Wikipedia:Featured article review/archive/April 2008

1 Kept status
2 Removed status

Kept 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 kept 19:55, 30 April 2008.

Stuyvesant High School

Review commentary

User:Y, User:ElKevbo, User:Xiner, User:BenjaminTsai, User:Abulanov, User:Niffweed17, User:A1111, User:Zxcvbnm, User:RossPatterson notified.‎

This article has been a Featured Article since June 2006. My major concerns are that the article fails to meet criterion 1c - specifically claims are verifiable against reliable sources, there are numerous fact tags littered through the article, and many claims that simply arent backed up by any reliable source. The section on SHS in popular culture is like a popular culture trivia guide, it needs to be changed into prose, to engage the audience more, additional references would help too. Twenty Years 05:24, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment: There are 5 {{Fact}} tags in the article. There are also 79 references, all checked for availability recently, and more than two thirds from reliable sources independent of the school. RossPatterson (talk) 22:30, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Ive added some additional fact tags, where there needs to be a reference. Featured Articles shouldnt have fact tags at all. The one-line paragraph in Mnemonics (Public Artwork) needs to be merged aswell and the "In Popular culture" section needs to be cleaned up into prose, not a trivia-style list. Twenty Years 03:59, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed - I've merged that line with the previous paragraph. I've also tackled some of the {{fact}} tags, though there are some others where we might just change or remove the claim needing the reference. Some of them are a little tiny bit POV-ish, but that'll come out during copyediting - which I don't think we actually need all that much of. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 15:40, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

The major citations we still need are under Sports and Academics; I think we've gotten everything else. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 17:35, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are referencing (1c) and prose (1a). Marskell (talk) 14:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

All of the indicated referencing concerns, including Five Years' added {{Fact}} tags (Twenty Years has changed his/her name) have been dealt with. Most were answered with references, and the few remaining claims were removed. The only indicated prose concern has also been dealt with. Most of the credit for the work is due to Zxcvbnm and Ultraexactzz. RossPatterson (talk) 23:39, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Keep - We seem to have moved from the review phase to the removal candidate phase, so I'm making my opinion known. All stated concerns have been addressed, it's still a very good article, and it still deserves its FA status. RossPatterson (talk) 23:42, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

LOTS of fixes needed, samples only. WP:MSH isses throughout, example: Mnemonics (Public Artwork) (check use of uppercase, "A" and "The"). MOS:CAPS#All caps, example: FRONTRUNNERS(a documentary film). Suh Films. Retrieved on September 1, 2007. Incomplete citations throughout, see WP:CITE/ES, all sources need a publisher, as well as author and publication date when available, I won't evaluate for reliability of sources until citations are complete. The New York Times archives are available, those articles should be linked and fully formatted, including a last access date. Inconsistent date linking, some dates are linked in citations, others aren't, see WP:MOSDATE. WP:DASH issues, example: Joshua Lederberg (Class of 1941) - 1958 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine. Another example: ... such classes---often ethnic minorities---at a disadvantage ... Inconsistency in how alumni are referred to, sometimes ... Matt Deming '62 remembered ... sometimes year is in paren, and sometimes year is four digits: pick one system to use throughout. Check WP:MOSNUM, I'm pretty sure this is wrong: ... from the 15^th Street building to the Chambers ... WP:PUNC review needed, I saw several errors in logical punctuation. Also punctuation problems on sentence fragments in image captions per WP:MOS#Captions. Advanced Placement is in uppercase in one case, lower case another, which is it, and isn't there a link? (Note, review all wikilinking per WP:MOSLINK and WP:OVERLINK). Why does this need seven citations? and regularly trades off the leading position in the number of Intel Science Talent Search Semi-Finalists and Finalists with Bronx Science.[31][32][33][34][35][36][37] Review WP:ITALICS, example: ... December 2007, the Wall Street Journal studied ... Why is SAT linked here, when it's used above this? Define acronyms and link on first occurrence: ... Before the revision of the SAT, Stuyvesant graduates had ... For example, the acronym PSAL is not defined, reader has to deduce it by looking up. JSA, another undefined acronym, review throughout. WP:FN, incorrect footnote placement wrt punctuation: ... by the Stuyvesant Student Union[1], a group of elected and appointed students who serve the student body in two important areas[51]: ... WP:OVERLINKing, don't most of us know what a newspaper is? Review throughout. Inconsistent date convention, which is it, full years or two years? ... in 1975–76.[54] In the beginning of the 75–76 academic ... External jumps in the text, external jumps belong in External links or citations: ... Survey. The 1948 edition is available ... More incorrect WP:DASHes: national, and — at least in the case ... and suddenly, paragraphs later, after I first encountered it, I hit a name and definition for JSA; define acronyms and links on first occurrence. Another external jump and faulty dash: ... At Stuyvesant, SING! started as a small event in 1973 and has grown to a huge school-wide event — in 2005 ... These are samples only; I'll revisit and read the text more completely and check sources once cleanup is complete. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:37, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

All indicated problems have been corrected, and any I could find that resembled them. Thanks! RossPatterson (talk) 03:37, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Lots of problems - mainly the independent sources, which are lacking. Where are the sources for all the internal runnings of the school newspaper and so forth. It looks like OR/revealed knowledge from the back of a student's head. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I concur that more independent sources are needed, but the ones that are in place are largely independent. We have 48 citations from independent sources (Newspapers, magazines, etc), 8 more from the New York Department of Education, and 21 from Stuy itself (or alumni groups, etc). Some of the stuy sources are used only to confirm the existance of items, such as the student government, and may be acceptable. At your convenience, could you tag a few examples of items you see that need citations? Thanks, UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 14:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:MOS#Images issues throughout, text sandwiched between images. Incomplete ciations, see WP:CITE/ES, sample: ^ Nobel Prize laureates by secondary school affiliation. Uncited text: See "Notable people" for example. I haven't yet re-checked my full list above or read the article, but on a quick glance, it appears much improved. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:52, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Any suggestions for correcting the "Sandwiching" effect of the History Section? Even moving the images around within the section, The Infobox pushes the postcard image down until it sandwiches text with the other photo on the left - and we can't start the first image on the left, unless the infobox changes that rule. I'll look at the other image issues. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 19:53, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Images are OK now. I keep revisiting this article, intending to enter a Keep, but each time I find more unaddressed issues. There is still uncited data and I find MoS and citation errors each time I visit. See edit summaries and cite needed tags. This article is close, and should be a keep, with a little more work to push it over the hump. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:40, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I've sourced everything in the Notable People section, though I'm stuck on Elias Stein. The source for stein's attendance at Stuy is a photo from the 1949 yearbook, as shown at a website for what appears to be a group of alumni from the Stuy Math Team who have compiled a list of the various math teams over the years. Is a High School yearbook good enough to cite someone's attendance at the school? I'll work on the other cites in a bit. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 14:59, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

High school yearbooks are OK IMO. Five Years 16:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

No, a high school yearbook is very far from reliable. If that's all you've got, I would remove the claim. Marskell (talk) 16:50, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

That's all I've got - The subject's CV and other papers list collegiate work, but not his HS - so I've removed the name and merged the mathemetician with the genomic research to form a line about notable scientists. I've sourced every other {{cn}} tag, and don't see any additional items in need of sourcing. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 16:59, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the work. I think it's time to get this one out of here, last quibbles notwithstanding. Marskell (talk) 19:30, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept 16:37, 28 April 2008.

Angkor Wat

Notified: Wikipedia:WikiProject Architecture, User:Henry Flower, User:Merbabu

I am nominating this article for review as I feel it no longer meets the FA criteria. Most concerning is its failure of 1c and 2c with whole paragraphs being appearing to be completely unsourced and confusing mix of referencing styles used. I also feel it fails criteria 3 with an excessive amount of images that flow all the way down the external link sections. Most are unnecessary and do not illustrate the sections they are in and appear to have been added for decoration. It also fails criteria 2a and WP:LEAD in that it does not adequately summarize the entire article. Collectonian (talk) 02:33, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Collectonian, You practically ruined Jeopardy! in many ways, and I don't want you defeaturing this. I'll start today with the images and move on to the refs soon. I'm not an author, so someone else can work on the lead. Reywas92^Talk 12:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
- Was such a comment really necessary? How about a little civility. Collectonian (talk) 13:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  - Sorry, but the edits I've seen of you, especially on Jeopardy, are removing valid references, removing interesting info that is supposedly too crufty, and then tagging it with things you did. Rather than hurting the project by having one less FA, I'm going to attempt to actually make the article better. Reywas92^Talk 13:25, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
    - I have never, ever removed a valid reference that complies with WP:RS and I resent the implication that I have. This article has nothing to do with Jeopardy, and your comments were completely inappropriate, unnecessary, and down right rude and insulting. Collectonian (talk) 13:32, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make with this, but your complaints are just bizarre. I can't find any significant unsourced statements, and the referencing system is Harvard in footnotes, with bibliographic details in the References section. The lead summarises the history, structure and decoration, which are the main sections of the article. Yes, people periodically add their favourite holiday snaps, and we periodically clear them out (as Reywas92 has just done). If there are any specific issues you would like addressed, the article does have a talk page. Henry ^Flower 08:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments I don't see any major problems here.
- The source provided says there are 91 asuras in the scene of the Churning of the Milk, but the article says 92. Please provide a source for the 92.
- The external links should be updated, for example the link to GACP didn't work. Maybe it's moved here: http://www.gacp-angkor.de/? Is GACP still working at Angkor? If not, the article should be updated. DrKiernan (talk) 15:29, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The asuras are indeed a puzzle. Glaize has 92 ([1]; I don't have the paper edition handy). The CACP was certainly working at Angkor as of 2007 (http://www.autoriteapsara.org/en/apsara/monuments/international%20news.html). Henry ^Flower 08:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the extra citation. Is it necessary to move this to FARC? I wouldn't have thought so myself. DrKiernan (talk) 10:04, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. While I agree that removing FA status would be like cutting off one's head to remove a pimple, I do suggest more discipline is shown on how the images are presented - WP:MOS#IMAGES is a good start. (but thanks to those have been vigilant with the happy snaps). --Merbabu (talk) 10:13, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

There are some references at the bottom that could use more info. That done, I'll close this as I agree referencing is met. Marskell (talk) 10:35, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, is Tales of Asia a reliable source? Marskell (talk) 10:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, the author says he has a BA in "something or other"[2], I think the interview is usable. The stats are credited: "Paging through the June 18 - July 1 issue of The Phnom Post, I came across a story credited to Cheang Sokha"; "as quoted by the optimist of all optimists, MoT Secretary of State Thong Khon", but they can also be seen at these official sites, which perhaps should be used instead: [3][4][5][6]. DrKiernan (talk) 10:57, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is. The issue with unreferenced statements have not been addressed. An FA should not have unreferenced statements, period. There are whole paragraphs unreferenced, and some others are still questionable. Collectonian (talk) 15:28, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

The level of referencing is comparable to other FAs. I'd like to get the ref formatting done but I'm horribly slow at it. I'll chip away. We have some deadlinks. Marskell (talk) 17:41, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

This link is repeatedly attributed to Eleanor Mannikka—problem is, the page doesn't refer to her nor does the mainpage of the website. It's attributed John C. Huntington and/or Susan L. Huntington, and hosted by Ohio State. Anyone know what's up? Marskell (talk) 17:16, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

The Huntingtons manage the overall site, but the sub-pages are Mannikka's.

Go to: http://huntingtonarchive.osu.edu/seasia/camb.html

Scroll down to the "Angkor Wat" link and click on "text by Eleanor Mannikka". DrKiernan (talk) 08:07, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept 11:43, 27 April 2008.

Hubble Space Telescope

Review commentary

Notified User:Worldtraveller, User:Rnt20, User:LouScheffer, Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomy and Wikipedia:WikiProject Space --Kaypoh (talk) 11:21, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Lead section is too long. Referencing is not FA standard. I see a few short paragraphs. --Kaypoh (talk) 04:53, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll take a crack at this (Worldtraveller no long edits here). By "referencing is not FA standard" do you mean the format of the references themselves, or what (exactly). -- Rick Block (talk) 03:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, I shortened the lead paragraph(s) until it's an overview of the whole program that fits on one screen (at a typical resolution, of course). I think this makes sense, FA or not, since there was a lot of very specific info in the lead, of interest mostly to specialists, and some general info that was missing. LouScheffer (talk) 14:00, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

What's wrong with the references? They seem pretty good to me. LouScheffer (talk) 12:40, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Based on Wikipedia:Lead section guidance, references in the lead section can usually be removed because they are a repeat of invormation in the article body. Typically, references in the lead section should be avoided. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skotywa (talk • contribs) 22:04, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

This seems reasonable, and I removed the references (and added them to the section where needed). However, after this, following up on some of the topics (such as debate on servicing) requires several clicks/scrolls. So I added an intra-page link to the topic. LouScheffer (talk) 01:44, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are lead (2a) and referencing (1c). Marskell (talk) 19:07, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Remove Still a lot of unreferenced paragraphs and a few unreference sections. Article needs a copy-edit. --Kaypoh (talk) 06:40, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
- Referencing is now much better, only a few unreferenced paragraphs. Please give the article a good copy-edit. Also, I see two external links in the prose - change the external links to references. --Kaypoh (talk) 11:33, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
- External links changed. The only unreferenced paragraphs are the lead, and those that are summaries of other main articles (the original instruments and the Hubble Ultra Deep Field). These could be referenced by copying over the references from the articles referred to, but it's not clear to me that this is a service to the reader - I'd think that if they wanted details about (for example) WF/PC-1, that first they would consult the article about it. Other opinions about this are welcome. LouScheffer (talk) 06:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Keep. Of course references can always be improved (and I'm doing that), but WP:V says Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed.. Since Hubble is a recent and very public project, and the article is mostly facts and not summaries of other's views, there is very little material that has been challenged (check the edit history) or likely to be challenged (since web searches, or recourse to the many books and articles about Hubble, show the underlying information). So adding the references is nice (and in process) but should not prevent this otherwise informative article from being a FA. LouScheffer (talk) 14:47, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Comment. Re-wrote the lead to remove unneeded details and references. Added references for almost all prose that might be controversial (if you see something missing, please let me know). Note that this is a scientific article, and it's typical to take about a paragraph's worth of information at a time from a source. Unfortunately, there is no way I know of to indicate if a footnote refers to a whole paragraph, or just a single fact or sentence. (And footnoting every sentence hurts readability rather dramatically, IMO). LouScheffer (talk) 15:06, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Keep The re-write of the lead is excellent. Good job, User:LouScheffer. The level of reference meets the FA requirements in all respects. I especially think the general, on-line references will be very useful for someone trying to get into this subject in more detail. WVhybrid (talk) 00:41, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Retain This is well written and referenced, and meets FA criteria. I have just copyedited it thoroughly, removed a fair amount of redundant interwiki linking, fixed all the image placement issues, split the 'References' into a bibliography and notes (they were already distinct), and fixed overcapitalization in the references. And now, I'm going to go take a nap. Maralia (talk) 20:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Fixes needed. Please prune the External link farm per WP:EL, WP:RS, WP:NOT. Unformatted citations, including missing publishers, publication dates and accessdates, example: Mikulski Vows To Fight For Hubble. (See WP:CITE/ES). WP:DASHes need attention (no spaced emdashes). And, hard data needs to be cited; there is still too much uncited technical and hard data. Very close to a keep once these citations issues are cleared up. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:54, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I think I've now resolved all MOSDASH issues. I added a few missing publishers, dates, and accessdates. I got rid of about half of the external links (Lou, note that I only commented out the ones that I thought were questionable calls). Maralia (talk) 03:45, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
All references now have publishers. Changed short-form citations to be easier to find in the bibliography. I'm adding accessdates. Can you provide a few examples of un-cited technical and/or hard data? Thanks, LouScheffer (talk) 03:58, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept 09:57, April 25, 2008.

William III of England

Review commentary

Wikipedia:WikiProject England, Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history, Wikipedia:WikiProject Netherlands informed

Promoted in 2004 and has only 5 inline citations, excessive deadlinks and not very well-written

Please read the instructions at WP:FAR and do the notifications; delist is not declared during the review phase. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Soz ye i realise that now --Hadseys Chat_Contribs 19:15, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I will try to add some cites and clean up the writing where possible. Coemgenus 15:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are referencing (1c), prose (1a), and formatting (2). Marskell (talk) 13:52, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Coemgenus is up to 43 footnotes and still at work. What formatting concerns? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Remove per criterion 1c. A large partof the article still remains uncited. LuciferMorgan (talk) 12:26, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
- I'm citing and rewriting as fast as I can. How long does this process last? Coemgenus 14:53, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
  - Oh, say another two weeks or so, but it's generally extended if anyone's still working on the article. DrKiernan (talk) 07:12, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Keep Despite my personal disklike of the man, I've been following his FAR, and I think the article is now FA standard. So a weary keep from me. Nice work, Coemgenus. Ceoil (talk) 22:57, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks. I didn't start out liking William, either, but after reading the biographies, my opinion of him as a man has improved, whatever else I think of his right to oust an anointed king from his throne. At any rate, I think the article should be good enough to keep now. I'll be adding some more citation as I read the Van der Zee book. Coemgenus 14:50, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I still am sticking to my vote, mainly due to the largely uncited "Legacy" section. LuciferMorgan (talk) 16:12, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

You're right: there are still some uncited parts. I hope to get to them soon, but I would welcome any citations you might add in the meantime. Coemgenus 12:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

The info in Legacy strikes me as fairly uncontroversial but a couple of refs won't hurt. Add that and we can keep it. Marskell (talk) 12:12, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept 09:57, April 25, 2008.

2007 UEFA Champions League Final

Review commentary

Notified User:NapHit, User:PeeJay2K3, User:The Rambling Man, Wikipedia:WikiProject Football

Breaches WP:FACR (4): "It is of appropriate length, staying focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style)." A large chunk of the prose (Route to the final) is a summary of the finalists' earlier matches in the competition. This is longer than the description of the match itself (Match summary). I raised this on the Talk: page the day it was on the front page (Featured article??); nothing has happened since. jnestorius^(talk) 12:22, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I think this nomination is in good faith but is actually quite frivolous. The nominator disagrees with the format of the article though this was discussed in the FAC which was only 4/5 months ago. The article is almost identical to the article that passed FAC: now, then diff. (The diff shows that only paragraphs have been split and no text has been added/taken away).

As was said on the Talk page, the fact that the FAC succeeeded with pretty much the current article shows the flaws of the FAC process. This concern was raised (by others) during FAC; nothing was done; it passed nonetheless. What happened to Wikipedia:Consensus? You shouldn't be able to ignore the objections of a minority; if you're not not going to the address them, you should at least say why you think there is no need to do so. Woody concedes the section might "seem a bit big"; if you can explain how this seeming is in fact an illusion, I'll be happy to concede. jnestorius^(talk) 12:56, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Consensus at the FAC was that the article was fine as it was. One person disagreed. Have you tried raising these issues recently on the talk page? The day it is on the main page is not the best day to ask it given all the unwarranted attention it gets from those pesky vandals. Any improvements would be lost in a myriad of edit conflicts.
It is not a question of conceding, it makes it sound like a battle or war of attrition which is not what we want. I agree that there is some redundancy that could be trimmed. I just think that the talkpage would be a better place for this. If there was dissention or a flat lack of support on the talkpage then it should have been brought here. Woody (talk) 13:08, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it is appropriate to discuss the finalists route to the final as this impacts on the final significantly. I agree that it might seem a bit big in relative terms though. It is entirely comprehensive regarding the final and it lists all that you would want to know about the final. I see nothing that could be added and as such for me, it meets the featured article criteria. Woody (talk) 12:38, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

The solution is not to add stuff but to take stuff away: trim all the padding out of the "Route to the Final" section. simply give the group tables, and leave the exiting knockout results. There could in principle be relevant bits from earlier matches: suspensions, injuries, or cup-tied players, affecting team selection; if the teams had met in the group stages; if a player had done something notable in an early match and emulated his achievement / made up for his blunder in the final; etc. But ordinary match details are irrelevant: what does it matter if "Crouch headed in Bellamy's corner on 58 minutes" in Bordeaux months before? jnestorius^(talk) 12:56, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree that irrelavent details should be trimmed, list them on the talkpage... Woody (talk) 13:08, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Cool, let's try that then. jnestorius^(talk) 14:28, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I was suprised when this passed. I only gave weak support because of this. There is clearly an outstanding opp vote that you can clearly see on the nomination page. I alway thought that all outstanding opp vote had to be addressed in someway before Raul passed them, maybe he made a (gasp!) mistake. Buc (talk) 18:38, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

No, opposes considered unactionable by the FA director(s) do not have to be acted upon. Also, if consensus of editors is that an oppose would be detrimental to the article then again, doesn't have to be acted on. It is all a matter of common sense. In this case, it is obviously quite contentious, but still should have been passed given the comments on that nomination page. Woody (talk) 18:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I understand that but looking at the nom page it Opp just seemed to be overlooked. Buc (talk) 21:45, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

It was also passed during the <cough> Larenedo phase. I don't see anything that can't be fixed up quickly without need for a FARC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:03, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Well seeing as the user who brought up the removal debate is taking a wikibreak, I would like to get consensus on how we approach this issue, I think what jnestorious proposed about trimming the route to the final section to include the tables and a bit of ino about how they got to the final. Anyone else got any views? NapHit (talk) 17:34, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concern is focus (4). Marskell (talk) 12:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment: I'm not entirely sure this needs to be in FARC but I'm moving it to get further comments. I don't have a problem with the structure, personally. Marskell (talk) 12:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Here is what we came up with on the talk page of the article, instead of the current route to the final section:

Main article: UEFA Champions League 2006-07

Teams qualified for the Champions League group stage, either directly or through three preliminary rounds, based on both their position in the preceding domestic league and the strength of that league (see UEFA league coefficient). Both Liverpool and Milan entered the competition in the third and final preliminary round: Liverpool by finishing third in the FA Premier League 2005–06, Milan by finishing third in Serie A 2005–06. Milan had originally finished second in Serie A, but were deducted 30 points for their part in a match-fixing scandal. The original punishment, reduced on appeal, would have barred them from the Champions League altogether. The group stages were contested as eight double round robin groups of four teams, the top two qualifying for the knockout stages. Knockout ties were decided based on home and away matches, with the away goals rule, extra time and penalty shootouts as tiebreakers if needed.

We would then have a paragraph mentioning the knockout stages, which should clear up the problems people had with the article, anyone got any other views about this? NapHit (talk) 19:23, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

~~Provisional~~ Keep - Overall a great article, but please get someone to give it a quick run-through. I found some minor issues, including several instances of linking the same page twice in a section. For example, Alberto Gilardino is linked twice in Route to the final: A.C. Milan. There are also some punctuation errors, such as this from the Liverpool section, "This was the second time in three years the two sides had met at the semi final stage" - dash needed. I also noticed a pair of one-sentence paragraphs in Match summary. I do think, though, that it should still be an FA, provided some cleanup is performed. Giants2008 (talk) 22:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Here is a more specific list of small problems that need to be ironed out.

Route to the final, A.C. Milan: In the second leg against Red Star Belgrade, perhaps say that both goals mentioned were scored by Milan.
Liverpool F.C.: Liverpool won the match late in the game, as Mark Gonzalez" Don't like this at all. How about "Liverpool won the match with a goal in the 87th minute, as Mark Gonzalez...".
I looked at the ref for the game above, and it says that Liverpool scored in the 32nd minute. The article, however, states that Liverpool equalized four minutes after Maccabi's goal. Is this a convention in the sport, or an error?

Another look at the reference shows that it is supposed to be this way, and I left it unchanged. My mistake. Giants2008 (talk) 20:54, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

"5 times champions" change to "five-time champions".
Craig Bellamy linked twice in section.
Maybe mention Liverpool and Chelsea's two meetings in 2005–06. It will help show that the sides were familiar rivals.

Couldn't find a good place for it. Giants2008 (talk) 20:54, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Problems before the match: UEFA linked twice.
Commas before "who got" and "who received".
Redundancy fix: "for their lack of provision for the clubs' disabled fans".
Match ball: Change is to was twice.
Match summary: Leading goal-scorers is first one-paragraph sentence. Also could use a citation.
Move ref 44 down to cover Milan's luck in their white strip.
The odds part is the other one-paragraph sentence; also seems trivial to me.

I didn't want to make a possibly controversial change in the middle of more routine copy-editing, so I let this stay. I'm still not crazy about it, though. Giants2008 (talk) 20:54, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

First half: Marek Jankulovski linked twice.
"however the referee did not judge this to be handball" Should "a" come before handball?
Second half: Change first sentence to "the majority of possession."
Add comma before "but Milan held on".
Post-match: Dash for then teenager. Giants2008 (talk) 02:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I've taken care of most of these myself, and left notes above for the others. Giants2008 (talk) 20:54, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept 09:57, April 25, 2008.

Action potential

Review commentary

User:Filiocht‎, User:Pakaran‎, User:Dpryan‎, User:168...‎, User:Synaptidude‎, User:Diberri‎, User:RedRabbit1983, Wikipedia:WikiProject Neuroscience‎, Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine‎, Wikipedia:WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology notified.‎

This article has been nominated for Featured article review because it does not fulfill criteria 2(c) of featured article criteria. It referencing system is inconsistent and has only 5 inline citations. Medos2 10:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are references (1c) and their formatting (2). Marskell (talk) 09:43, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Strong retain and immediate close as frivolous. Footnote counting at its worst. This is textbook stuff, and five textbooks are cited; I would expect almost all of this article to be in any of them. I see no inconsistency in citation; does the nom mean something invisible to the reader, like sometimes not using cite templates?

What would be actionable is the following: Find a claim which has no explicitly indicated source, and which is likely to be challenged. Look in any one of the five textbooks, and if you don't find it trivially using the index, list it here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Remove The citation is sparse and there are three different methods of referencing. No scientific article would get published with a hodge-podge of referencing methods. This was not to do with footnote counting. I admit that there are very few sources but the fault is due to the lack of in-line citations not the lack of sources. —Preceding signed comment was added by Medos2 (talk • contribs) 19:40, 19 February 2008 (UTC), but its signature was removed while fixing wiki markup errors.

In short, your problem is not that you disagree with the article, or regard it as unsupported, but that the five footnotes use different styles. Since they source different materials, this is in part unavoidable. You could have fixed that yourself; I've now done it. I hope I have rightly replaced the one that was a broken link. Take it out if you find it unnecessary. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I DO regard it as unsupported. There are NO footnotes in this article. Footnotes usually appear in books at the end of pages. They offer further information allowing the reader to continue reading if he/she expands on. They are self contained within the article or book etc. The five "footnotes" you are refering to are in-line citations linking to references. They are not the same. You miss the point about my inconsistent referencing. There are 3 sections at the end of the article - General sources, Primary sources and specific citations. The first 2 sections should be included within the in-line citation section to indicate what information has been used from the source. The section in-line citation should also be retitled references.Medos ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:40, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

What can be decided as what is likely to be challenged in this type of article? Most people are unaware of action potentials and therefore you cannot verify that claims one way or another. I know from personal study that the content is accurate and you are correct to add that any text book is likely to have this information. I cannot see the logic of the claims as the in-line citations that are in the article reference facts which are as easily challenged as almost any other part of the article(with the possible exception of citation 2 which is more likely to be challenged). Medos ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:09, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

That is a matter of editorial judgment. Put footnotes where you think the textbooks don't cover things, or someone may find the text surprising. But an unnecessary footnote or two is harmless. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Textbooks don't cover things? What someone may find surprising is difficult to say. I have no objection to the use of what you refer to as unnecessary "footnotes", in fact the lack of them is the whole problem with the article.Medos ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:40, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Prose needs work I think it could stand some re-writing. Even the first sentence: "An action potential is a "spike" of positive and negative ionic discharge". It can't be both positive and negative. That would just cancel out. Later on we learn that it is a dynamic change: "An action potential is a rapid change of the polarity of the voltage from negative to positive and then vice versa" which seems clearer. Similarly, the term "resting potential" is used in the first paragraph of the "Overview" section but is not defined until the next section. Besides which, there shouldn't be an overview section as the lead should be the overview. These are just examples from the first few lines. DrKiernan (talk) 14:28, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I would agree in part with that comment realting to the first sentence. It is very misleading. By saying it's a spike I'm presuming the author intended to refer to the sudden change to positive charge followed by a negative charge. It's a tricky point for me because I know the topic. The sentence is not exactly wrong but I will admitt that it's badly worded. The key point I suppose is to make sure that it's not interpereted as if the change in charges is happening simultaneously. It's just very quick Medos ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:19, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep featured pending a more compelling rationale for removal. Without an indication of what statements are likely to be challenged, it's difficult to find referencing problems. An ideal article on this topic, I think, wouldn't contain much that isn't found in a basic neurobiology text, so it's hard to see where challenges would come from. As for reference formatting this is a minor concern and not sufficient grounds for removing status; it does not materially diminish the quality of the work. I do think the article could use some better diagrams but this is not essential. Christopher Parham (talk) 01:51, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Remove. Tagged, appears abandoned since long ago with no regular editor keeping it up to date. The WP:LEAD is at best a meager summary of the article, and contains a throwaway sentence that typifies some of the text ( This article is primarily concerned with the "typical" action potential of axons). There are parenthetical see also's throughout the text (example: When the membrane of an excitable cell becomes depolarized beyond a threshold, the cell undergoes an action potential (it "fires"), often called a "spike" (see Threshold and initiation); better prose would be to incorporate these links seamlessly into the text. See also needs attention and there's an external link farm. Throwaway sentences provide examples of prose tightening needed (The sequence of events that underlie the action potential have been outlined below:) Serious attention to wikilinking is needed, and there is a lack of inline citations, per 1c. Attention to the difference between a minus sign and a hyphen is needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:19, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Update, fabulous progress, a bit more to do to bring it over the hump: overwhelming TOC, tighter focus on topic and rationalization of TOC is needed to consolidate sections, External link section consolidation needed, and there is still substantial uncited text. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:43, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Struck my oppose. The article as of now is under 50KB readable prose, an appropriate size, the TOC is not overwhelming and External links are reasonable. There are still uncited sections, but as the article has now been vetted by editors knowledgeable on the topic, I'm satisified. Congratulations and kudos on the extraordinary effort by all to bring this article to standard: I think we can conclude after all that work that the nomination was neither frivolous nor an exercise in footnote counting. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:19, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Remove. Needs much attention in terms of style and footnoting. Could be resubmitted quickly. Needs the caring hand of someone knowledgeable in neurophysiology. JFW | T@lk 23:10, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- So go find a neurophysiologist; I'm not one. But if this well-written technical article is delisted for these trivial reasons, FA will have ceased to serve the encyclopedia. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Vote struck - some splendid work has been done here, and it can remain FA as far as I'm concerned. Points for further improvement would be the minimising of redundancies with related topics, but this is IMHO not a reason to FARC it in any form. JFW | T@lk 20:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Remove Lacks inline citations, several formatting problem including WP:DASH issues. The prose needs significant work; it is interrupted by parenthetical comments rather than flowing, for example. There is also an "Overview" section, is it poorly named or an attempt at extending the lead outside the lead section? Jay32183 (talk) 22:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Always ignore MOScruft. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:37, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
  - There is no such thing as MOScruft, and the FA criteria explicitly states that the relevant style guideline should be followed. The article is poorly written, poorly sourced, and poorly formatted. That is the exact opposite of the intention of FA. Using hyphens when mdashes should be used is actually incorrect punctuation, it's not just a stylistic preference. Jay32183 (talk) 22:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
    - But it's not the difference between good work and our best work; indeed, it's not the difference between a respectable article and a public embarassment, which is what FA all too often draws. Fix the article if you can; but try judging it on content first - [hyphen intentional] to do otherwise is destructive to WP. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
      - WP:FA?#2 says "It follows the style guidelines". Formatting must be perfect in FAs. However, formatting is not the only problem this article has. It is poorly referenced and poorly written. The article needs a major overall to meet the good article criteria. Your assertions of "MoScruft" and "cruftmongering" are nothing but disruptive. It is not helpful FAC/FAR, Wikipedia, its editors, or yourself. Promoting incorrectly formatted articles as our best work hurts Wikipedia. Jay32183 (talk) 23:13, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
        
        That says following instead of (IIRC) complying with, precisely because they are guidelines. They should not, and need not, be followed to the letter; to do so is misapprehend what they are.
        
        FA status does not imply that an article is beyond the reach of improvement; we would have hardly any FAs at all, if that were the standard.
        
        Meddling with dashes is much easier than actually reading the prose of an article; that, in turn, is much easier than reading and understanding the content. Please stop wasting our time. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
        
        It is not a waste of time. FA does not mean cannot be improved, however, it does mean there cannot be any noticeable mistakes. I'm not going to waste my time fixing dashes in a sentence that needs to be rewritten. If the dashes were the only problem I'd fix it myself. Since this article is poorly sourced and poorly written, it requires a major overhaul with expert attention. Pointing out the formatting errors so that anyone who takes on the large task can fix all the noticed problems is a necessary part of FAR/C. Jay32183 (talk) 07:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment: As far as my search engine can find, there were two instances of a hyphen being used for emdash, and one case in which it was being used between figures. I have emended these grievous sins against the sacred MOS; Jay could have (and, by the principles of this page, should have) done the same, with much less effort, and actually contributed something, however trivial, to the encyclopedia. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  - I had only found one and I was not going to fix it unless the entire article were rewritten since the prose is absolutely terrible, and the hyphen may no longer have been there from the restructuring of the sentence. There's no point in formatting an article that is poorly written. That's the point you seem to be missing. Jay32183 (talk) 08:02, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Remove As I said above, the first sentence is, in a sense, wrong (it can't be both positive and negative at the same time). The second sentence is, in a sense, wrong (sponges are animals and they don't have nerves, so action potentials are not essential to animal life). The third sentence is, in a sense, wrong (Plants have brains? Watch out for that triffid!!!). Need I go on? I'm not convinced that the material (or I should say the way it is presented) accurately represents current knowledge on action potentials. DrKiernan (talk) 08:41, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The first sentence is correct. It's very badly worded but it's not wrong. When the word spike is being used it means a rapid influx of positive charge quickly followed by a rapid influx of negative charge. There is nowhere that it says it happens at the same time and I doubt the author intended that to be the case. It is badly worded though that I will not deny. I have responded on this issue before.
Your example with sponges is wrong. They do use action potentials.(see here) A better example to have picked would have been animals from phylum protazoa as they are unlikely to use action potentials (Although I am not completely sure if that is true.)
The third sentence is not in any sense wrong. Plants do have action potentials (see here) The article also did not say anything about plants having brains. Please refrain from remarks like such as they add nothing to the debate.
This article is quite accurate. These accusations are unfounded. It has style problems, referencing problems, wording problems but not accuracy issues. Medos ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Then would you list the problems, either here or on the talk page with a link here? It would be the greatest service to fix them yourself, since you understand the material; but a list is the first thing we need, either to fix or defend them. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I would like to fix it. I have some idea how to go about that but at the moment I haven't got the time. After the 11th of March it is more likely that I'm able to do it, but until then I plain and simply can't. Sorry. There are editors who are capable of fixing it. Try to find those who have done the most edits on the page and it'll be likely they'll be a good help. Use this tool to find them Try to undstand that it is quite tedious looking for accurate journals. What can be read in 5 minutes can often take about one hour to work on. Medos ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Certainly we understand that what can be read in 5 minutes can take an hour to work on; this is why so many reviewers avoid reviewing content altogether. But if you can, over time, list problems with style and wording, we may be able to help. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

It's nothing to do with that lack of effort. I've got my disertation to submit, so I have to work on that. Equally while I do understand the topic I would't say Iäve got a particularly good knowledge of it. My area of knowledge is drugs. I try not to add too much as a result. But after the 11th I will make an attempt. I just haven't got the time to compile lists or fix things. Medos ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not questioning its accuracy. I'm questioning the way it's written. Note my comments are on the way the material is presented—"in a sense", "the way it is presented", "accurately represents"—you have misread my comments, as shown also by your inability to appreciate a joke. DrKiernan (talk) 09:17, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not misreading you on your statement on accuracy. You were commenting on the information and I responded to each point.

I'm not convinced that the material (or the way it is presented) accurately represents current knowledge on action potentials.
You did slightly comment on the presentation I will admit, but your primary argument was on the accuracy of the article. Medos ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:17, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

No, it wasn't. I know what I was trying to say. I have amended my comments to improve their presentation. Perhaps you could invest as much time in improving the article's prose as you do in improving mine? DrKiernan (talk) 12:06, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Hold until Medos has time; when he does (and I wish him luck on his thesis), it would help if he would look at FAC first to see the level of writing and sourcing that we actually promote now-a-days. I believe he will emerge with a much higher opinion of this article. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:11, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Plea for patience I'm willing to mollify the critics of this article, but I need time? I'm traveling through the 2nd week of March, but I'll be happy to commit my fullest attention to the article thereafter, if you all can be that patient. Please don't delist it until I've had the chance to improve it! I think you won't be disappointed with what I do with it. :) Willow (talk) 09:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, we'll wait. Marskell (talk) 16:17, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

With Willow on board, I'm happy to wait. Pls disregard my Remove for the time being, and Willow, pls ping me when it's ready for a new look. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:01, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

A month is long enough, and the article hasn't yet improved. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:36, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Drat, I know you all are getting impatient but I was away for several weeks, remember? The past two days, I just wanted to bring a few articles to a decent state so that others could look at them while I'm working on this one. I haven't forgotten; I have my materials ready for this one, and I'll start on it tomorrow, I promise. If it's not suitable for FA by next Friday (April 4th), then by all means delist it with my blessing; I agree that it's presently not up to our standards. Willow (talk) 21:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Remove per criterion 1c. LuciferMorgan (talk) 09:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I need a little more time; we're very busy here with wedding preparations, which do not run by a train schedule. Is it OK if I start next week? I'll try first to allay the major concerns by adding inline citations throughout — primum non nocere! ;) But I think the article might yet be improved significantly; I intend to make the article more accessible and, I daresay, more encyclopedic, with everyone's help. If people could be as specific as possible in their criticisms, say, on the Talk page, that would help us immensely in improving the article, don't you all think? :) For example, if you don't like the writing (1c), what aspect of it do you dislike and why? As Bertie Wooster says, "Omit no detail, no matter how small!" ;) Appreciating all your help, Willow (talk) 04:16, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry, Willow, we can still wait. Marskell (talk) 18:37, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Keep in mind that very little additional footnoting is necessary. Stretches of uncontroversial facts (looks like most of the article) really just need a blanket reference to a good textbook. See Wikipedia:Scientific citation guidelines. — Laura Scudder ☎ 01:23, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Continue to hold. I agree with the commenters who talk about the inconsistent reference style and the possible need for more in-text citations and/or page-number references, but per the discussion above these concerns are being worked on. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 09:32, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I left some sample edits, inline comments, and External links needs to be pruned per WP:EL, WP:NOT. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:35, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

We've been holding for a full month, and Willow is actively editing other articles now. Based on what I saw yesterday when I worked on the article, I'm concerned about how far from featured status it is, and think it's past to either get moving, or remove. The prose and article organization need significant work, and it remains largely uncited two months into review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:36, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

~~Remove~~, there are insufficient citations to support the text. Although textbooks are perfectly acceptable as sources, is a reader is unsure about part of the text, they shouldn't have to search trough an entire book to verify if that part of the text is true, they need direct citations with page numbers. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:52, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Striking improvement due to the heroic efforts of WillowW, another gold star for this star editor. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Tim! I'd be happy to hear any suggestions that occur to you, now or later, for improving the article. Good luck and God-speed your real-world efforts, Willow (talk) 20:52, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment: If it matters, I've also agreed to help copyedit this article, so maybe keep holding for another little bit? I like Willow's 4 April deadline. – Scartol • Tok 23:57, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment I have also agreed to help copy edit this article. Awadewit (talk) 17:12, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Irresistible grace, aka, unearned favours? ;) Several of us (Scartol, Awadewit, Geometry guy, and TimVickers) have been working diligently on action potential and I hope that you think it's coming along nicely. :) It's certainly larger and better referenced than it was a week ago. Nonetheless, there are still large sections unreferenced and (if I may say so) poorly written. A difficult choice lies before the jury: whether to do the merciful thing and grant us more time to improve the article, or to do the just thing, condemning the article to the judgment of another WP:FAC. Either way, we'll continue working. Hoping for the former — but not fearful of the latter, Willow (talk) 20:59, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Reluctant remove. The article is improving slowly, but still not written well-enough, nor adequately (in-line) referenced. However I am confident that Willow and her team will tidy up the article over the next couple of months, bringing it up to standard for a new FA candidacy. Axl (talk) 10:08, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
- Changed to keep. The article has significantly improved. Axl (talk) 12:47, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Hold: While it is not fully there yet. I think the progress of this article is fantastic. It's a true testament to all who have working on it. I'm very close to changing my hold to a keep. Medos ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:00, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Well now, I just can't go and remove something that has received work this very day. So yes, hold until the work stops. It won't be the first time. I just noticed, at a glance, two sections that have literally no material beyond See also links; it still does need work. But all of our best minds seem to be on the job! Marskell (talk) 19:49, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you both! It's very heartening. :) We'll try to be like Scheherazade, delighting you day after day, until you reprieve the poor article. It hath reached me, O auspicious Kings... ;) Willow (talk) 21:37, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Of course, if anyone would like to help out... :) Willow (talk) 22:21, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm grateful for the week-long stay of execution we've enjoyed — but I'll be even more grateful for your suggestions (on the Talk page) of how to improve the article, especially from those who voted to delist the article. Thank you, all, and I hope you like what's been done so far! :) Willow (talk) 00:02, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I just took a brief glance and quickly spotted MoS errors, Wikilinking needs attention (I noticed potassium, for example), and there are still citation issues, example: Mauro A (1960). "Properties of thin generators pertaining to electrophysiological potentials in volume conductors". J. Neurophysiol. 23: 132–?. Considering that I easily spotted these issues, I didn't spend any length of time reading or looking further. The article is quite long, with 61KB readable prose WP:SIZE; has summary style been effectively used ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:17, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I should be more clear. I'm not asking for a review of MoS issues; I agree that the article is not ready for that. (As an aside, you should clarify WP:MOS that boldface equivalent names such as nerve impulse must come in the first sentence, or else not be bold-faced.) Instead, I am asking people to judge the scientific merit and completeness of the article, FA criteria 1(b)-1(d). Is a key concept not covered? Does a section need more thorough referencing? That sort of thing; the MoS stuff will follow once the content has stabilized. Summary style was used, but if anyone feels that some part could and should be condensed, I would be happy to try. As it is, a few subsections have not been filled in, e.g., the pacemaker potentials, so we might yet need to expand those parts. Willow (talk) 20:04, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, External links are taking over the Table of Contents:

14 External links

14.1 Animations

14.1.1 Voltages and ionic flow

14.1.2 Propagation; saltatory conduction

14.1.3 Resting potential

14.2 Lecture notes

14.3 Plant action potentials

That would be complex as part of the article body TOC, much less External links. There are misused dashes throughout (emdashes are not spaced), and numerous hyphens where minus signs are intended. I suppose the one- and two-sentence sections are still under construction, so I'm concerned the article will end up larger than the current 61KB readable prose size, and summary style should be considered somewhere (perhaps a daughter article on either Mathematical models or Experimental methods). It would be helpful if Notes were specified as a, b, c ... to distinguish from References 1, 2, 3 ... see Gettysburg Address. (I'm sorry if you're not yet ready for this commentary, Willow, but this sort of work can be considered at any time by anyone who has time to work on it :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:06, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps another update is in order, now that the week is winding down? (1) To the best of my knowledge, I dealt with the MoS problems in dashes/hyphens/minus signs on the morning after Sandy called our attention to them. (2) I subsequently filled in the three 1- to 2-sentence sections with referenced paragraphs. (3) I've just now reduced the subsections within External links to four subsections and no subsubsections; I hope that's OK? I feel that the subsections are useful for reader navigation and I have not found them proscribed in the MoS for Featured Articles. (4) I agree that the article is overly long, and will be looking for ways to cut it once the referencing is finished. (5) I do not agree that the Mathematical and Experimental methods sections are somehow less important and should be stricken, but that's a matter of taste and better discussed on the Talk page. (6) I'm skeptical that a typical reader will be confused between ^[1] and ^{[note 1]} but I'm willing to gamely try to accommodate the desire for alphabetical footnotes. I'm not willing, however, to use the deprecated {{note}} template, which does not produce automatically incremented footnotes. I therefore wrote this extension (with this internationalization file) to the MediaWiki software. My solution produces automatically incremented letter superscripts as requested; however, a much better solution was finished the next day by Steve Sanbeg, which uses the "note 1, note2, etc." format. I adopted Steve's solution for this article, but he and I will be collaborating next week to merge our solutions and give Wikipedians the tools they need to write stellar articles. :) Willow (talk) 20:39, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

PS. I think the time has come for everyone here to vote the article up or down. Is the present article representative of the best of Wikipedia — or not? If not, then spell out what you want fixed. I won't argue with your points here; I just want a worklist and don't want to live under this Damocles sword any longer. I propose that the voting be closed tomorrow night at 00:01 UTC on 20 April (UTC). If any of you choose to remain engaged with the article afterwards, your insights and contributions will always be welcome. Willow (talk) 20:39, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

By the way, fabulous progress by all involved: 370 edits and 35KB additional prose since PMAnderson's "strong retain and immediate close as frivolous" almost two months ago. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:13, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Willow, I would ask TimV to vet the science. When he is happy with it, go back and take care of the minor things. Marskell (talk) 19:15, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Yikes, What happened? What used to be a very clear and concise article about action potentials originally written and organized by Synaptidude is now a strewn-together mess of anything related to electrophysiology of excitable cells. I think the effort to retain the FA status has caused the article to bloat into something somewhat cumbersome and difficult to read. WHile all the additions seem to be well meaning, I would strongly suggest splitting the article up nto smaller articles. Or rather keep it as it is but rename it something like "Physiology of Excitable Cells" and keep the old Action Potential article as a sub-article of this. With everything from mechanism of resting membrane potential, to voltage-clamp methods, to neurotoxins, to ion pumps, to diameters of anions and cations, there is too much material that is not even directly related to the mechanisms underlying an action potential. Plus it is poorly organized and some inaccuracies seem to have been introduced. Nrets 01:09, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Oof. I don't know the first thing about science, so I can't really judge the applicability of the newly-introduced material, but I do know that WillowW has poured hours and hours and hours of her life into this article, and I've found her edits to be comprehensive and engaging. I don't have an opinion about forking, organization, or inaccuracies (could you be more specific about those?), but I certainly don't feel that the writing is less clear than it was. – Scartol • Tok 01:59, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, Mathematical models and Experimental methods at least could be spun out to daughter articles (and those external links still :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The number of my edits, or the hours of my life, devoted to the article are irrelevant if I've truly made the article worse, and hopefully I would have the good grace to revert my work if everyone believed the original article to be better.

I agree that the present article is too long, and after making some explanatory images/animations, I'd intended to go back and trim things down. But the compression of information into "brilliant" prose takes time; wasn't it Byron who wrote, "I'd have written you a shorter letter, but I didn't have time?" ;)

Nevertheless I have some hope of winning over Nrets to the new version of the article. What is unfamiliar may often seem strange and ugly until you grow used to it; for example, the first time I heard The Magic Flute, I told my friends, "Ugh, what is that awful music?" ;) but it took only two hearings to make me fall in love. Also, critical commentary from learned scientists are needed to help the article improve; we've had all too little of that hitherto. :( On the other hand, Nrets may come to appreciate the sense and organization of the present article.

Let me lay out my reasoning for the present article, and others can say whether they agree or disagree with that approach, and why. This page is gradually growing longer, so I propose that we move our discussion of article content and organization to the Talk page. It'll be time well-spent if we can agree on an approach and realize it. Shall we? Willow (talk) 09:43, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

PS. I notice that scarcely a word remains of the original version, which may be relevant to some decisions here. I've tried in good faith to answer the appeal to save the article, but a two-week review has become a three-month rescue mission, and I won't be dismayed if people choose to delist it. It seems a little unfair for the present article to sneak into FA-dom on the coattails of a rather, umm, laconic original FAC discussion without having to withstand the rigors of a modern FAC discussion.

I've had a superficial look at it, and on that basis would be very disappointed if this lost its star. I do hope the remaining objections can be acted on. TONY (talk) 06:08, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

The main hurdle I see here (relative to Marskell's suggestion) is that TimVickers has looked at it, and he's lodged a Remove declaration. (His declaration was insufficient citations, and we still find entire uncited sections.