Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/archive/March 2006

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


Contents

Kept status

Something

Article is still a featured article.

The article fails, rather disatrously, the well written criteria. It is very short - not nearly as long as other Beatles songs that have become Featured, such as I Want to Hold Your Hand and She Loves You. It also is poorly written, using weasel phrases (such as "according to most sources"). More importantly, it also cites practically nothing; there are even points in the article that have been tagged with citation needed (and not by me). Further, some citations are given using the incorrect format (i.e. embedded links). The "Explanation" section is useless and redundant. I get the impression that the Beatles fan community simply got behind this one and supported it to become Featured, regardless of the fact that it isn't a particularly good article. I can't justify this being Featured, not by a million miles, and it isn't really ready to become "Good Article" level, either. TheImpossibleMan 01:02, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Post-closing comment: I've removed {{farc}} since this debate seems to be done. If Beatles related articles are nominated for delisting in future (as they should be if they're not up to scratch) please let the WikiProject know (WT:Beatles). --kingboyk 09:18, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Remove per nom. Also, four of the five external links listed as References are broken. Andrew Levine 01:27, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Remove for the same reasons as everyone else. In addition, it used quotes too much. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 01:45, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong remove. TheImpossibleMan is right, this isn't even a good article, let alone a featured one. Mikker (...) 02:29, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, the article could be better; however, next time, please would you raise your comments on the talk page first, or speak to the article's primary author and FAC nominator (who in this case is Johnleemk, who is still very active) before starting a FARC. Here is a link to the FAC from August 2004, which is clearly replete with such biased Beatles fans such as Taxman, Dmn and mav. -- ALoan (Talk) 09:03, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
    • I don't know if there would be a point to posting complaints on the talk page, seeing as there has been no discussion concerning the article. The only comments there are silly, unrelated nonsense someone decided to post. And am I suppossed to know/recognize who Taxman and those other people are? TheImpossibleMan 10:18, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
      • *resists urge to laugh*. I don't know about Dmn, but Mav is the Wikimedia Foundation Chief Foundation Officer and the main person responsible for introducing references as a featured article criterion (Something was among the first FAs to use references). And Taxman is a very active participant on FACs. Anyway, this is the usual song and dance (as with the two other recent Beatles FARCs) -- I'm aware of this and plan to work on this within the next week or so, time constraints permitting. The article's main problem is a lack of maintenance, which meant that new content is poorly integrated into the article, and that the references are a bit out of date. (They are not broken, however; the reason that the date the content was retrieved is there is so you can use the Wayback Machine to retrieve the page should it be altered, moved, or removed.) The "citation needed" tags really mean that an inline citation is needed (although I suppose that'd make the tag too verbose), because the existing references already corroborate the bulk of the article. I'm not sure what is meant by the article being short -- can you think of any further content that can be added? While the song is pretty popular among Beatles fans, it's hardly as notable as I Want to Hold Your Hand, She Loves You, Hey Jude, or even The Long and Winding Road (which was cited in a court case as one of six reasons for dissolving the Beatles), so naturally there is less published material available on Something. As an aside, I find it amusing that people tend to assume these articles should never have become featured and hold them to the standards of today's FAs, because they were quite good -- if not among the best -- in their time. Since we are no longer in that time, naturally the article should be updated. It is annoying to place this on FARC immediately, however, since it appears to be assumed that nobody is watching the article (*cough*). (Just because it's full of spam doesn't mean nobody's watching it.) IIRC the FARC instructions direct you to leave a message on the talk for a few days before nominating. Johnleemk | Talk 14:13, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Remove--Tdxiang 陈 鼎 翔 (Talk)ContributionsContributions Chat with Tdxiang on IRC! 10:27, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Remove, too short, few refs. -- King of Hearts talk 16:13, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Since when was length or too few references an FA criterion? Like many, you have confused comprehensiveness with length and equated the two. And if all the references corroborate the article's content, how can "too few refs" be valid? The importance of citing sources is to corroborate the article's content, not create a further reading or external links section. Johnleemk | Talk 16:50, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Johnleemk, do you have a point to make? Or are you just here to ridicule us for not knowing as much as you? If you want to vote to keep or vote to remove this article, then do so. Otherwise, steer clear of this discussion. TheImpossibleMan 17:28, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
    • As the principal editor of the article he may feel it is not strictly ethical for him to vote, although strictly speaking there is nothing to prevent him doing so, but I can understand his reluctance. However, he is entitled to express his views. Giano | talk 20:41, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Jacqui's law: the longer a user spends time in polls and/or debates, the more he or she will see each question as a binary of delete or keep or remove. I am not here to ridicule anyone (where did I do that, anyway? Is it wrong to point out how people have misunderstood FA criteria?) but to point out that the FA criteria have been confused -- length is not shorthand for comprehensiveness. Had I not completed my rewrite of the article (now allowing me to state that I am all for keeping this as an FA with a clear conscience), I would probably launch into a lengthy discussion of how and why I would not want to "vote" pending improvement in the article, but since that's done... Johnleemk | Talk 14:15, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comments: I find it interesting how people are so dedicated to saying that faults with this article should have been brought up on the talk page and yet at the same time permit other articles to be brought straight to here. Somehow, I just suspect that people are saying that here because it is a Beatles song article. Had it been any other article in Wikipedia, no one would have criticized the nomination if it bringing up issues was not done. Those same people, by staying silent about other FARCs that were brought straight here are seemingly accepting those, and yet, by doing as they say, not as they usually do, are cherry-picking which FARCS they criticize. That is what is annoying. Are you people going to criticize the nominations of Radar, Frankfurt School, and Economics for the same reasons as you are over here? Had I not brought it up here, I would be very pessimistic that the same people saying issues should have been brought up on Something's talk page would be doing the same for other FARC discussions.
  • Furthermore, I like to point out that raising issues on an articles talk page does not work. Ages ago there was a formal requirement here issues had to be brought up at the talk page of an article. If that step was not done, the FARC would be speedily kept. Once, Vowel was nominated for removal through that process. Bringing up the article's faults on the talk page had no effect on the article. It was only after vowel was FARC'd that people started trying to make the article worthy of being kept, which it did become. Furthermore, several articles have had requests for references or featured article review for months or almost a year, and no significant improvements have been made. Based on the results of other articles, bringing up issues about an article on its talk page DOES NOT WORK.
  • Finally, I like to point out that if we can't hold older FA's to today's standards through a grandfather clause, there would almost no point in the existance of the FARC page because there would be almost no possible grounds for removal. Are people here prepared to propose and argue for a new criteria that says: "Today's standards are not retroactive. Do not nominate artices for removal because they do not meet today's standards. Only nominate articles if they do not meet the standards of when they became a featured article." Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 18:15, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
    • For almost two years there has been a "gentlemens (and ladies) agreement" not to overdo applying newly increased standards to older FAs, especially having to do with references. Have a read through the nomination and talk page archives. There is no way they could have met standards that weren't in existence. So the compromise is to give the new requirements time to be implimented and specifically mention deficiencies on talk pages before nominating. New people to the process should make at least some effort to get to know the norms before jumping in with harsh words. I went through every FA that had no references and placed a request for references as part of that compromise. And further, it often does work to bring up issues on the talk page. Just because it doesn't always work, doesn't mean it's not the polite thing to do. People have requested many times that you do this, so ignoring that is not polite. - Taxman Talk 20:39, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  • My comments have nothing to do with the subject. I couldn't care a less whether it was a Beatles song, or a battle, or a biography, or a fundamental particle, or a city, or an order of chivalry. The point is that this article is not so clearly bad that it is a slam-dunk FARC candidate (considering the nominator's concerns: this article is not particularly poorly written; shortness is not a problem, so long as the article is comprehensive; it has references for its content; there is no mandatory format for references or external links (yet); and I will not dignify the "Beatles fan community" comment with a response beyond pointing out that not knowing who the - relatively well known - FAC voters are is a good reason not to assume bad faith).
In such cases, it would be polite to raise concerns on the talk page or with the main author, particularly when, as here, the main contributor to the article is still very active. If the article was much worse, and/or the original contributor was not around - as with some other current FARCs - I agree that there would not much point in adding concerns to the talk page, although doing so would never be wrong: the worst case scenario would be that an article in need of some help would remain a FAC a few days longer.
It continues to amaze me that people are so quick to nominate FARCs and vote "remove" without lifting a finger to improve the article. Radar is a case in point - making a few improvements earlier today was easy; just do it. -- ALoan (Talk) 22:11, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Assuming bad faith is a very easy thing to do (and apparently so is assuming the existence of a pro-Beatles cabal). For me, (assuming I regularly made the rounds of our FAs to check on how well they meet the criteria), I would give the article a couple of days' time if the problems are not totally devastating. As Giano and Taxman have noted, this article was far from beyond repair (and I have just spruced it up with footnotes, trimmed unsourced content and excess verbiage, etc.). Its scope is fairly narrow, making it easy to research and write new material if there was anything missing. (A questionable assertion, by the way; nobody has shown how this article wasn't comprehensive prior to the rewrite. Length is not shorthand for comprehensive. Anyone can write pages upon pages of meaningless prose.) Radar and economics, on the other hand, have an incredibly broad scope, making it far less likelier that anyone could fix them up without a lot of work. During the period that that work would take, it would be unconscionable to mark those articles as FAs. However, considering how quickly Something could be improved, it would not have mattered if it remained an FA for a couple of days longer than it might have been, no? Johnleemk | Talk 14:15, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep in spite of the nominators patronising and dismissive comments this is yet another of the older FAs which met all the criteria when it passed the FA process, and is not so bad it needs a FARC today. Criticisms should have been aired on the talk page first....I'm not the least interested in the subject so I have no idea if the content is comprehensive or not, but that is not something that changes so I will assume it is. Well written is well written, that does not change - if it was so when it passed it must be now, all this talk now of compelling prose is frankly ridiculous, what compels some people makes others want to vomit. I'm glad Johnleemk "resists urge to laugh" because he has very little to laugh about, there is no reason why anyone should be expected to know the FAC commentators, and nothing to be ashamed in not knowing them. Having said that two of them are in fact highly respected Wikipedians who were refering to, writing, and referencing to suit the style of Wikipedia at the time. Johnleemk seems to be on to the subject now, so lets keep it as a FA. Finally, please Miss Madeline do not bolden and enlarge your comments, shouting is frankly rather vulgar, you should be able to make your point without that. Giano | talk 18:41, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
"Well written is well written, that does not change - if it was so when it passed it must be now" Why is that? It's been heavily edited. Here's the diff from its promotion to now. Derex 17:57, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's not that bad, I'm sure John will fix it up even better, and objections clearly should have been brought up on the talk page to at least give a chance to deal with them first. Think civility and politeness. If that doesn't work, only then bring it to FARC. - Taxman Talk 20:39, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I didn't mention anything on the talk page because no one posts there. There are three comments, two of which are trolling related, and one which was posted only yesterday concerning the trolling content. It's not like Something is a highly maintained article that has constant discussion and I went over everyone's head. TheImpossibleMan 23:51, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
    It's just simple politeness. And there is a chance it will work. But we can stop beating a dead horse because now you know. - Taxman Talk 05:55, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
    Just because an active discussion means the page is watched does not imply that a lack of an active discussion means the page isn't watched. Johnleemk | Talk 14:15, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Remove per nom Zzzzz 00:26, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Remove per nom. —Eternal Equinox | talk 01:32, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep; my rewrite is complete. Johnleemk | Talk 14:03, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, per Johnleemk's rewrite. — FireFox • T [14:26, 2 April 2006]
  • Comment The article has been revised extensively since yesterday; those voting remove based on the old version should check the new one and possibly reconsider. Phr 14:27, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Commment - I think its good that so many citations have been added, clearing up one of the major problems of the article. However, it still is not particularly well written. For example, in the lead: "After the breakup of The Beatles, it was covered by several singers such as Frank Sinatra, James Brown and Smokey Robinson, making it the second-most covered Beatles song after "Yesterday"." The fact that James Brown, Robinson, and Sinatra covered it is not related to the fact that it is the second-most covered Beatles song; they are only a few people. It was covered by hundreds, of other artists, and THAT is what makes it the second-most covered Beatles song, not the fact that a few famous artists did a version. Additionally, there are some very wonkish sentences. ""Something" was the only Beatles single in the United States to top the charts with a Harrison composition on the A-side." Maybe it would be simpler to say that Something is the only Harrison song to go #1?
Those are only two examples; the article is still poorly written. Considering that Featured Articles should feature "Brilliant prose", I still can't justify this being an FA. TheImpossibleMan 15:14, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I fixed some of the most glaring examples I could find. I don't think that the sentence pertaining to cover versions is false, however. It states that the song was covered by many others, gives some examples, and then states that the former led to it being the second-most covered song after Yesterday. Johnleemk | Talk 15:54, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
  • My point was that it is gramatically incorrect. According to that wording, three cover versions make it the second most covered song Beatles song. TheImpossibleMan 16:47, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
  • More importantly, why is there no cite for that claim? Matt Deres 00:40, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as rewritten. Good job, Johnleemk. Anville 15:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - I don't think you guys are looking closely enough at the article. Its writing is still quite poor, even in the lead, and there are still references missing. Nevermind new standards - Featured Articles have always been required to be written brilliantly, and the prose in Something is still quite sub-par. TheImpossibleMan 18:53, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment - this document needs a copyedit. At one point, it uses a colon to set off a quote, and then later uses a comma to do the same thing. Also, it has a section called "Awards and Accolades". *Resists urge to laugh*. It's quite funny that the primary author of this document had the chance to remove accolades and didn't, considering that according to him a review would make it non-neutral. Ditto for singling out the cover versions of one particular person. *Bursts out giggling* Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 00:51, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Indeed, Johnleemk said this at the FARC for Hey Jude [1]:
        "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."
      • Based on his own words, this article is not NPOV. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 04:09, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
        • Then edit Miss Madeline! We are all editors able to press the save button. If you feel there are faults - edit them, instead of just talking about them. Improve the page as you see fit, don't just sit there complaining Giano | talk 06:15, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
        • That comment was taken out of context entirely. I was referring to the practice of mentioning or citing reviews to indicate critical response, not to the practice of citing a review to comment on particular features of the song (I'm presuming you're referring to the quote from the reviewer in the section on structure). Otherwise, do tell me how to describe the lyrical features of "Something" without making the article weaselly, POV or both. (Just because I think it may be a simple and straightforward song doesn't mean others will; I personally know a number of Beatles fans who either think it's a hallmark of Harrison's musical genius, or the most simplistic tripe he ever wrote.) Johnleemk | Talk 06:33, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
      • So now apparently whether an article is an FA or not hinges on uniformity in how it begins quotes. And Sinatra's cover version is not given undue weight, considering that: 1) Sinatra was himself a famous singer; 2) Sinatra called it the greatest love song ever, something considered notable enough to be mentioned by two or three different sources for the article (while none of the other cover version producers' comments, if any, appear to have withstood the test of time), so all we are doing is reflecting the weight given to particular comments by our sources; 3) Sinatra's error in describing the song (which he committed on several occasions) has also been given weight by our sources; 4) Sinatra made a modification to the song which the original composer liked so much that he himself adopted it. Mentioning these facts is not undue weight. If the half the article was devoted to them, yes it would be. But a paragraph summarising what our sources have to say on this is not undue weight, especially when you consider that some of them do (namely Marck) devote half of their content on "Something" to Sinatra and his cover version. Johnleemk | Talk 06:33, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I think Johnleemk has done a great job here. Talrias (t | e | c) 14:45, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, I was asked to vote on this page because the keep/unfeature vote was deadlocked. Last time I checked, however, Wikipedia is not a democracy. We discuss, but we do not vote. Anyway, as for my two cents on this article, I do agree that it is not perfect. There are grammatical issues, and the article might not be fully comprehensive, although that particular argument is nothing without example. But, seeing this discussion, I can tell that almost every person who has left a comment has a strong opinion on this article. I, however, don't know much about this article's history. I can't tell you who started it, or who its biggest editors have been, without looking at the history pages. I can't really pick out points of contention, or find problems with it. I can, however, say that if I were to personally evaluate it for Good Article status, I might pass it depending on my mood and alertness, and my sensitivity to errors and shortcomings. I can say that, if this article were presented to FAC, that I would recommend a promotion to Featured Article status based on its apparent completion of all requirements. I can say that while this article is not perfect, no article is perfect and we should never expect them to be as such. I can also say that based on what I have read, and based on what I have just said, I recommend a keep. Finally, I can say that I really need to cut back on the number of words I write; this is just a ridiculously large comment. - CorbinSimpson 03:28, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as revised; excellent. I have lightly copyedited. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:58, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep after Johnleemk's excellent rewrite. --Terence Ong 14:59, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


Crash test dummy

Still a featured article.

Request for references on the talk page is well over a year old, yet no inline citations in the whole article and only a few references. The article appears well written and comprehensive, but this alone does not an FA make. PDXblazers 05:28, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

  • There was a request for references and now there are lots of them. External links can qualify as references, they're just not formatted correctly in this case, but that's easy to fix. So you haven't made any detailed request on the talk page for improvement, which is required for listing here. - Taxman Talk 14:58, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
To reinforce Taxman's point, the requirement at the top of this page to post a warning of an impending nomination is critical to the effectiveness of the FARC process. Please withdraw the nomination and follow the protocol. The warning should be polite and should point out, lucidly and plainly, what needs to be done to avoid nomination. Tony 06:18, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep featured - no attempts on the talk page. Still an excellent article, if a little under-referenced. --Celestianpower háblame 10:12, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • The article was featured nearly two years ago. I think it might be asking a little too much to ask the original author to put in inline references, especially if Denni no longer has the original books and/or Web sites available. If he can provide them, that's great, but it might be an archaeological expedition at this point. Unless there are any really glaring errors with the lack of references, I'd suggest keeping this featured. --Elkman - (talk) 21:00, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep (was before Comment) began adding inline citations in the form of WP:FOOTNOTEs. (note that original sources are not necessary, as WP:CITE also indicates that verification is also okay) AndyZ t 21:35, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Added seven footnotes, which I hope is sufficient, and made other fixes per WP:MOS. Now support keep. AndyZ t 21:50, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Withdraw Nomination new inline citations satisfy FAC requirement. PDXblazers 01:00, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Xenu

Withdrawn / illigitimate. Article is still a featured article.

According to "Wikipedia:What is a featured article?" to become a featured article it needs the following attributes,

"It is well written, comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral, and stable"

In my opinion this article is far from fullfilling those requirements. "many of the volcanoes named by Hubbard did not exist 75 million years ago" "set four quadrillion years ago (roughly 300,000 times longer than current scientific consensus holds the age of the universe to be)"

OK, so those quotes are from the article itself, but dont they support my conclusion that the overall article about Xenu is not factually accurate -- added anonymously 05:45, 14 April 2006 by user JACurran (talk • contribs • count)

  • Speedy keep. No, those quotes do not support your conclusion. They merely go to show that the Xenu story itself is not true. The Xenu article isn't trying to assert that the Xenu story itself is accurate. It merely asserts that the Xenu story is a story that is taught to Scientologists. And that fact is accurate. Vivaldi 10:57, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep, per Vivaldi. The prose is good, though some short paragraphs could profitably be merged to avoid chopiness; the referencing is solid, though several inline hyperlinks would be better off as footnotes. Anville 11:30, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep next our hearts, what Vivaldi said. This listing seems to be based on a misunderstanding. A more cogent objection to Featured status would be "article can be misunderstood", then. I wouldn't advocate removing it on that score, I think it's great, but perhaps its editors would consider dotting the i's and crossing the t's a bit more in the lead section? It is a little deadpan. Admittedly that quality is also a big reason why the article is so funny. I'm not asking for the first sentence, "In Scientology doctrine, Xenu (also Xemu) is an alien ruler of the "Galactic Confederacy" who, 75 million years ago, brought billions of people to Earth, stacked them around volcanoes and blew them up with hydrogen bombs", to read "In Scientology doctrine BUT NOT REALLY, Xenu (also Xemu) is an alien ruler" etc. But would more focus on the fictionality of Xenu in some subtler way be possible? Bishonen | talk 11:33, 14 April 2006 (UTC).
  • Keep: Given that this is mythos, I don't think that we can say "this is fiction" without losing NPOV. Tom Cruise thinks that this stuff really happened, and he's the Most Important Man in the World. John Travolta thinks it's true, and he is Cool. I.e. if we do emphasize the absurdity of these claims, those who accept it will have big arguments, and if we don't, we have some people who can misunderstand our position. I think the article does a good job of reporting from a distance on a set of truly silly claims. Geogre 12:53, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep - ignoring that, definitively, this is one of our best articles, I don't see how this is a legit FARC and I'm tempted to nuke it myself. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 16:19, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep then, the concensus seems to be for a keep so I wont stand in the way --JACurran 19:46, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Wigwag

This is a low quality article which has no refrences whatsoever. Also, in its previous farc, it was voted to be removed but no one ever did. See: Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/Wigwag Archive 1 This is the worst FA I have ever encoutered on WP. Tobyk777 05:47, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment. Taxman removed it because no time was given on the talk page to address concerns, particularly the lack of referencing. He made a so far unanswered comment himself two-and-a-half days ago. This may be summarily de-listed again, however, it is an obvious remove candidate and that's my vote. Even if you threw refs in here it is very far from exemplifying our "best work." The intro is too short, the design section is too long and "history of", "design of" and "location of" subjects are inter-mixed to a degree that requires structural revamping. There is certainly some interesting and specific details in here and I wouldn't call it "low quality." Rather I think it the sort of middle of the road article you find a lot on the wiki: info more or less in place but structure and references lacking. Marskell 09:31, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Seriously? You read that page explaining why the listing was removed and you still nominated it again without following the guidelines? It also has a reference, it just wasn't listed in a references section, which I have now done. To list here, you need to detail on the talk page what you find wrong with the article and give some time to fix it. That's just polite. And I'm curious how you passed over the three times you would have had to read that guideline to make the nomination. - Taxman Talk 13:56, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Order of Bath

Listing removed because the guidelines of detailing the article's deficiencies and leaving time for them to be fixed were not followed. - Taxman Talk 14:11, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Poor formatting, no inline references, does not follow Manual of Style. Not well written, and consists mostly of bulleted lists. Páll (Die pienk olifant) 00:23, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Keep: Informative, comprehensive and lists several references. Giano | talk 16:09, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Tuberculosis

Listing removed because the guidelines of detailing the article's deficiencies and leaving time for them to be fixed were not followed. - Taxman Talk 14:12, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I am resubmitting this for consideration. There are no inline sitations, most of the text are bulleted lists, and there is little Wiki-linking. The quality of the writing is poor, and does not generally serve as an example of a FA. Páll (Die pienk olifant) 00:19, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Yom Kippur War

Article is still a featured article.

It is so sad to see such one-sided and one-dimensional article in the main page today's feature article:

FIRST: In the article's talk-pages so much has been said about what is considered an already biased TITLE of the article. A war between two parties, why be named according to the culture and language of only one?? Especially that it already has different names, notably equivalent national ones of the OTHER party! Thus, in the Arabic Wikipedia the same article is titled "the October War", which is the common name in the Arabic language and culture. No NPOV on the titling level. Please see for the debate on the talk-pages: [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]

SECOND: A serious deficiency in references: Even that there are a bunch of books listed in a ref. section, perhaps only ONE of them is being very particularly and frequently referred to, and seldom to other refs. Also see in the talk pages: [7] [8] [9] [10]

THIRD: Very evident and obvious lack of NPOV. It will be found that many detailed information has been given with no refs. at all. But the story of the war has been told as if the other party, here the Arab, is in the wrong, weak, or OTHER-SIDE. Thus, it is so evident, even to those who will have no passion or sentiment to the perhaps still glaring consequences of the war and the Arab-Israeli conditions of relationship, that this article is truly and quite intentionally one-sided, and far from the NPOV status. This lack of NPOV is refelected also in the Arabic version of the article, but the other way round, of course. Please see in the talk-pages: [11] [12] [13] [14] [15]

Having this article as today's feature article will surely upset the feelings of so many "somepeople", and quite understandably, if you look up the matter calmly and genuinely. It is possible that it be also upsetting to those who do not want Wikipedia's feature articles to be in such politicized quality.
(This page has been removed once recently without a talk!) Maysara 15:11, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy keep Numerous people have commented that this is one of the best written featured articles. Also, in regards to the naming: there were two separate polls, one of them unanimous (15 supporting the current name and 0 opposing) and the other nearly so (30-8), that the current name is fine (wherein it was shown that the current name is BY FAR the most common using any metric). Raul654 16:08, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Raul654, Although you have had many discussions before also with numerous people about the title-name problem, it seems that they have not been of any help as to convince you that a certain NPOV problem is quite evident in here. You say numerous people think this a feature article and you defend it as if it was a property or art-work of yours. But you provide absolutely no definition of what is sufficiently numerous for a feature article. After all, "somepeople" have to decide it to be a feature article in order for it to be displayed in the today's feature article in the main page, but this is precisely what brings us here to talk about. However, our discussion is not here confined to the title-name problem but it also includes problems of referencing and NPOV status. There might be a consensus about the first, but the later, it seems, there cannot be such consensus. It is fairly evident that these problems most seriously indicate that this article is not by any degree eligible as to be a feature article. It might not be bad, effort might have been most devotedly spent in it, but still, it continues to be problematic in many essential aspects upon which a feature article is defined, one of which is particularly the strongly disputed NPOV status of the article. I am convinced that this article might become worthy of it being a feature article if you try to cool down and think about your own contributions more genuinely. A POV template was once added by User:Unfocused, was it you who removed it? Or was it another such template that you removed it? Don't you think they can contribute a lot to the discussion about the neutrality of this article? I hope you'll more calmly think those issues over. Thank you, Maysara 17:54, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep per Raul654 PPGMD 20:15, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep If you can't get support for your views on the talk page, don't bring it to FARC. - Taxman Talk 20:25, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
    • But why not? I might not be able to get support on my views of the content of the article itself in its talk page, but I think if I want to debate its featured status, this is just the right space (that is, some editors might not be interested in debating my views of the content of the article itself in its talk-page, but they still might be interested in debating and contributing to whether it is worthy of its featured status or not). Also, I have provided 14 supporting links from the talk-pages, please click over them with the mouse! Thank you, Maysara 20:46, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep Agree with other editors.--Alabamaboy 21:36, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep per Raul654, and nice timing from the nominator. feydey 23:18, 30 March 2006 (UTC)¹b
  • Speedy Keep. Potentially bad faith nomination, particularly on the naming question. Batmanand | Talk 09:02, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Humph! How frustrating! If you don't believe it "bad faith" nomination, if you don't think it so, you then just don't say potentially! What does "potentially bad faith" matter or signify?! Humphph! Apart from that you're most probably, just used to encounter with it, and that I, correspondingly and consequently, am a person with a bad faith! It is amazing that you then link to the, "assume" good faith page. But go on, I am sorry for the wretched quality of my faith, keep keeping, speedily! Maysara 20:46, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep per above, but the article's refs do need to be improved. (one random example: "In 1971 Israel spent $500 million fortifying its positions on the Suez Canal" is uncited). Mikker (...) 20:05, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I don't see anything wrong with the article. On the contrary, it is very well written and sourced. --Jannex 13:28, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. As for the title, there has been a lot of discussion and 2 or 3 votes. There's no need to starting another one. About the POV issue, I would like for the nominator to show me precisely which sections are having a problem so I can take a look at them. Thank you. CG 13:34, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
    • I just am unable to understand why so many are confusing debating the content of the article itself with debating its eligibility to be featured! I am here not asking to change anything with the article itself (such as doing more votes for its problematic title situation). I am here asking you to reconsider whether it should be featured or not, no more, no less. I personally believe it is not a horrible article. Itself is quite an informative one, apart from its very evident POV condition. But this is another matter from it being featured or not. My argument is that it is not sufficiently merited to be featured for the reasons I mentioned above. I think, and I though everyone thought, that a feature article is one that is very well referenced (especially in matters where providing no reference is totally inappropriate, such as here) and one that at least embraces lesser dispute and controversy about its very NPOV status. A bad article 'cannot' be featured. A good one 'maynot' be featured as well, if the later is still below the standards of featuring.
as for the "precisely which sections having a POV problem". I really don't know how my voluntary help to you should be helpful, if you're unable to see for yourself! However, I have given some links from the talk pages, in the THIRD argument of mine about the, POV, issue. See above. Thank you, Maysara 15:06, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
  • ZZ66bgd I cannot understand how such an important event in ME history can be viewed from a single biased perspective. Is it for the lack of other more neutral resources or that the Wikipedia Community houses a Zionist agenda? Just wondering...65.186.68.236 00:11, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Please state "remove", "keep", or explain what should be done with the article and why. Nonsense votes will not be considered in a decision. Kosebamse
That is not a "nonsense vote." This process is not a vote at all. All valid actionable objections will be taken into account, regardless of whether the person is an anon, or if they put "ZZ66bgd." That said, blathering on about a Zionist agenda will get him nowhere. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 11:27, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
What? Didn't you know? We are all part of a super-secret Jewish cabal that will soon take over the world! <long sinister-sounding laughter here> Mikker (...) 20:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
I know i'm part of a Jewish cabal... And if i'm not, I ought to join it ;-). But seriously, given the very high standards of Judaism related articles on wikipedia in relation to other religions, you can't help but think that an outsider would see this as a pro-Jewish website (not that it is). For me a Keep. Thethinredline 18:45, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Keep: No good reason for being here. Giano | talk 16:03, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep, however voting with the "speedy" modifier is improperly dismissive of the legitimate concerns of people who disagree with you, and only serves to create greater schism in the community, as well as greater schism between Jews and Arabs. Please allow more room for civil disagreement. People voting "speedy" should check themselves more carefully for POV bias. This is an entirely legitimate candidate for FARC discussion. Personally, I think there is obvious bias, but don't think the baby should go out with the bathwater. Problems with this article itself should be solved by discussion and editing. Unfocused 18:00, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
User that nominated this for a FARC first posted on the talk page, he didn't get a response within a few hours and he put it up for FARC, IMO since he didn't even give it a day for the process on the talk page for people to show support, or non-support, it's a bad faith nomination, thus qualifying for a speedy modifier. PPGMD 18:36, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Erm, I'm confused. If there is indeed "obvious bias" the article should obviously be de-featured. (See 2(d) of WP:WIAFA). Can you provide an argument as to why the article suffers from bias? Mikker (...) 20:40, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
I've already discussed the most obvious point of bias on the talk page. A Wikiproject group of editors who have this article on their watch list have successfully defended their POV. If the most obvious bias doesn't get addressed by reasonable discussion, why bother with the rest, especially when you know you've already stirred the supporting base of the POV currently expressed?
I'll state again here that "the rest" of the obvious bias I'm referring to isn't really all that much or that harmful, in my opinion, even though it's clearly present. This is why I voted "Keep".
However, this article's current state regarding the bias I did try to remove has clearly shown me that Wikipedia is doomed to a certain degree of uncorrectable populism. I've accepted the project as it is rather than how I'd like it to be, and adjusted my participation in response. Unfocused 16:59, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep This article is as unbasied as it can be. That said, how can an article on a surpirse devastating invasion on the holiest of holidays possibly not make the defenders look like the good guys. Tobyk777 01:01, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Identification of one side or the other as "good guys" is a moral judgement, and is inherently flawed with POV. Please see the NPOV tutorial. Unfocused 16:59, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
It's not a moral judgement. If someone murders someone else, the murderer is the bad guy. It's pretty obvious. When talking about an un-prevoked invasion with no purpose. It's almost as obvious. There is no need for judgements or identification of the good guys. One side was brutaly atacked, and the other defended themselves. Tobyk777 03:16, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Again, please take the time to review WP:NPOV, especially the examples of Saddam Hussein and Hitler. You are simply wrong. Identification of a "bad guy" in ANY dispute is a moral judgement that is properly left to the reader; an encyclopedia documents facts (which can be expected to clearly illustrate who the bad guy is) without including any individual moral judgements. Unfocused 17:24, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep: no problem with POV; some of the single-sentence paragraphs could easily be merged. Tony 06:48, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Old Swiss Confederacy

Article is still a featured article.

The current title of this article (Old Swiss Confederacy) suggest it is about a former state, but the structure is essentialy 'history of' (or rather two specific sections on territorial (which seems to include political among others) and social developments (economy, summary of politics)). At best, the title is confusing, suggesting it is a comprehensive overview of a former country (for good FA examples of this, see Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, Indo-Greek Kingdom or Byzantine Empire). Therefore if the article is to remain in it's present state and be a former state article, sections on politics and economy have to be expanded (currently take take about 10% of article's lenght, with history being 90%) and sections on culture, administrative division and such should be added. Alternatively, a solution to address this FARC is for the article to be renamed to History of Swiss Confederacy or History of Swiss (1291–1516), as is our naming convention for history articles (FAs: History of Poland (1945–1989), History of post-Soviet Russia, History of the Netherlands, History of Russia, History of Scotland). Even if this is done, the article is below our standards: from the fact that it needs a copyedit (the section titled 'Territorial development' takes 90% of the article and should probably be renamed history), to the fact that the article has not a single inline citation and it's reference section numbers just two positions. In the current state, it is simply not up to our current standards. See also old FAC discussion from Oct'04 and my comments about the importance of differentiation between 'former state' and 'history of...' articles.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:09, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Even without knowing much about Swiss history, Strong remove for absolutely no inline citation and next to no references. Staxringold 03:46, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. Doesn't need inline refs: it's a summary-style overview written as a summary of the two references given, which are comprehensive treatments of the subject. See the talk page. Furthermore, this part of the history of Switzerland is not controversial, so there's no need to inline ref every sentence fragment. Controversial issues are the veracity of the Federal Charter of 1291 and of the legends of William Tell and Arnold Winkelried; all three are discussed and sourced in their own articles. Now, Piotrus' other argument is somewhat better, but it seems he's just opposing on structural grounds, proposing a reorganization of the whole series. That's not a reason for removal; that'd be a reason for moving it to some other name (Forming of the Old Swiss Confederacy or some such) and then write a new article at the old title that would give a very brief overview of the federation of small independent states commonly called the "Old Swiss Confederacy" from 1291 to 1797. That would actually be a good idea. I would strongly advice against renaming "territorial development" to "history"; that's an awefully narrow view of "history". I would also advice against using hard-coded years in the article title (such as Piotrus' proposal "History of Swiss (1291–1516)"); the end date isn't that clear. Lupo 07:50, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Reply Controversy isn't the only possible prerequisite for citation, it's whether something is common knowledge or not. "Two similar federations sprung up in neighboring areas in the Alps in the 14th century: in the Grisons, the federation of the Three Leagues (Drei Bünde) was founded, and in the Valais, the Seven Tenths (Sieben Zenden) were formed as a result of the conflicts with the Dukes of Savoy. Neither federation was part of the medieval Eidgenossenschaft but both maintained very close connections with it." That could be made up gibberish for all I, or plenty of people, know. It needs citation. "When Rudolph I of Habsburg was elected "King of the Germans" in 1273, he also became the direct liege lord of these reichsfrei regions. He instituted a strict rule and raised the taxes to finance wars and further territorial acquisitions. When he died in 1291, his son Albert I got involved in a power struggle with Adolf of Nassau for the German throne, and the Habsburg rule over the alpine territories weakened temporarily. Anti-Habsburg insurgences sprung up in Swabia and Austria, but were quenched quickly by Albert in 1292. Zürich had participated in this uprising. Albert besieged the city, which had to accept him as its patron." Says... who? Staxringold 11:55, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Say the references given, and pretty much every other text book. It is common knowledge. Lupo 13:29, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Both of them? For every single fact? On every page? It may be common knowledge for Swiss, but it is not for 99% of the world population (and I doubt Swiss actually know their history any better than people of other nationality, meaning most it probably is not common knowledge to anybody but history fans). There is a reason why Wikipedia:Inline citations are now a FA requirement, and a good FA should have every single fact referenced, be it common knowledge to somebody or not. In my recent FA, the Katyn massacre, I referenced quite a few facts that are 'common knowledge' in Poland - but proved to be unknown and/or controversial on the international forum. As Staxringold pointed out, the same maybe true for 'uncontroversia' and 'common knowledge' Swiss history. If all of those facts are from those two book - that's fine, than just put Harvard style page numbers in text and the objection is addressed.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 13:50, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
And If the references actually provide that information, there should be inline citation linking the fact to the source. Otherwise it may just as easily have been made up yesterday. Not trying to be difficult, but that's what inline citation exists for. Staxringold 14:01, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
No, sorry. If an article is based on a few main sources, these are given in the "references" section and implicitly act as a reference for any statement not having an explicit inline reference. Otherwise, one ends up with a ref-feast like Katyn massacre. If I had written that, I would have given Fischer as a "main source" (probably also refs numbers 2 to 4), and omitted all explicit inline refs to them. The abundance of references actually distracts from reading the text. Oh, and last time I looked, inline citations were not a FA requirement. The last time I looked was just a minute ago :-) Lupo 21:41, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
They may not be the official FA requirement yet, but no article has passed FA in the past few months without inlince cits. Fighting against them is as pointless as fighting about references when people first started to require them: pointless. We have to make Wikipedia the most authoritative source of information in the world.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 21:48, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Red herring. I'm not fighting against them; take a look at other featured articles I wrote, and you'll see that I do use them where appropriate. My point is that here, they are not appropriate as the two references given back up the article. (In fact, I just noticed that a few isolated facts came from a few extlinks; these are given as inline cites now.) Sprinkling hundreds of inline cites that all would go to the two reference books used to write the article makes no sense to me. Feel free to do it yourself, though: just replace any full stop by ".(Schwabe 2004, Im Hof 2001)". It won't improve the article, though. Lupo 07:32, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
It would if the creator(s) bothered to include page numbers, as proper inlince cits should have.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:45, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. While I agree inline cites would be better, I don't believe in removing all current featured articles that are referenced, but don't have inline citations. There's not much value in dropping down to 250 or 300 FA's. - Taxman Talk 13:22, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Please note that inline citations are only a second, and perhaps less important of the arguments I make in the case for removing the article (bad structure, bad name, not comprehensive for current name...).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:08, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
While I grant the issue you've brought up about the naming more properly fitting the content is a decent one, I just don't think this is poor enough to warrant de-featuring it. The naming issue can be resolved with some consensus, not FARC. - Taxman Talk 17:38, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep: per Taxman . If you don't like it - fix it up! Giano | talk 16:53, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
    • You are joking? No? Ok, let's nominate various substandard articles for FAC and tell people that instead of objecting, they should fix it.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:58, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, when I'm as a knowledgable as you on a certain subject as you seem to be on this, I have been known to do that too. Try it sometime, it's very rewarding. Giano | talk 18:06, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Since the processes started we've been accepting different standards for getting articles featured and de-featured. Instead of nominating an overall very good article, why not a) work on improving it, which yes I know is not easy, but is better, or 2) nominate some of the articles with no references and poor structure. - Taxman Talk 17:38, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Radar

Article is still a featured article.

I think the radar article no longer meets FA criteria, as it has sections with poor formatting, that are not well written, and merely lists of radar systems. It's no longer the quality that the article was in June 2004 [16] when it became a featured article. I hope that by listing the article here, some knowledgeable editors on this topic will work on the article and get it back to featured quality. --Aude (talk | contribs) 18:41, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep -- pending a good copyedit. =Nichalp «Talk»= 10:23, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep if - as Nichalp. This needs a proper lead, inline citations and expantion of stub sections into proper sections. If this is done, then keep, otherwise, remove it.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 03:58, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Needs some work, but not enough for a remove. Inline cites, whilst desirable, are not compulsary, and it is well referenced. Lead definitely needs expansion, though. Batmanand | Talk 10:40, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - this is good enough in my book. I've given it a bit of a copyedit, and expanded the lead slightly, although more input is welcome. I think the main improvement that could be done it to add back a summary "History of" section (there was one in the original FA, now moved to a daughter article). -- ALoan (Talk) 10:09, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, good article and informative. Needs come improvement though. --Terence Ong 15:04, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Ku Klux Klan

Article is still a featured article.
Note, this subpage wasn't listed on WP:FARC until March 23 so the two week period starts from then. - Taxman Talk 16:46, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I believe this article no longer meets two of the FA criteria: stability and neutrality. Since the time when it was recognized as an FA, large sections have been repeatedly deleted and reinserted, and persistent attempts have been made by user User:Rjensen to push a POV that apologizes for the second (post-1915) Klan, and paints it as an organization mainly concerned with such issues as temperance. The article no longer appears to have a critical mass of editors who are willing to watch it carefully enough to maintain NPOV. In the last 3 days, for example, roughly 50 edits have been made, many of them major ones, with no serious discussion on the talk page.--Bcrowell 04:43, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the article needs help, specifically it should probably be protected from anonymous users. It just makes it too easy for it to be vandalized when they're allowed. 65.95.229.9 06:21, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment. I see a problem with things like this, and this. So much of the text (including the content) is changing with these edits. Much of the material has been omitted, including passages with citations. I realize rewriting is very commmon on wikipedia and is encouraged (I am not being "over-protective" of the article). I simply bring this up because so much has been changed that the article may not be of the same quality as before. Also, I would not be surprised if many people question the validity that burning crosses were not used to terrorize anyone, as was added in the first edit linked to above. - Dozenist talk 13:44, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Here's the diff for the last week. (As the person who wrote the stability requirement) The article is clearly stable Raul654 06:57, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Here's the diff from the same time frame to the current version. It looks a little more volatile. About as much as during the time of the initial nomination to remove featured article status. - Dozenist talk 04:19, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, the article needs help. I recommend we revert the article to the version which attained FA status (with the 03:06, 9 October 2005 version at [17] appearing to be a very good choice). That wasn't too long ago and that version of the article was really good. As an admin who edits a lot of southern United States themed articles, I'd also be happy to keep an eye on this article from this point on and make sure vandalism, POV issues, and other problems don't creep in again. However, to do such a massive revert I would prefer to have some other editors back me. So what do you think? Is this worth doing?--Alabamaboy 20:29, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
I would agree with your suggestion, since that version was very good. So much has changed since then, and it would be nice to have several people keeping an eye on the changes for POV issues and removal of relevant info. - Dozenist talk 20:52, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Done. Ashibaka tock 00:52, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
For the purpose of building consensus in case this stirs up trouble, I agree that the older version (now the current version) is the superior version of the article. - Jersyko·talk 01:09, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
No the old version was full of serious mistakes and bad sources. For example it says there were 1300 murders in 1868 (source was an anonymous website that had no sources). It had a serious misinterpretation of the 2nd KKK -- putting emphasis on 1915-20 period when it had few members and ignoring enoromous growth after 1921. It did not discuss leadership of 2nd Klan. The original was not based on recent scholarship that has revolutionized the field. So keep the current version. Rjensen 01:52, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
As for my POV: there is a large new literature on the 2nd KKK that represents the consensus of historians. The old version was simply unaware of the field. To call that an "apology" is not being very kind to the several hundred scholars working in the field. Rjensen 01:56, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Would the scholarly consensus include, just as an example, deleting all information describing the Leo Frank incident from the text of the article? Your edits go beyond consensus to POV. - Jersyko·talk 02:09, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
But that's merely your opinion of the Frank incident, a majority of the sources I'm seeing are expressing a view of the lynching that is quite different from your own. If, as you say, you're merely attempting to reproduce a newfound historical consensus (revisionism, one might say) regarding the Klan, then why are the sources I'm seeing still citing the Frank incident as a precursor to the founding of the 2nd Klan? At worst, the incident should still be mentioned in the article as an incident that is *possibly* related to the founding of the 2nd Klan. - Jersyko·talk 02:26, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes agreed the Frank episode can be mentioned. as possibly related. What sources are you looking at? Rjensen 02:32, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Online sources. I cannot vouch for the credibility of the sources I looked at. They were essentially unanimous in pointing to Frank as a KKK related topic, however.
May I ask if you consider the following to be the consensus of the hundreds of scholars that work in the field? The second KKK was a social organization active in all states in the 1920s. It demanded enforcement of prohibition and attacked sin, sexuality and foreign influences. It crashed when its own scandals revealed the hollowness of its efforts to purify society. I'd like to understand why you added it to the History of the United States (1918–1945) article, replacing a longer section that expounded on the 2nd KKK at greater length. Thanks. - Jersyko·talk 05:23, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes that's a very short, accurate summary of KKK in 1920s. The longer statement was not very good--it never even mentioned Evans who was the main leader, or the famous epsiodes in Indians. Simmons did found the group originially but it was a small local Georgia group under him with maybe 3,000 members . New leaders (Clark and Evans) took over after 1920 and it really took off nationally growing a thousand times bigger. Simmons get mentioned but not Clark and Evans, who who far more important. I think lots of people get KKK#2 mixed up with KKK#1 and KKK#3 both of which were very violent--and assume that if there was violence in the 1920s then the KKK was involved. As for KKK#1 the article has long fawning quotes from an admirer (Stanley Horn); I think they should be drastically cut. (As for KKK#3 in recent years I don't pretend to know much and have ignored that part of the article except to add some serious bibliography.) Rjensen 05:47, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
it is absolutely false that I'm an "apologist" for the 2nd KKK. I consider the old version very poor quality history. It did not reflect scholarship of last 25 years at all. It did not even mention the basic history of the group--like the powerful leader Evans in the 1920s (it played up a much less important Simmons). As for the first KKK of the 1860s the old version copied verbatim old uncritical material (especially Horn) that was strongly pro-KKK. Likewise the article was full of KKK lore such as listings of its titles and codewords. I would say the old version was 40% pro KKK and 40% anti and about 90% out of date. (I am considering only KKK#1 and KKK#2 here). Rjensen 07:27, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

For readability, an extensive comparison of resources and a small discussion about them have been moved to this FARC's talk page. Additional discussion about improving the article is taking place on the article's talk page. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:15, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep. The article has been greatly improved over the last two weeks by a discussion among all of the involved editors. In my opinion, it is now even better than it was when it first achieved FA status. Even though one final issue remains to be resolved (a minor one, in my opinion) I suggest we do not remove the FA status at this point. Any comments from the other editors? --Alabamaboy 00:10, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as rewritten, per Alabamaboy. - Jersyko·talk 00:21, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

WHy not keep the old version and then link to a new page with improvements so as to have comparison?Ellyjelly 07:22, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Charles Ives

Article is still a featured article.

The article does not have references or inline citations (both required). There was a request for references on the talk page on Apr 22, 2005. Not a featured article review candidate (Wikipedia:Featured article review) because it never had references (did not deteriorate). Hyacinth 08:41, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep: This has been nominated only for its lack of references and inline citations. If that is the case. I think one needs to apply some common sense, it has a list of further reading, and a whole list of external links which seem to confirm the facts, and quite obviously were the references. The article makes no outlandish or controversial statements. I don't see any harm in it remaining a FA. It was supported on it's FA by one of Wikipedia's most knowledgable editors who would have spotted a flaw instantly. It also does something which wikipedia does best - gives a comprehensive amount of information on a subject often not often found in other encyclopedias. The page has also survived the ordeal of being on the main page as recently as last May with no one making furious protestations of "rubbish" or "lies". Just because the criteria for present FAs has changed since this was nominated is no reason to sweep away everything then went before. Giano | talk 10:48, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. If it where so easy we both would have added inline citations and ended this discussion. Hyacinth 12:12, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Remove. No references. Even your basic college paper has references, otherwise it's considered plagerism. Wikipedia has to have a higher standard than that. Featured articles are supposed to represent that standard. Any article without proper references should not be in feature status. If references are added and/or all none referenced statements are removed, I would reconsider my vote. --Sketchee 16:32, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Remove Lack of references. Comment It had ONE vote, the ONLY comment was "A really good introduction to Ives' life and work", and it was apparently added to FA by the lone voter. That doesn't seem to constitute a "review", then or now. That's the current standard for Good Articles. I'm all for being practical and reasonable and IAR and all that, but if the FAC process is to mean anything, all current FAs should have received a review somewhat approximating today's standards, else, why improve? Should the refs indeed be sufficient, and the article so good, it should pass a FAC renom no problem, and get up to speed in the process! --Tsavage 00:53, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
  • "Good Articles" is a daft process understood by no one especially those who seem to pronounce on it (so can be dismissed accordingly). FACs even today based on non mainstream composers or classical dead musicians seem to attract little if any attention, so are you surprised by the pages lone vote at that stage in Wikipedia's history? Of course this page in its present form would fail FAC today - but we are discussing the nomination made above not other non specified charges against it - so lets not digress. I am quite sure had the original author been clairvoyant they would have labelled the external links and further reading as references which if you look at them, or read them, is clearly what they were. Giano | talk 01:18, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
  • FARC guidelines say nothing about strictly addressing only the word of the nomination. In any case, I guess this is back to the "references" issue. Isn't this a case of "yeah, it makes sense as long as you're there to explain it"? We require inlines when necessary, but limit the "necessity" in the case of existing FAs to whether voters decide if the article is otherwise good (when any reasonable request for inlines should be supported). Now we should do the same for articles without references? If all of this means so little in practice, why not just change "Further reading" to "References"? And why not perhaps add, in complete good faith, a list of general references to a great article with no "Further reading" section, to save it as an FA, or even to get it through a new FAC? I really think verifiability ought to meet a minimum standard of usability, which means cite.php refs (OR toss inlines entirely and just go with a bibliography)... --Tsavage 02:55, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Comment—It's well written; my only complaint is that it's a little short for such an important, multifaceted composer. Keep it, but please expand it. Tony 01:54, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Comment I just added a whole bunch of inline citations from the very thorough Grove article. I think it's rather pedantic to say that the article has no references simply because they are labeled "Further reading", when some of them were clearly used as references. Makemi 05:18, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as featured article, as it is well written, clear, a good intro to Ives' life and work, has many references, whether they're called that or not, and now has inline citations. <grumble> (Plus J. Peter Burkholder is awesome and deserves an FA on his pet subject) Makemi 07:31, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment (again) If there are specific facts which people still think need to be cited, it's possible they were in the Grove article and I didn't think it necessary to give them an inline. Let me know if you there's something specific you want an inline for, and I'll see what I can do. Makemi 23:25, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as improved. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:23, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, considering references and quality. Deltabeignet 04:36, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Inadequate summary of his musical style and its place in the history of music, although there are a few descriptive fragments. I'm moving towards a Weak remove unless the contributors fix it. Tony 07:13, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Note: A discussion on criteria has been moved to the talk page.

Spoo

Article is still a featured article.

This article does not meet several FA criteria, mainly that it is not representative of our best work and it has insufficient references, same as Goomba. The article is basically a few paragraphs describing Spoos in TV, and a few paragraphs about Spoo usuage in the fan community. Almost all references are from websites. Some are about particular TV episodes that are self-linked to Wikipedia, and others are a collection of usenet and email message posts, neither of which are published works, regardless of who wrote the messages. Other refernces all point to websites which do not list where they get the information, therefore no sources are verifiable, even though they may be true. Temporary account 01:25, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

  • STRONG KEEP naturally. It is one of the most stable Featured articles we have and solidly meets the various criteria. Comprehensiveness is not an issue here - indeed, this is the single most comprehensive treatise on this subject that you will find anywhere, period.
As for the quality of the references, they are all relevant to the subject, a fictional food from a fictional tv show. The usenet post linked from Wikisource is actual canon, as the show's creator, executive producer, and writer of 90% of the epic, wrote those words. Further references go towards the evolution of both the word and the fictional creature, both inside and out of the fictional universe. Usenet posts by J. Michael Straczynski are verifiable and legit - please read Internet marketing and fan influence on Babylon 5, rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated, J. Michael Straczynski, and The Lurker's Guide to Babylon 5. The JMSNews.com archive of his usenet posts is officially sanctioned by Straczynski, and the legitamacy of the google archives is without doubt.
It's an obscure subject, yeah, but all subjects deserving an article also deserve a featured article, even really obscure minutae like this. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:38, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • You are telling me to read a wikipedia article that links to the same site I am objecting above? When does the citation and source standard hit this low? Give me a break. Temporary account 01:43, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Just for clarity, you are objecting that statements made by Straczynski were done on the internet? (Versus, a paper book, or an academic conference?) --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:47, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I guess I am pretty old-schooled regarding sources and stuff. Either give me PDF from respected journals or citations of published works. I have been writing term papers, research paper, and other serious no bullshit stuff for a long time, and what I learned is that internet doesn't count as proper source. In another words, I try to be as academically rigorous as possible. If you want lower your standards, fine. Temporary account 02:10, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

[refactor]

  • If you wish to be rigorous then see for yourself that the records are accurate and verifiable. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:14, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • How does Spoo compare to Goomba? Goomba's got paper sources, and I favor removal because the article's subpar. Samething here. Come on, you've got to admit even if this is a FA, it's at the bottom. Temporary account 02:21, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Sources need to be verifiable, not just paper (there are paper sources in Spoo, BTW). To accuse a resource of unverifiability and then not bothering to back it up is a diservice, to say the least. Finally, I have no opinion on Goomba - I do know that Spoo is one damn good article (evil Media subject or not), and, I say this with utter confidence, is the single most complete, comprehensive, referenced and well written article on this subject to be found anywhere. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:31, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Whoa hoho, congratulations. My point is that if I favor removal for Goomba, I gotta reject Spoo too. I woul