 50 would be enough, but I will tell him to go all out if that is what the readers here want.

"If the parts written by the sceptics are not well referenced then why don't you reference them? Go the extra mile."

As far as I know, their claims are not in evidence. In other words, I do know of any experimental evidence or published papers to back up what they say. Actually, most of their claims appear to violate the laws of physics. So I cannot help them. Please note that I have added what might be considered backup to some "skeptical" claims. Just yesterday, for example, someone wrote: "Their results proved difficult to replicate {needs reference} . . ." I added 14 references confirming that the results were difficult to replicate. (Actually, I do not think that "difficult to replicate" is a "skeptical" claim. Fleischmann and other researchers have made it several times.)

I suppose I could add some "skeptical" papers I know of by Morrison, Hoffman, Jones and Shanahan [see the LENR-CANR index], but the quality of these papers is so abysmal that if I were a skeptic, I would prefer to see them buried instead. I do not know of any worthwhile or convincing skeptical papers. --JedRothwell 19:49, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

• keep, the article looks balanced to me. The sceptical parts look more to be mindlessly parroting opinions of those who feel themselves to be the great and the good - the sceptics here are obviously trying to bathe in this reflected glory. The non sceptical parts look to be based on many published scientific papers. Extraordinary claims do not require extraordinary evidence - that is just silly rhetoric - all that is required is ordinary evidence replicated and not falsified. For Gods sake, can we see some of the objectivity that is supposed to be displayed by those of a scientific bent? Nick Palmer User has a total of 1 edit

• Remove or Revert. It's true that most physicists are very conservative. But I think this is for a good reason (at least nowadays). If someone comes to you saying he can transmit information with a speed faster than $c$, you'd be rather skeptical because SR has proven itself over the years. Now, whenever you hear about cold fusion the first reaction is "what ? not again!", although it's sometimes quite hard to dismiss some publications in that field, in the end something is always found to dismiss cold fusion. And the fact is that no experiment has so far convinced most physicists that cold fusion is real. In my humble opinion, the article should be kept ONLY if it will be made much smaller briefly explaining the main ideas. --Just a tag 22:37, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Just a tag writes: ". . . in the end something is always found to dismiss cold fusion." I doubt it! There are ~40 papers referenced in this aricle. If you can find a reason to dismiss one of these papers, I suggest you add it to the article, and also please inform me. I will inform the author (if he is still in contact). I also invite you to write a critique and upload it to LENR-CANR.org. Frankly, with all due respect, I do not think you are capable of doing this, because people have had 16 years to find significant errors and dismiss these papers, but in my opinion they have failed. Bear in mind, these papers survive extra tough peer review. Here is an example of someone who tried [9] (see "Reviewer #7). I think this is mere handwaving. Perhaps you disagree.

I think you should not make assertions such as "something is always found" unless you are willing to back them up with specific statements about what is found regarding specific papers.--JedRothwell 23:18, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. Who's going to do the work to restore it to featured quality? I don't know anyone who will, so I think all these 'keep and revert' votes are a bit counterproductive. -- SCZenz 22:40, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

SCZenz writes "Who's going to do the work to restore it to featured quality?" No work is needed to "restore" this article. All of the skeptical content that you think made it a good article previously is still incorporated in the article. The only change is the addition of new material by supporters, and this information is based on papers in peer-reviewed, mainstream journals. Why do you think this has degraded the quality? Do you have some objection to the use of such information? --JedRothwell 23:18, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

They are valuable, SCZenz because they are establishing a consensus that Jed's edits are degrading the article. That can be used to return the article to a better state and even improve it. - Taxman ^Talk 04:50, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

But they raise the possibility that the article will not be fully improved, but will be kept as featured anyway. That would be a big problem. -- SCZenz 05:02, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

That's true, so the revert or remove is a better point then. I think I was the only keep and revert the rest were remove or revert. - Taxman ^Talk 08:41, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

• Remove, badly written, "Cold fusion in fiction" section, bad "see also", no inline cites except external links, references badly-formatted and don't all appear to have been used in the writing of this article. Tuf-Kat 16:09, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

• Remove or revert as per Taxman. Anville 19:53, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

• Remove: It is not stable, comprehensive, nor neutral at this point. Questions of reversion and revert and protect would belong on an RFC. Since "revert and lock" isn't a thing FARC should consider, the minimal step and the mandated step is to assess whether the article is now FA quality. It isn't.