Wikipedia:Featured article review/archive/April 2007

1 Removed status
2 Kept status

Removed status

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed 07:45, 10 April 2007.

Chemical synapse

Review commentary

Messages left at 168... and Molecular and Cellular Biology. LuciferMorgan 17:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC) Message left at Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine Announcements. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Reviewed in May 2006 here. Parker007 brought this article to my attention, and I agree that it needs some work to get back to featured article quality. I'm concerned that an article of this length is not comprehensive; specifically, it lacks any historical information about the discovery of chemical synapses, and each section is only one paragraph long. It was also a very poor read for me since the jargon used is poorly (if at all) defined. There are very few inline citations too. I know science articles have their own guidelines for that, but I don't see why the citations can't be of the same quality as those in Proteasome. ShadowHalo 07:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I also want to state that the section "Anatomy and physiology" is in horrible condition and I removed 2 sentences and left this message on the talk page of the article:

Second Sentence

The biological membrane of the two cells side each other across a slender gap, the narrowness of which enables signalling neurotransmitters to pass rapidly from one cell to the other by diffusion. This gap, which is about 20 nm wide, is known as the synaptic cleft.

Which 2 cells? --Parker007 06:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Third sentence

Such synapses are asymmetric both in structure and in how they operate.

Which such syapses? --Parker007 06:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

--Parker007 20:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I've mostly reverted to the version from before this review started, saving some minor changes. Basically all edits had reduced article quality. To Parker: (1) The two cells talked about in the previous sentence. (2) The prototypical synapses that have been the whole topic of the section thus far. I really don't see how you would have trouble with this, nor do I see how simply deleting the sentence is helpful. That said, the article could use some work. It doesn't appear, for instance, to treat metabotropic receptors, instead discussing NT receptors only in terms of ion channels. In general there is an awful lot to say as this is a pretty fundamental article for neurobiology. On the plus side, inline citations do not appear to be a serious problem; this is all pretty fundamental and unlikely to be challenged. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:54, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

(1) The two cells talked about in the previous sentence. So can you name the cells? Because it is very ambiguous. --Parker007 04:59, 11 March 2007 (UTC) (2) The prototypical synapses that have been the whole topic of the section thus far. What is a prototypical synapse? --Parker007 05:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

A prototypical synapse is a synapse that is prototypical, that is model. I have changed the term to archetypal to make this clearer. The two cells are any two cells at a synapse, I am not sure what you mean by naming them. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

The problem probably stems from the fact that there are many related articles that could form part of a greater article. For example Postsynaptic potential, Neurotransmitter, Neuromuscular junction, Receptor, Electrical synapse, etc. could all form part of this article. Maybe we can work to have clearer redirects to the sub-articles. Otherwise we could basically have a whole encyclopedia-length article on Synapses alone. Nrets 00:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

It would be good to have some quantitative information e.g. the statistical distribution of the number of synapses per brain cell in the brains. (JRi)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are comprehensiveness (1b), and citations (1c). Marskell 11:31, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Remove per 1c. LuciferMorgan 09:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Remove, 1c. Some improvements during review, but not at all adequate. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:28, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Remove. Per 1c. Notes and references need some cleaning. And why all these words in bold?--Yannismarou 10:13, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Remove—what a pity. Ic plus 1a. My copy-edit of the lead alone suggests that the whole thing needs a good massage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony1 (talk • contribs) 23:02, April 8, 2007

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed 12:25, 14 April 2007.

Architecture of Btrieve

Review commentary

Talk messages left at Ta bu shi da yu and Computer science. LuciferMorgan 17:30, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Very simply, this was made an FA almost two years ago (21 1/2 months, to be exact). It contains zero footnotes/citations and only six references, along with no external links. This is the only real problem I see with the article (I have no idea what Btrieve is or how it works, so I can't really say if it's well-written, but it looks comprehensive enough and NPOV), but it's a pretty severe problem for an article that's supposedly of Featured quality. -- Kicking222 18:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Kicking, per the FAR instructions above, would you mind notifying the original article author/nominator and the WikiProjects listed on the article talk page, with {{subst:FARMessage|Architecture of Btrieve }}~~~~ Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I already did notify the nominator last night. Sorry for not mentioning that. Here it is, five minutes after I posted this FAR. As for the WikiProject, I just left a message on the talk page of WPCompSci. -- Kicking222 20:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

In my own defence, this was a FA at a time when footnoting wasn't really a requirement of FA. I did think that things weren't going to be removed due to footnoting issues. However, all the material for this article is in the references section. Perhaps that could be taken into consideration here? The information is good. Btrieve, incidently, is a database, which is what is stated in the lead section. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this; adding footnotes with the exact pages where one should look for the facts stated in this articles (which are undisputed and uncontroversial) in the documents mentioned in the references sections wouldn't hurt, but is far from essential. Both Btrieve and Architecture of Btrieve are quite short by today's FA standards, perhaps the should be merged? —Ruud 22:49, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

At the time, the article was about 50KB or so. I think that's a little large. Best to keep split, but then again I'm biased :-) Ta bu shi da yu 07:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concern is citations (1c). Marskell 10:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Remove per 1c. LuciferMorgan 21:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Remove per 1c. Jay32183 20:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Remove—1c. Not a jot has been done on it since nomination. Tony 23:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, the reason was because I didn't get around to it, but I thought articles weren't going to be defeatured because of lack of ref tags! What is wrong with my references?! I must protest! - Ta bu shi da yu 06:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

The article was removed 12:25, 14 April 2007.

Commodore 64

Review commentary

Talk messages left at DanielNuyu and Video games. LuciferMorgan 02:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Original FAC page.

Well written article. Cman 19:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Ummm, unless I'm missing something this article is currently a featured article ?!?! Dr pda 20:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

No, but it was a feature article back in 2005. Cman 20:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

So you want this featured article to go under review? See WP:FAR. CloudNine 21:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Wrongly listed at FAC, but moved to FAR by myself per WP:BOLD. Now it's here, what criteria does Cman feel is at fault? LuciferMorgan 21:34, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

At quick glance, perhaps only 5 inline citations, a picture without a source, and a gallery (which isn't used anymore)?--Clyde (talk) 21:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment: I don't think it was Cman's intention to have this at FAR. Rather I think the intention was to have it appear on the main page again. So far no article has ever appeared on the main page twice, and it's not likely to happen in the near future. FAs are being produced faster than one per day, so there is no shortage. Gimmetrow 23:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Well this'll end up on FAR sooner or later regardless - fails a few criteria points. I think it should stay here to be honest. LuciferMorgan 23:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

That's fine, if you will be taking responsibility for this FAR nomination. Gimmetrow 23:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Me? I'm not taking responsibility for anything at FAR other than my own FAR nominations after recent FAR events. LuciferMorgan 23:55, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what that encompasses, but I could help.--Clyde (talk) 23:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think I have the knowledge or drive to handle the major work this thing needs to stay FA on my own (I certainly know the work amount in an FA). Drop some messages, see who comes. I know it fails 1(c), 3, and maybe 1(a).--Clyde (talk) 00:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Agree that although it came here via a strange route, it does need to be here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

If all reviews by the FAR regulars is going to be in checklist fashion, then we'll have to make sure that those checklists are applied correctly. FAR is not about footnote counting, so please produce some detailed and constructive criticism. And don't do it by simply adding random fact tags that simply amount to "I don't believe this but I have no counterarguments for my doubts". As far as I'm concerned it's a mild form of WP:POINT-making. Try to show some commitment to your task as reviewers and produce reasonable doubt or justification for the blanket accusations of "not enough inlines". Peter ^Isotalo 12:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I kind of take offense to that. I've never worked in a FAR before, and whenever I read about them, they always start by listing the criteria that the article fails. This came here in a weird fashion, so I was under the impression that needed to be done. The reason why I thought this was short on citations is because many FAs around now have at least 1 citation per paragraph. In this case, history has only two, and there are zero in hardware or software. There is a group of references at the end that need to be integrated, which might help take care of the lack of citations. According to you, I can't help the citation problem by adding fact tags (it's violating WP:POINT apparently), so I guess we'll have to wait for someone who knows a lot about the Commodore 64 to come around and specifically tell us what needs to be citied. I don't understand, stuff like "Due to its advanced graphics and sound, the C64 is often credited with starting the computer subculture known as the demoscene (see Commodore 64 demos)." probably needs a fact tag. There is enough stuff like that in there that it wouldn't have to be random. Oh, and by the way, I doubt there will be much "commitment" or "reasonable doubt", since there is no one who wants to see this burn unless it's improved, and there's no one who really wants to save it.--Clyde (talk) 14:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment A good first step would be eliminating the gallery of fair use images, it violates the fair use criteria. Jay32183 00:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment Should the article have KiB or kB? At the time of promotion it had kB, and this was the common use during the period this article is about. Gimmetrow 16:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- I'd prefer KiB to avoid confusion. Most people will assume the modern usage of kB. Jay32183 20:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  - The article was only converted to KiB in early March. I would prefer kB for historical computers, but as long it stays with KiB (no "kibinybbles" please), it's probably tolerable. The fair use image for the game doesn't seem justified; the other images appear to be PD or freely licensed. Gimmetrow 05:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment The article only has ONE reliable inline citation. That's horrible. How did this become a featured article? --Teggles 06:11, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are citations (1c), images (3), and prose (1a). Marskell 13:45, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Remove While images have been removed and some terminology has been changed, nothing is being done regarding inline citations; there are currently 6. If work gets done please notify me or if I'm away and it get's a significant amount of citations disregard my comments. Aaron Bowen 20:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Remove per 1c. LuciferMorgan 22:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Remove per 1c. Jay32183 17:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Remove per Aaron Bowen, also notify me if anything changes. Quadzilla99 09:26, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Remove—1c, and the overlinking with trivial items calls into question the "professional" standard of formatting that is required. Tony 23:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

The article was removed 09:39, 13 April 2007.

Torchic

Review commentary

Messages left at HighwayCello, Video games, Nintendo, and Pokemon. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

This article has horrible sources. It fails WP:N and (1c) of the FA criteria. Some references don't even back up the claims made. There are some references that don't mention the subject at all. User:A_Man_In_Black has highlighted some of the problems Here on the article's talk page. Funpika 01:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

My commentary from talk, in toto:

This article is pathetically sourced, and seems to fail WP:N miserably. I was looking at the references closely, and they don't stand up to scrutiny.

Some highlights:

Many of the cited references don't even back up the claims made. For example, take the reference to [1]; this isn't cited as a source that Combusken is a flying Pokémon; it's cited as a source that it isn't a flying Pokémon. WTF?
The claim of the origin of the name, a debatable linguistic analysis, is sourced to a Pokémon fansite.
Reference #3 is directly to a Japanese-English dictionary, which makes no reference to Torchic at all.
At least a third of the references (I gave up counting) are to poorly-written, not-at-all-analytical anime episode summaries on Serebii.
The references to Gamespy, IGN, and Gamespot don't mention Torchic at all.
The article is laden with references to primary sources for facts of questionable importance. How are any of the toys important? Nobody has seen fit to comment on them but Hasbro. How is the recall important? The only party to comment is the recalling party.

Additionally, this article doesn't have a single word on the creative process that led to the creation of Torchic, nor a single word of sourced analysis or critical reception.

I'm not sure if this is FA quality. I'm not sure if this is GA quality. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

KeepThat creation point is unnecessary. And references need to be interpreted carefully as they might not be the citation for an entire statement, maybe only the last part. I added episode templates for the anime paragraphs, so it's time we stop questioning Serebii's quality and continue improving Torchic.

I have erased all the citations that are being manipulated for the sake of stating misconceptions and asserting vague facts like the flying type Torchic and Bulbasaur's seed. I also feel that the toys section is needed.

Talking about etymology, Pokedream is the only site that provides it. I don't mind if that citation is removed, but what is the debatable linguistics in torch + chick = Torchic? There is no dispute possible about the name unlike that of Lugia or Milotic, right? Vikrant Phadkay 13:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

In reply to the comment about the article's notability - notability is not a consideration for the FA process. We inherently presume that all articles nominated are notable (FAC and FAR are not AFD and should not attempt to replicate its function). So that criticism is irrelevant. Raul654 06:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not arguing that the subject isn't notable, but that its sources don't allow for any sort of useful explanation of the importance of this subject. Would you not agree that an article that fails to explain how the subject of the article is important isn't a comprehensive article? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Some of the problems should be fixable. If there isn't any analysis in the anime or manga sections then the Serebii refs can be replaced by citing the episodes and issues directly. The comprehensiveness problem will probably be the hardest issue to tackle. Will there actually be sources about the creation or reception of Torchic, or any Pokemon other than Pikachu. This doesn't hold a candle to some of the other featured articles on fictional characters. Jay32183 04:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't solve the problem that this article is completely lacking in critical analysis from reliable sources, just the fact that Serebii isn't a great way to cite things. I don't think Torchic can actually support a comprehensive article; this is filled out with inane, empty fragments of fictional stories or settings. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I absolutely agree. I'd just like to push WP:PCP away from using Serebii as much as possible. Jay32183 04:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I actually wondered about the reliability of Serebii before, given that I had been misled before in their gaming sections. I guess the issue hasn't died down yet. Hbdragon88 04:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, every discussion seems to go....

Hey, is Serebii really a reliable source? It's run by one person, often has long-uncorrected errors, is a fansite, often doesn't update pages, etc.
- So what else are we going to use?
  - ...

Thread gets archived

We need to actually do something about this, this time. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I know. That error totally screwed up my Gardevoir. I stopped EV training halfway before it would have completed (as I was under the impression that they would be doubled), so I have a personal vendetta against that place. (Fortunately, those EV reducing berries in Emerald fixed that problem). Hbdragon88 05:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

let's keep discussion of serebii to a minimum - only what is pertinent to the article, we can discuss it further at the project page. For a rebuttal, if we were to guage accuracy with the amount of content that serebii covers (450+ anime epiguides; 3 advanced pokedexes for RBYGSC(251 pokemon), RSEFrLg(386), DP(493); 2 attackdexes (354 and 467); several detailed pages on game mechanics; complete item lists; walkthroughs and strategy guides for 29 games; not to mention the detailed lists on manga, movies, and the TCG) their error rate is probably as low as wikipedia's and wikipedia's is reportedly lower than Brittanica's and the errors eventually get fixed. There are several other issues, like this one that i brought up on Highway's talk page, which was never fixed. I guess he was trying to quote serebii epiguides to say that the show promotes people liking it because of its attractiveness, but the real arguable claim, "...Torchic's popularity is partially due to its aesthetic appeal." is completely unsourced. In fact, a comparison is made to the previous fire starter (no Stephen King jokes) Charmander and the source isn't the one making the link, i think it is meant to establish the fact that Charmander's popularity has to due with aesthetic appeal, but that source is just some personal website gallery of Charmander merchandise. At least the Hasbro stuff is from a more legitimate website. Of course this is only one example. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 05:28, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Um. Serebii isn't a reliable source not just because of the errors, but because of the source of those errors. Serebii is full of mistakes because it's one guy's fansite. It's not even close to independently reviewed. It's just not a reliable source.

It doesn't help that this article's relatively best references are to a fansite noted for being somewhat flakey among Pokémon fans. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

The last spur was meant in jest, of course I'm not going to want to revoke Torchic's FA status merely because Serebii gave me incorrect game guide info (they're unrelated). But there are other outstanding issues with Serebii. AMIB is willing to argue them. I'm just in the background. Hbdragon88 07:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Serebii is a self-published source, therfore it fails to be a reliable source. The claims that nothing else could be used doesn't matter because if there isn't a reliable source then Wikipedia shouldn't have an article on it. Jay32183 18:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I picked a couple of Serebii citations at random. The first one: Synopsis of Pokémon Adventures manga; Chapter 183. "VS. Mightyena" Serebii.net. URL accessed 13 May 2006. -- shouldn't this be citing the the manga directly? There seem to be quite a few citations of this type. The second: Bulbasaur Pokédex entry - "A seed was planted on its back at birth. The plants sprouts and grows with this Pokémon." Serebii.net. URL accessed 5 July 2006. -- I don't see that quote on that page. Even if Serebii were a reliable source, there are still issues here. Side note: citation 6 is broken. Pagra shtak 19:28, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

When no analysis is being performed then citing manga, anime, or the video games directly is perfectly acceptable. The lack of analysis may keep the article from being comprehensive, but that's no reason not to cite the most reliable source available. Jay32183 21:30, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

With no analysis whatsoever, this article's prose is far from brilliant. It merely slaps together trivial scraps of plot and setting. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

It needs to be noted that a lot of things can be cited directly from the appropriate media - episode guides are a backing, but seeing as to their source, and some inaccuracies that could come in that source, it's best we stick to simply citing the media. Since Torchic is full of citations that could be attributed to media, that too, should be rectified. And, agreed with AMIB. - Sotomura (Tetsuya-san) (yell : see) 09:48, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

What on earth is all this happening?

Keep for sure - The article has been provided with all possible sources and if we keep questioning their reliability, the project will never get another FA and we'll rather lose this one and the other one too!

Never shall the official site give us episode guides, game guides, manga guides etc. So eventually either the project fails in its aims because of one criterion. Then why not introduce another two citations at all places where Serebii can't be relied on? Criticism is easy, after all!

The Internet has 1 billion web pages and none of them is 100% reliable; they are all 99.99999999.......%. Still those who don't rely can glide across Google and locate and compare many more sites. Or best is to play the game and clarify all the so-called doubts.

And all the minor problems with a few sources can be rectified with ease or removed presuming them as OR. There's absolutely no need to dethrone the article for that. Vikrant Phadkay 12:04, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

The thing about this is, if Torchic continues to fail to meet the requirements (as it has been doing even since its nomination) its position here should no longer be held. It fails attribution, the article itself isn't so well-written, and writing compatible sections isn't going to happen like magic. - Sotomura (Tetsuya-san) (yell : see) 12:20, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

On that note, it was bad enough that when it appeared on the front page, editors immediately and consistently picked on its citation problems. Not very good at all. And this isn't a vote yet; it's a discussion to address the shortcomings that need to be addressed before we all either feel it's still eligible or whether we need to bring it up for removal. - Sotomura (Tetsuya-san) (yell : see) 12:23, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Just a reminder, the internet is not the only resource. Serebii is not reliable by definition because it is a fan run website. The article's worst shortcoming is it's comprehensiveness, meaning the article is incomplete. There is no discussion of creation or reaction, which is required when discussing a fictional character. Jay32183 18:12, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns is quality of citations (1c). Marskell 10:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Article appears to additionally fail "comprehensive" (1b), as suggested in discussion. Sotomura (Tetsuya-san) (yell : see) 21:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Remove. The prose does not seem brilliant; nor are the citations. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Hey, the prose was always brilliant, it is once again and the citations are recovering their damage! Criticism is easy but patience and perseverance will soon pay off as I save this article. Vikrant Phadkay 13:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Remove It appears that no attempts are being made to replace the unreliable sources, such as Serebii. Jay32183 02:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Here come the attempts (most of them are accomplished). Vikrant Phadkay 13:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
  - I will still be remove per 1b. No discussion of the character/species concept and creation and no analysis of its role in the games/anime/manga means the article is not comprehensive, and you won't find reliable sources for that content. Jay32183 18:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Remove. It's not at all our fault that unreliable sources aren't being replaced, because there aren't any others that source all the information in the article. But that doesn't make it featured material. -Amarkov moo! 03:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- if it's not our fault then why refrain from saving our FA? Improve the sources! How long does it take? Vikrant Phadkay 13:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Remove. Support is gradually building to deal with individual Pokémon as components of an encyclopedic whole, instead of trying to force the treatment of them as individual subjects. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Remove as per users A Man In Black and Jay32183. Citations aren't good at all, and the efforts are low on improving it and the prose, the lack of commentary on what was suggested, or anything else. It's deadbeat. - Sotomura (Tetsuya-san) (yell : see) 06:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Remove per above Hbdragon88 07:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Remove per above reasoning. LuciferMorgan 21:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Remove — 1a, 1b, 1c.

There is no out of universe information. How was the character created? Cosplay? How was the pokemon received by critics? I suggest looking at Characters of Final Fantasy VIII. If you can find translated interviews from Japanese magazines (which is about as reliable as we can get due to these topics being from Japan, translation reliabilities aside; work with what you can for the subject at hand, because people will understand if you can't exactly find a new york times interview, heh) or secondary analyses that in turn cite sources, then 1b will be met. If not even a borderline reliable/self-published source (which may be fine in relation to this subject) can be found with out of universe information, then this needs to be transwikied, then compressed and merged into a article about this generation of Pokemon. I don't have a problem with most the sources being used, to be honest; it's the fact that if you're using this level of sources (which is probably quite accurate in relation to this subject), why not find out of universe material at least on this level?
Prose issues throughout.
1c. Some of the sources are just plain unreliable, like fansites. Usually, the only things good from fansites are sourced analyses with an author and contact, and interviews with contact information or sources (were they taken from a magazine? if no source is provided and its a fan-run interview, I recommend not using it to be safe). We must be careful when using fansites. — Deckill er 03:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

- That creation thing is unnecessary. Where on earth will we find information about it? If anyone can write that, either he's Satoshi Tajiri or he should be showered by barnstars. Vikrant Phadkay 14:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Remove.' Unacceptable sources. Thank god people are considering that rationally now. - Taxman ^Talk 02:28, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Remove. Hell yeah, take the source 14 for example. What the hell? I have to read the book to get a source? TheBlazikenMaster 19:51, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
- yes, if a book is cited YOU MUST READ IT and if an episode is cited YOU MUST WATCH IT. Vikrant Phadkay 15:32, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Keep Are citations such that they cant be improved? I prefer ending this nomination and putting a cleanup tag on the article so as its quality recovers.Vikrant Phadkay 15:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

- Number 14 is good. It's the over reliance on websites that's causing the problem in this article. Jay32183 20:38, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
  - Note: That's not a valid grounds for declaring Remove; note 14 is to a magazine article. It's correctly sourced. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
    - Ok, I admit it is idiotic reason for deletion. But my vote is still remove, per the rest of remove voters.—Preceding unsigned comment added by TheBlazikenMaster (talk • contribs) 18:18, April 10, 2007[2]
- It is theoretically possible that there might be a way to improve the citations. However, that would require a rethink of the entire method of sourcing Pokemon articles, so it's not some trivial matter that can be fixed fast enough to keep it a FA. -Amarkov moo! 15:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Remove due to source issues. Pagra shtak 23:28, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Comment I think I need to point out that a lack of reliable sources does not excuse a lack of comprehensiveness. That does mean that certain articles can never be FAs, and we may need to reconsider whether they should have been their own articles in the first place. Jay32183 18:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
- That's being done with Pokemon articles, at least; the long standing idea of merging them is getting attention now. -Amarkov moo! 18:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
  - No, don't do it. Think about it, if all pokémon would be merged into one article, the article would either be too long or too unspecific. It also wouldn't make sense. Besides, in my opinion they are encyclopdia articles. TheBlazikenMaster 20:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
    - Not one article, of course. But we have large numbers of Pokemon that are simply not notable, with zero sources. Some aren't even discussed on Serebii, because nobody cares about them. -Amarkov moo! 03:06, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
      - I don't think any article about pokémon will be merged any time soon. Whismur is one of these so-called nonnotable. And guess what? It did survive an AfD. TheBlazikenMaster 08:39, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Remove. Completely fails to meet 1a, and is not really meeting 1b or 1c, either. More than anything, I would ask any supporter of the article remaining an FA to read a really high-quality FA (look at Joan of Arc for just one example) and compare the quality of prose. Oh man, this article is not all that interesting, it's not altogether informative, and it's maybe, maybe a GA. But certainly not an FA. Sanity will prevail. (Phadkay, your efforts to improve the article are appreciated and useful and helpful, regardless of whether or not the article remains an FA. Nicely done.) Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 22:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

The article was removed 12:25, 14 April 2007.

Caulfield Grammar School

Review commentary

Talk messages left at Harro5, Schools and Australia. LuciferMorgan 02:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Original FAC shows indecision:

This article passed in 2005, when standard for articles was a lot lower than it is now. It currently does not meet FA criteria.

1a) It does not contain brilliant prose. Some paragraphs are two sentences long. Some of the grammer may be questionable. A thorough copyedit is required.
1b) Leadership program is not mentioned. Extra-curricular academic opportunities are forgotten. Information on school philosophy, motto, song, past achievements, mission etc. are not given.
1c) This is the biggest problem. Half of the article is unsourced. A featured article shouldn't have ^{citation needed} tags lying around everywhere.
1d) The article contains a very pro-Caulfield point of view. For example: "Five debates are held each year, and Caulfield teams debate against other Melbourne schools - both independent and government schools - on various current interest topics. Debaters in Year 12 compete in the A-Grade division, many having begun in the Year 9 D-Grade and been involved in all four divisions of the DAV competition." It gives a feeling of experience and strength in debating when this is quite the norm in all schools in Australia.
2a) The lead doesn't summarize the topic. Mentions of the fee and of the school mission statement are not made in the rest of the article. Two paragraphs of the lead are unimportant and don't belong there.
2b) Very minor but the history seems awkwardly sorted into ToC.
3) More images might be nice.

Those are my views. Sfdasfr 02:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Sfdasfr, per the FAR instructions above, pls notify the original article author/nominator and the WikiProjects listed on the article talk page, with {{subst:FARMessage|Caulfield Grammar School}}~~~~ Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

They have been notified. Sfdasfr 02:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Lucifer (just thinking it's time we started prompting nominators to do this, per instructions.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah you have a point. Perhaps we can instruct them to do so and give them two days before we take action ourself? LuciferMorgan 21:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I will do it next time. Sfdasfr 05:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

No worries. LuciferMorgan 09:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm the main contributor to this article, but am currently not able to edit very much. (Hint: Great Firewall of China). I will do what I can to address any concerns, but need more specifics from the original comments. Harr o5 02:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe most of my comments are fairly specific. I have added cn tags in places in which the comments are not verifiable. The school uniform is unsourced but I'm being lax there because it's harder to find a source for. There are numerous other completely sunsourced sections. There is pro-Caulfield POV in places. The VCE section is POV and unsourced. The Nanjing campus section is POV and unsourced. A major copyedit would do well. The article isn't deserving of FA status in current times. Sfdasfr 04:14, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

No-one at all is working on this article and the problems have still not been addressed. Should we go to FARC?? Sfdasfr 06:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are prose (1a), comprehensiveness (1b), citations (1c), and POV (1d). Marskell 13:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Remove - I don't see anyone ready and knowledgeable enough to fix the problems this article has. It certainly doesn't meet the standard of currently promoted FAs. Sfdasfr 05:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Remove No real progress to fix 1a, 1b, 1c, and 1d. Jay32183 20:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Remove—the four criteria specified; no progress. A school FAC has to be pretty special, IMV. Tony 08:20, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Remove per Jay's reasoning. LuciferMorgan 20:19, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

The article was removed 12:25, 14 April 2007.

Beverage-can stove

Review commentary

Talk messages left at Sj and Backpacking. LuciferMorgan 17:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Found this one while going through hiking-equipment articles for the newly-created backpacking project. Approved back in the days of looser standards. Well-illustrated but sorely lacking in citations. I as surprised to see the gold star; it would not be approved now. Can it be fixed or do we have to remove it? Daniel Case 03:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

The article is probably as comprehensive as it needs to be, however it is listy and comprised of stubby sections and paragraphs. Ceoil 21:46, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are citations (1c), stub sections etc. (2). Marskell 10:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Strong remove. Very lacking in comprehensiveness and citations. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Remove. Not many people seem interested in fixing this one, and it's trending this way. Daniel Case 02:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Remove per 1c. LuciferMorgan 21:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Remove per 1c. Jay32183 20:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Remove - it would be a good GA though.. Baristarim 04:42, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't pass GA as it isn't well referenced etc. LuciferMorgan 04:59, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

GA?! Not even as a joke!--Yannismarou 09:17, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Remove—GA is a joke, so it matches. Here, 1c is the problem. Inadequate attempts to address reviewers' concerns since nomination. Tony 23:50, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

The article was removed 09:39, 13 April 2007.

Éire

Review commentary

Talk messages left at Ireland and Countries. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

1a, prose is not brilliant, in my opinion the most obvious example of this is over usage of parentheses.
1c, very light on inline citations, and has dubious statements, some of which have already been questioned on the talk page.
1d, although possible not an issue, POV has been brought up on the talk page
2a, lead section is too long, especially considering this article is smaller than most featured articles
2b/c, 5 headings and no subheadings, heading names include the title of the article, also section sizes vary widely
3, only 3 images, one of which violates fair use

On a side note, this article was featured an indeterminate but long time ago and has no FAC page. Vicarious 13:37, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I add the following:

1a: footnotes: the Browne/MacBride and Lenihan footnotes are chatty (and utterly irrelevant).
1b: there is no mention of:
- the fact that many foreigners mistakenly think that Éire is the official name of the country in all languages, and that many Irish people hate to see/hear "Éire" used as such in English, French, etc, and may even view such usage as egregious ignorance or a calculated snub. There was an amount of contentious and uncited assertion along these lines (see Talk page), now reduced to the inadequate "Since 1949, the term Republic of Ireland has generally been used in preference to Éire, when speaking English."
- other etymological theories besides the etiological "Ériu"
3: the map of Ireland serves no purpose in this article other than decoration.
4: aaaaaggghhhh! I get the impression the article was written with much youthful enthusiasm in the early days of Wikipedia and crammed with various goodies to get it up to what passed for Featured Article status then, and has since been left to twist in the wind while other articles covering similar ground have caught up and overtaken it. It seems originally to have served as "History of the Irish state from 1937 to 1949". A grossly misleading infobox to that effect survived until 3 weeks ago. Most of what is still there belongs on another article. Éire should be about the Irish word Éire, its etymology, official and unofficial usage and meanings; even if it covered that far more comprehensively than now, I doubt there would be enough substance for FA status. The entire Éire#From Éire to the Republic of Ireland section should be removed from Éire and merged with Republic of Ireland Act and/or Irish head of state from 1936 to 1949. There is also overlap with Names of the Irish state, British Isles (terminology)#Ireland_2 and Constitution of Ireland#Historical origins. A co-ordinated reworking of all these would certainly help; at the end of that daunting task, I think Éire will be left with very little content.

I think there is no hope of this article regaining FA status any time soon. jnestorius^(talk) 23:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment. Its unfortunate but a majority of the article should be merged into the Republic of Ireland Act. The text is blatantly partisan (see treatment of both Costello &, oh dear..."the controversial" Noel Browne). Prose is weak in places: "in front of an affronted Costello". Ceoil 20:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Progress is unlikely, propose a move to FARC and a merge with Republic of Ireland Act, which when neutralised will be a very strong article. Ceoil 20:35, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I take it you mean merge the relevant section(s)? We still need a separate article about the word Éire. jnestorius^(talk) 23:17, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, yes, I mean those sections only. Ceoil 14:19, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are prose (1a), citations (1c), LEAD (2a), TOC and sections (2b&c), and images (3). Marskell 10:35, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Remove as insufficient content, coverage, and citations, as well as prose issues. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Remove per 1c. LuciferMorgan 22:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Remove per 2a, 4 (too much detail on 1930s and 1940s), 1a and 1c. -- Avenue 10:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Remove per all of the above, plus sub-professional formatting in its trivial linking. It's a pity, since there are attractive aspects of this article. Tony 23:17, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

The article was removed 13:22, 9 April 2007.

History of Alaska

Review commentary

Messages left at the article's talk page and Wikispork --Miskwito 00:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Messages left at History, United States, and U.S. states. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:35, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Fails 1c; there are very few inline citations. A number of reliable print references are cited at the bottom of the page, however, so I think the main task is just indicating which statements in the article itself come from which reference source. Otherwise, the article seems excellent. --Miskwito 00:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Comments Numbers and units of measurement must have a non-breaking hard space between them. Is it "The Department of Alaska" or "Department of Alaska"? (Pls see WP:MSH). Full dates (Month day, year) should be wikilinked; some are not. Footnotes should include publisher in all cases, author and publication date when available. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Sooooo...15 days later, and nothing changed. I don't have any Alaska-related reference works to dig through for citations myself (nor does the topic really interest me enough that I'd be able to focus on doing that for very long). I'm not sure who decides when to change this to a FARC, though...? Or if that's appropriate yet, since hardly anyone has weighed in? --Miskwito 04:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
I am absolutely 100% against removing this article. Soapy 05:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- Well, do you have a reason? The problem is that the article is simply not well-cited. For example, the Spain's attempts at colonization section (seven paragraphs) doesn't have a single in-line citation. In fact, very few sections have more than one or two in-line citations (by which I really mean <ref> tags--of which the entire article has a total of 15), if they have any at all. Of the 17 sections, I count seven with no references cited (including five in a row, beginning with Spain's attempts at colonozation through District of Alaska). Russian Alaska (eleven paragraphs long) has only three references cited--one in the first paragraph, one in the second, and one in the sixth. And it goes on like this. I don't think it's necessary for an article to cite every single sentence to be FA-class, but this is pretty unacceptable, in my view. --Miskwito 05:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
  - I agree that there is not enough citation but that should not mean deletion/removal of this article. It needs to grow, not be torn down. Wikipedia has enough problems with editors vandalizing (not you) and deleting articles. In my opinion you are only adding to the problem, not solving it, and you seem to be in a hurry to remove it. That got me looking at your contributions to see if there was a clue as to why. I saw mostly Native American articles you have edited and I can't help but think there is an underlining issue at stake here for you. I am sorry for what seems like a personal attack. I am just being honest in my thoughts.

It's just sickening what Wikipedia has become in a short amount of time. There are far more important problems in Wikiland to worry about than deleting an article that lacks citations. Very recently I had to abandon the Alaska article and several others because I just could not keep up with the vandals that attack literally by the hour. This is a problem I would like to see you and others sink their teeth into, not trying to delete articles that just need help. No, I won't take the time to work on this article as I already have other pressing projects, but I admit the history of Alaska is very important to me and I would like to see this article stay around. If you still feel the need to delete then go ahead. I have done my best to get a hold of Wikipedia about the main problems of vandalism but have never heard a word from them. I was invited to come to Wikipedia a few years ago but I resisted because I knew the problems it had at that time would only get worse if left unchecked. That prediction has come true and Wikipedia still won't fix the problem. All it would take is a mandatory sign-in to edit an article but Wikipedia won't implement it. One by one the articles I watched and edited have become more of a burden than a joy and one by one I opt to abandon them due to daily having to fix the vandalism. Vandalism is not a problem on this article but I guess perhaps I will stop watching it as well because I just don't want to be there when you actually delete it. Wiki can ignore the problems but that does not make them go away. Lastly, I want to report that a couple of weeks ago my daughter's high school history teacher announced to his classes that he will no longer accept Wikipedia as a reliable source of information on their projects. Vandalism is to blame not lack of citation. That about sums things up. I apologize for digressing. Soapy 23:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I think people might be misunderstanding what a Featured Article Review is...this isn't the same thing as nominating the article for deletion. I definitely, definitely don't want the article deleted! What its purpose is is to try to fix some potential problems with the article, and if that isn't done, then to have a discussion on whether the article's status as a "Featured Article" should be removed. It would still exist, and it could still be renominated to be a FA in the future. I'm sorry for any misunderstandings. --Miskwito 22:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Miskwito, I apologize to you. I mistakenly saw you as just wanting to destroy rather than build. I went to the Far page again and see now that I was mistaken with their definition. Wiki needs to clarify that page better. They also left out what becomes of an article once it is removed from Featured Article status. Does it become a Stub? Soapy 00:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Snowy, don't worry. The page isn't turned into a stub, deleted, or in any other way altered. It may lose the little star in the corner, but that's all. Of course, if improvements occur it can also keep the star. Marskell 09:01, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are citations (1c), and formatting issues (2). Marskell 09:01, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Remove per 1c. LuciferMorgan 09:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Remove per 1c. Jay32183 20:09, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Remove for citations. It would make a fine WP:GA if nominated, though. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:15, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Remove—1c and 1a. Tony 08:19, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Status: This had very large work today and I'm not comfortable rm'ing yet if there's someone ready to work. I will contact them. Marskell 17:51, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
- I completed refs in the final section as a sample of work needed: [3] It looks as if the Columbia.edu source may be a student website? Not sure, but may not be a reliable source. If someone is on board, I can complete the rest of the footnotes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:38, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  - Completed all the refs that were there; some may not be reliable and need to be reviewed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:15, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Remove per 1c. I was doing some work on the article yesterday, but I don't have the time or the energy to do the referencing to print sources that will be necessary. My other concern (1b and 1c I guess) is that the weight given to different sections is not necessarily reflective of their overall importance in Alaskan history, and that the little blurbs on the main Alaska history page do not do a good job of summarizing the longer articles (highlighting unimportant facts, not mentioning other important ones). This is what I was (and will be, at least a little more) working to fix. Calliopejen1 22:13, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
- I did want to thank you for all your work yesterday, though, even if this has its FA status removed. Thanks for the work! --Miskwito 22:16, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

The article was removed 10:33, 28 April 2007.

Supreme Court of the United States

Review commentary

Messages left at User talk:Lord Emsworth, United States, Law, Politics, and U.S. Supreme Court cases. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

There are several issues: 1a) Some areas are a bit disorganized, such as "Quarters"; this section is very short and lacks general information on the structure of the building. 1c) There are only 5 inline citations for a moderately large article. 3) The seal at the top is corrupted, and should be replaced. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 15:49, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I concur with everything you said. Let's see if anyone responds. Maybe if I have time I'll track down some of the people who helped make it an FA and notify them. Aaron Bowen 19:56, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I edited some sections for clarity, but I don't want to be the final arbiter of the entire article because some of it, particularly the historical sections, are outside my area of expertise. ---Axios023 03:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Comments. See also needs attention, per WP:LAYOUT. Important articles should be incorporated in the text where possible, minimizing See also. External links should be pruned per WP:EL and WP:NOT. References are incompletely formatted and have no recognizable consistent bibliographic style. All web sources should have publisher, last access date, and author/pub date where available. Quotes section has one quote—could be worked into the text. Dashes are used incorrectly—see WP:DASH. Templates (e.g.; further information) are employed mid-section—see WP:LAYOUT. The current membership table is unsightly, with one long column last. Mixed reference styles—some inline, others cite.php. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:08, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

remove not nearly enough citations or footnotes.--Sefringle 20:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are organization (2), citations (1c), and images (3). Marskell 09:34, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Citations (not footnotes) are a problem here. I'd also like to see a copy-edit, which shouldn't take long. Here are examples in the lead of easy-to-fix problems:
- "United States" occurs three times in the opening, short sentence; reword the middle occurrence.
- "Each term consists of alternating two week intervals. During the first interval, the court is in session ('sitting') and hears cases, and during the second interval, the court is recessed to consider and write opinions on cases it has heard." Hyphen for "two week". Remove "and hears cases" as obvious. Lots of "ands", so use a semicolon after "cases" instead. Better structure.
- Ungainly repetition: "the Court's caseload. The court's".

It's worth fixing. Tony 00:16, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Remove. Little attempt has been made to increase the number of citations. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Remove per 1c. LuciferMorgan 21:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

The article was removed 08:09, 2 April 2007.

ATLAS experiment

Review commentary

Original author aware. Message left at Physics. LuciferMorgan 23:07, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

This article has no inline citations and only a few references so it fails 1(c) of the Featured article criteria.

Atomic1609 13:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Concerned — I'm concerned that the primary editors won't (or are no longer) around to work on this article. Plus, the article has fewer than 50 edits in the last year and a half, so it's going to be quite an interesting development. Once I see some interest, I'll provide some ideas. — Deckill er 13:21, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment Fails 1c. LuciferMorgan 13:31, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll fix it, but I can't do it quickly. I was the largest contributor to the article, and I have a strong interest in keeping it in good shape. However, I have little time for Wikipedia at the moment, and my interests and obligations on Wikipedia are considerably broader than they once were, so I can't fix it immediately. I do hope that nobody is proposing to remove the FA status in the meantime? -- SCZenz 13:40, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
- Articles are reviewed for two weeks until they are placed on FARC, which can last up to a month sometimes. — Deckill er 13:41, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
  - There's not much more to be "reviewed" really, until I (or others) have time to make edits to add sources. Unless you're implying that there's a precise procedural time limit? -- SCZenz 13:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

If work is being done, time can be extended. LuciferMorgan 13:51, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment, I don't understand why one would make it a requirement to have a lot of inline citations just for the sake of having a lot of inline citations. In this case a few citations e.g. to the ATLAS manual, is more than enough. This article is about an extremely technical subject and explains it to interested lay persons. This means that 99% of what is written is, from the technical point of view, trivial and there are then no appropriate citations for that.

E.g. when mentioning the Standard Model, it is not appropriate to give an inline citation to original journal articles on this topic. To understand such journal articles requires years of study and it would thus not be helpful as they cannot be used for verifiability purposes by lay persons. Count Iblis 23:59, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

However, it's appropriate to link, paragraph-by-paragraph, to the section of the ATLAS TDR that is applicable to that paragraph. Note also that the article reflects in many cases details that have changed since the TDR was published; it's quite reasonable to expect that those facts be cited in particular. -- SCZenz 09:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment - I'm going to try to add some references for basic facts, but this really isn't my field so I won't be able to track down everything that might need a ref. — Laura Scudder ☎ 00:08, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Comments. The article is undercategorized; full biblio info (including publisher and last access date) should be given on web References and footnotes; I corrected one instance per WP:DASH—there may be others. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

comments not enough references.--Sefringle 20:40, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are citation sufficiency and formatting (1c). Marskell 14:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment/Question. Several editors (above) mentioned they would/could do the work, but it hasn't happened. Is this stalled? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:13, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- There's an awful lot of uncited hard data in here, and ~~the References are just blue links that need to be expanded.~~ Is anyone working on this? There have been less than a dozen edits. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:49, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Remove. I did what I could on referencess and footnotes. Work seems stalled, there are 1a and 1c issues. For example, there is a single-sentence paragraph hanging in Background (which is an unencylopedic section heading): Particles that are produced in accelerators must also be observed, and this is the task of particle detectors. And there are broad statements without attribution: Due to this violation of "naturalness" most particle physicists believe it is possible that the Standard Model will break down at energies beyond the current energy frontier of about one TeV (set at the Tevatron). Also: If the Higgs boson is not discovered by ATLAS, it is expected that another mechanism of electroweak symmetry breaking that explains the same phenomena, such as technicolour, will be discovered. There is so little to do to meet FA standards here; it's a shame it hasn't been done. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:07, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Remove per Sandy and 1a. This is a subject I am not very familiar with, so I won't be much of a help. The lead is at least a paragraph too long per WP:LEAD, and there are some redundancies, such as "in order" to and "a variety of different", and perhaps "many different".— Deckill er 03:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC)