Wikipedia:Featured article review/archive/August 2006

Contents

Kept status

Free will

Article is still a featured article
Messages left at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Philosophy and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Neuroscience. Sandy 20:33, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

This article has very few inline citations, especially considering its 59 kb length. The scientific section, though it contains some references needs more references to be up to even GA standards. Its prose is not that great and could definitely be greatly improved with copy-edits (possibly trimming as well). For example, in one section there are three quotations in a row (two from the same author) without sufficient prose that could be made to flow much better. What really kills it is the lack of references in most sections, however. — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 03:55, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

It might be salvagable in that case. There is a superabundance of research resources on the philosophical arguments about this topic on the Internet alone. It might not be so easy with the scientific sections. But I'll start on it tomorrow, if possible.--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 21:29, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
It's frigthening, now that I look at it. Needs to be cut in half, at least. Completely reorginized. Prose is not the right word. --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 21:34, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Hey, Francesco, do you think you can fix it in a day or two (just kidding — the FAR process is actually 2 weeks of review, followed by another two weeks of FARC, only if necessary :-) I've been watching the statement in there about Tourette syndrome for a long time. I have no idea what it's trying to say, so I hope you can address that. I can't figure out what a neurological condition has to do with Free will. Regards, Sandy 22:28, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
I just read through the comments and some of the history of edit-warring and such on this thing. Could you perhaps extend that period to three YEARS?? Oh my!! I will need to call in the reserves on this one. But none of them seems to be home right now. This should be intersting. </terror>--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 21:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, that's the way the consensus wants this thing apparently. Sickening!! --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 09:13, 18 August 2006 (UTC) Latest assessment (somewhat subjective because personally involved though): significant improvements have been made. Not quite there yet, but we're making progress. Sections have been forked, the science section has been massively improved and there are many,many more citations. Still needs some rewrite on phi. section for content and quality of prose. More cites in several areas.--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 07:50, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the article is greatly improved. It would be helpful if other reviewers would have a look, and comment on any work remaining to be done. Hopefully this one will avoid FARC. As the diff shows, the article has been rewritten this week. Sandy 11:46, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
What's the process? How could it be stopped from going into FARC anyway?--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 12:42, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
If the consensus is that it has been brought back to FA status, it doesn't go to FARC. Even if it does go to FARC, that just gives you a longer period to work on the article, so not to panic :-)) Sometimes, editors don't get around to looking at an article seriously until it moves to FARC. I've sometimes missed a few in the FAR stage, and found things that needed to be addressed only after it moved to FARC, but that doesn't mean the article will be delisted. As long as progress is ongoing, most reviewers are happy. Sandy 21:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The article looks pretty good now — much better than when I put it under FAR. The references and the like are fine. I'm not very well-versed in philosophy, however, so I'll leave it to those who have been working on the article to determine if it's comprehensive enough to be considered an FA. Good work, guys! — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 17:29, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh yeah it's comprehensive enough for an FA, indeed, the danger is that it will become too comprehensive and cease to be encyclopedic, but I think we've avoided that. Bmorton3 19:27, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

There's one important observation I wanted to add: this is absolutely the first example of concrete, contructive collaboration that I have seen on a philosophy article on Wikipedia since I've started on this thing back in January. I think we have genuinely managed to improved the article, while avoiding edit wars, personal quarrels and all the other nonsense that usually takes place. Some of you guys are fairly new and will tend to underestimate this accomplishment. Very impressive, folks.--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 20:03, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Status? Major rewrite, article is well-referenced, can we get more opinions as to avoiding FARC? Sandy 23:40, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Most of the people I know are in the philosophy "depatrtment". I am extremely histant to ask for their specific input for two reasons, Sandy: 1) Most of the ones I trust have already worked on the article. 2) The others might (will!!) almost certainly want to add their own quotes, favorite philosphers, and so on, to an already realtively lengthy article. This could even lead to instaibility and edit-wars.

Many of the non-philosophical people I have some familiarty with, on the other hand, are hesitiant to edit such an article becuase it is not their field and so on. But I will see what I can do even in this respect, just for you (;? --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 07:09, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Dawson Creek, British Columbia

Article is still a featured article

Review commentary

Messages left at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geography, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities, and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Vancouver. Sandy 21:29, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry to say I feel this article's prose falls far below brilliant or compelling. There is a lot here that is really tedious, like the second and third paragraphs of 'demographics' and the final paragraph of 'economics'. The City maintains 83 km (52 mi) of paved and 15 km (9 mi) of unpaved roads is surely just not worth mentioning, and similar excessive detail includes the length of the runway of the nearest airport, and the length of the sewage system.

There's also lots of text that doesn't appear to be staying focussed on the main topic. I find it hard to believe a town of 11,000 people has its own distinct climate and so the article seems to be discussing the climate of the area the town is in rather than the town itself.

Finally, a lot of text reads like promo material. For outdoor recreation, there is a golf course, ice rink, tennis courts, baseball diamonds, a skateboard park, and a speed skating oval within the municipal boundaries, and For indoor recreation, the city boasts two ice hockey arenas, a curling rink, and an indoor swimming pool, all grouped together in the heart of the city are a couple of examples. Worldtraveller 20:29, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I think a lot of city articles include a lot of cruft. I think this article is a lot less crufty than many city articles and the demographics section reads fairly well. Between the demographics and the climate sections, I think there might be a sentence or two or three that could go, but I think that can be easily fixed and wouldn't really harm the article.
I noticed that the article doesn't mention BC Rail at all, which I found curious but I don't think is a problem.
I don't see the outdoor recreation sentences reading like a promo, other than the word "boasts" (I decided to be bold and change "boasts" to "has"). Other comments on that one? JYolkowski // talk 21:30, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, well I disagree there - I think this is the most crufty article of this type that I've seen - especially as it's not even a city but a pretty small town. The 2nd and 3rd paragraphs do not remotely try to give the reader the important information, but simply give a list of statistics in prose form. This will inevitably result in tortuous sentences, which really aren't very interesting. For example Of these households, 30% were one-person households, 26% were married couples with children, and 26% were married couples without children - why is this information deemed worthy of inclusion? The median age of Dawson Creek's population is 34.0 years old, younger than the BC median of 38.4 years, with 22.4% of its residents under the age of 15, more than BC's 18.1% - extremely tortuous, and I would argue that an encyclopaedia article should not include data such as this.
As for the promotional tone, it just reads more like a brochure inviting people to move to the town than an encyclopaedia article. I can't believe, as I said, that a town with 11,000 people has a distinct culture of its own, so a section entitled 'culture and recreation' seems like an odd thing to have. I don't see why the town's recreational facilities are worthy of discussing, and I note that WP:CITY's template doesn't include a 'recreation' section.
Other problems - information about water supply is duplicated, and the lead is too short. But the excess detail and promo tone are what concern me most. Worldtraveller 12:41, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Prose needs work. Here are examples.
    • Second sentence lacking a full-stop, ahem. "with an estimated 2004 population of 11,394 people" - aren't all populations estimated? Even a national census uses stats to extrapolate.
    • While we're on population: "This helped the village's population surpass 500 people" - "village's" is pretty ungainly, and surpass isn't the usual word in this context.
    • Isn't is "centre", not "center" in Canadian English?
    • "the twenty-one officer Dawson Creek Royal Canadian Mounted Police" - better as "the 21-officer ...", surely.

It's full of awkwardness. I hope that the contributurs can find someone (preferably a stranger to the text) to fix it up. Tony 16:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

  • I think "twenty-one officer" would be better in this case because its paragraph is full of stats which already have many digits. --Maintain 07:01, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Note left for Worldtraveller. Sandy 02:22, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I made some copyedits, eased the promotional tone and cut some details that were perhaps a little excessive. I did not find the length of the runway (indicative of type of airport) or the total length of streets to be out of place. The "recreation" title is new but perhaps it is more appropriate (opposed to "Sports") in this case. I don't think this article needs to be placed in the FARC section. --Maintain 07:01, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Maintain. There's been some work done on it since nomination. I've copy-edited the top, but more needs to be done. Silly things like "a new highway to southern B.C. made the city a crossroads between British Columbia and Alberta" (fix treatment of the abbreviation). Quite a few of these matters sprinkled through the article. Tony 02:36, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Main FA criteria concerns are writing quality (2a), excessive and over-specified information (5). Marskell 18:41, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. The concerns here strike me as exceptionally minor. I know this one rubbed WT the wrong way, as it seemed too much space was being devoted to a small city, but I don't see how we can penalize an article on that basis. Marskell 09:29, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Not stellar, but not too troublesome either. Sandy 22:46, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Status Waiting for more reviewers to generate a clearer consensus before this FAR is closed. Joelito (talk) 18:26, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Quite a lot of work has been done on it, and it's certainly better written for it. But it's too easy to find glitches.
    • "Population level"—This is wrong; I wonder whether "level" can be removed. In the caption, it's "trend", which can probably also go. Just "Population"?
    • "BC" vs "B.C.". I prefer without the dots, but whatever, as long as it's consistent.
    • "on that same per 1,000 people basis"—ouch, why not "per 1000 people,"?
    • compared with, not to, for contrasts.
    • "Livestock was also important to the region, but less so since a Canadian BSE crisis." Remove "also"; "is" rather than "was" would resolve the tension with "since". Why "a" and not "the", and when was this crisis?
    • Please audit all of the "alsos"; for example "Dawson Creek is also a regional node for air, rail and bus service." This starts a new paragraph, and is weakened by this insipid back-connector. Should "service" be plural?
    • "Prince George—Peace River riding": why the em dash? That's wrong (em dashes don't join items, they separate them); consider piping it with a spaced en dash.

I'm leaning towards "Keep", but would be happy for the prose to be brought up to "professional" standard, as now required.

Small note: B.C. rather than BC is quite common (speaking as a Canadian) but I know of no definite rule surrounding it. A look at the .gov site shows both in use. It seems to me that B.C. is used to abbreviate the name as a single noun (e.g. "the unemployed in B.C.") while BC is used in noun compounds (e.g. "the BC employment insurance program"). Someone else should look to see if they agree with that observation. Marskell 05:51, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Ah, that explains it. If that's what B.C.ians do, fine, but it does appear to be an odd distinction to make. (Tony)
In fact, a ctrl-f through the document shows that B.C. is used alone and BC used in compounds. I believe it is consistent. A few sentences have been edited since the last comment, including your last three Tony. All that remains is "level", which is in the graphic. I'm not sure why you think it's not appropriate. Other than that, I see no reason to continue to hold up this review. Marskell 08:19, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Just "Population in Dawson Creek, BC", without the "Level". And BC should have the dots here <grin>. But yeah, it's in the graphic, so can't be helped. I'm OK if this is retained. Tony 13:54, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Economy of India

Article is still a featured article

Review commentary

Messages left at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Business and Economics/BEF, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries, and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Business and Economics/Version 1.0 assesment/Featured content. Sandy 14:17, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Message left at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject India. Sandy 00:28, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Needs references (2c). Prose could do with a run-through. Stats and qualitative information could be updated for such a fast-changing topic. Tony 13:05, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Update:I have updated a few stats. I have also added many refs making the total refs in the article as 71. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 14:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Update. I have updated the statistics. Couldn't find any qualitative information that has changed so much as to deserve a mention in the article or get removed from the article. The article, as of now, has 73 inline references, in addition to many more overall references. I believe this was what was asked of from this FAR. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 08:34, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Good work, Ambuj. I'm copy-editing it. Tony 14:00, 29 July 2006 (UTC) PS The prose clearly fails Criterion 2a. If I weren't copy-editing it, I'd be FARCing it. I'll need some assistance where the economics/stats are unclear. Tony 14:20, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I was wondering why I still haven't heard that :P. Anyway, I am keeping a watch on your edits and will clarify any doubts once you are finished editing (so as to not get an edit conflict). — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 15:49, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
  • If Tony's editing it and Ambuj is updating, I don't think there should be too much of a problem anymore. The maps and diagrams should ideally be converted to svg. If higher res images are available, we could replace these. --Nichalp
  • I looks crowded on a 15 inch monitor with the tables and images, could some be left aligned to break up the mass of illustrations on the right?--Peta 05:05, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
    • I tried to juggle the pics around a touch. Marskell 16:02, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Status: Does this one need to go down to FARC? Here is the dif showing the work that's been done. Marskell 08:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

  • I've nearly finished copy-editing it. I'm not entirely happy with the depth and scope. Maybe it just passes at the moment, but others may want to comment on that. I think it should be updated and tweaked regularly, given the changing nature of India's economy. PS There are still unaddressed inline queries. Who will address them? I'll contact some of the original contributors. Tony 10:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm delighted that already some of the contributors I contacted are weighing in. This article really does need guardians to update it regularly. On a more negative note, the more I read, the more I see lacking (Criterion 2b). You can't really summarise an article on a country's economy without mention of how micro- and macro-economic management have developed. We need mention of the interest-rate policies in India over the years; I mean, who sets interest rates? The government or the central bank? And I find the section on currency extremely superficial. I corrected—from general knowledge—a mistake about pegged external currencies, but we need to know about convertibility of the rupee, and to be given an idea of inflation and exchange rates over the years. I think this is readily recoverable from the CIA World Factbook on the net (surprisingly, an authoritative source). I'm not an economist, and not Indian, so I hope that the contributors will beef up these aspects. They're kind of ... basic. PS Elsewhere, I see fuzzy statements, such as "India holds second position in the world in roadways' construction, more than twice that of China." In terms of what? The number of kilometres of paved road? Better per capita if it can be found, but whatever it is, it must be specified in precise terms. More is required in "Physical infrastructure".
For this not to move to FARC, I think the reviewers here will need to be satisfied that the article has a few "friends", and that these areas are covered. Give it four or five days? Tony 00:18, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
The last section (Foreign direct investment in India) needs references. Sandy 22:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I've taken care of the some of the embedded comments. Please see if the section needs additional references, Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:18, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Main FA criteria concerns are references (2c), prose (2a), and whether the article is up-to-date (2b). Marskell 06:15, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment—Great to see the increased activity here. On the info box:
    • Why a separate box for "current fiscal year"? Isn't it obvious from the previous one?
    • What is "Union budget"?
    • The default year might be at the top somewhere, rather than stuck down in a little grey box at the bottom: it's kind of important.
    • Prime Minister and Chariman of ...
    • "Mostly unfree" under "Index of economic freedom"—Is this elaborated on somewhere in the article? Is it POV? Should it be referenced somewhere?
    • "GDP per capita"—Is this PPP? Same for the "by sector".
    • "Exports"—no year.

Thanks. Tony 05:07, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep Tony 03:59, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Sandy 05:40, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I missed parts of the earlier discussion, but am now confident of the article's quality. I have also addressed some of the concerns raised by Tony in the comments above. Clarifying, though not asked for, since the "Union budget" article deals with what it is, there is no reason to clutter the infobox. "Mostly unfree" is being quoted from the source provided. Exports are of default year (as said in footnotes). Other concerns have been addressed. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 16:13, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per above. But I hope the diagrams and maps can be converted to svg. =Nichalp «Talk»= 16:20, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per above.--Dwaipayan (talk) 17:22, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Korean name

Article is still a featured article

Review commentary

Messages left at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ethnic groups and Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Korean) Sandy 14:26, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  • No references (2c); lots of stubby paragraphs (2a). Tony 12:12, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Lead does not summarize the article. Rlevse 21:56, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Two many single sentence paragraphs as well. Fifty edits takes us back eight months... Marskell 19:36, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Main FA criteria concerns are lack of citations (2c), and LEAD (3a). Marskell 08:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Question... I wonder if we could get some feedback on whether the changes thus far have adequately addressed the concerns above? I'm curious to know how we're faring. -- Visviva 14:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Looks like extensive work has been done (edit comparison). That's great, but the prose still needs copy-editing to remove the many redundancies and to address other problems.

  • Although "hanja" is linked in the first sentence, a comma plus brief explanatory phrase is required immediately after it.
  • "Quite limited" is not good encyclopedic language (vague). Just "limited", or another word?
  • You mention "South Korea in the first para, so perhaps you need to deal with the fact that the same language is spoken thourghout the pensinsular, in North and South Koreas. (Is it?)
  • "Currently used today"—one of these words should be removed.
  • "List of" in the first para may be redundant.

Please find someone to copy-edit the whole article. It looks as though it has its supporters, and is worth saving. Tony 12:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep. Excellent work done here. The lead is vastly improved and the article subsequently details the info in the lead sequentially, which is nice to see. Citations are enough for an FA this size. Marskell 17:58, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Remove Very poorly referenced. Many statements and paragraphs have no citations at all, and the citations/references that are provided are sketchy. Footnote 16 says: (See External links for more on the Sōshi-kaimei policy.) The External link is to a non-existent, personal website. Footnote 16 references an entire paragraph. Footnotes 3, 4 and 12 refer to other Wiki articles. I can't tell what footnote 13 is supposed to be. Sandy 00:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Holding off on remove, Visviva working on improving references. Sandy 03:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Keep, now referenced, and improved. Sandy 16:03, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, much improved.--Peta 06:16, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Keep, I think the only Korean-related article that is "featured" & referenced extensively. (Wikimachine 15:44, 29 September 2006 (UTC))

StarCraft

Article is still a featured article

Review commentary

It's got a trivia section. I shudder at the sight of these abominations, and am bringing this to wider attention in the hope that reviewers will assess which bits are actually trivial and remove them, and which bits should be moved elsewhere, so the trivia section can be scrapped. Worldtraveller 20:22, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

  • That article was nowhere near as crufty as I expected it to be, although it got cruftier the longer it went on. The trivia list looks as though it could be axed entirely, except maybe for the guy who died playing it - I remember hearing about that, it seems notable enough. Some more citations would be nice, as well...The Disco King 22:05, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
  • In general, I've found that any trivia section can usually be folded into the regular text. If a fact won't go into the regular text in normal progression, it probably should be axed. Also, if a fact cannot be cited, it should be axed or go on the talk page with a request for a cite. A lot of that stuff is crufty though... Good luck. — Scm83x hook 'em 08:31, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I removed the trivia section (except tho or three that were dispatched elsewhere) and converted the external links to the <ref> format. Hopefully it will be OK :) -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 12:33, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as FA. Not nearly as bad as you made it sound at first. :) —Nightstallion (?) 13:24, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as FA. The trivia section is gone now. KdogDS 17:20, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Minor reviews do not require keep or remove votes. Voting to keep or remove occurs if the article moves to FARC. Sandy 21:02, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Not so fast, it still needs work.
    • There are six images in the article — the first five are claiming fair use, but do not have fair use rationale, and I'm not convinced that the last image does not inherit its copyright status from the individual box arts.
    • I'd like to see an {{endspoiler}} to match up with the spoiler tag.
    • References are missing information such as author and publication date.
Pagrashtak 05:39, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Talk message left at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computer and video games. Sandy 21:01, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Polish the prose, please. In particular, different ideas are poorly integrated into some sentences. Here are examples.
    • In the lead, this sentence comprises two ideas that have been forced together with just a comma: "Blizzard estimated in 2005 that 9 million copies of StarCraft and its expansion pack, StarCraft: Brood War had been sold since its release, and it has achieved an international cult-like status in the computer gaming world, especially in its online multiplayer form." Not good.
    • " It was initially released for the PC platform in 1998, with a Macintosh version of the game being released in 1999." "With" is a poor back-connector, and the grammar is awkward in the second clause.

With further work, you might be proud of this article; not yet, though. Tony 15:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

  • The spoiler tag detracts from the flow of the article - the campaign contains no plot twists that merit the spoiler tag. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:49, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Status. Does this one need to proceed to FARC or may we close it successfully? Looks like a minor review and I notice some work has been done. We should definitely make sure about the image issue before closing. Marskell 10:47, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I think the prose is tortured, but maybe that's only because I don't speak the language. I did find some statements that need citations; for example, Even as of 2006, StarCraft is still one of the most popular online games in the world, with the number of players online at any given time varying from 50,000 to 100,000 or more. Sandy 12:55, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
  • The prose varies from poor to undistinguished: certainly not "compelling", as required. For example: "A player plays as a colonial magistrate of the Terran Confederacy, and quickly meets Jim Raynor,..."—"player plays"? How did they meet quickly? By talking fast? Tony 14:51, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

FARC commentary

At issue are 2a (prose), 2c (references) and 4 (images). Changes since nomination—a bit of a poke around, but inadequate to address the issues. Tony 15:01, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm working on copyediting, but I've run into a fairly serious problem in the "Influences" section. Several of these alleged "influences" are really just resemblances, which may be coincidences or simply common tropes in science fiction. This sentence is particularly questionable: "The game displays elements from the novel Starship Troopers by Robert Heinlein, most noticeably, the name of the Starship Trooper's civilization and the Humans in Starcraft share the name "Terran", as well as some general themes of military science fiction and space opera." Is the article really suggesting that using the term "Terran" to identify humans proves a direct influence from "Starship Troopers"? Can "some general themes" of "space opera" legitimately count as influences? The claims accompanied by evidence, such as StarCraft characters quoting directly from "Aliens," seem legitimate, but others, like the tenuous resemblances to Heinlein and StarCraft's use of an insectoid race with a hive mind, are way too vague to assert without references. Could this section be saved by renaming it somehow? Peirigill 23:04, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Message left at User_talk:Worldtraveller. Sandy 03:07, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
I've copyedited the prose. It could still use work, but I'm hitting diminishing marginal returns. A few things that stand out to me:
  • The "Influence" section is weak. It needs citations to support its claims, which feel like original work.
  • There's still some cruft; for example, what's a "ladder?"
  • The section on replays is just awkward, and I'm not sure how to fix it.
  • The section on the sequel was fairly POV, with phrases like "diehard fans" and "eagerly anticipated." I don't understand the chronology in this section.
  • The organization of the article doesn't make sense to me. I don't understand the wording of some subsection titles. I don't understand why some subsections are where they are, especially when there is only one subsection to the article.
On the other hand, the prose is cleaner, and 3 KB shorter than it used to be. Peirigill 10:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Remove unless open-issues above are resolved. --jwandersTalk 13:47, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep pending... a source on the influences or an axe of the section. It's OR as it stands. Otherwise, I think this is within the criteria. It's not crufty, the prose has apparently improved, and the issue that brought this here, a trivia section, has in fact been addressed. I removed the sentence that Peir was concerned about. Marskell 19:58, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
    • I reworked a few really awful run-on sentences in the plot summary. Still waiting for sources on influences. I have placed a note regarding this. Marskell 12:57, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Great article but I agree with Marskell. It is a valuable section so I moved the it to the talk page and requested clarification and citations (rather than remove it).Maintain 20:15, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - I have been working to standardize headings, reorganize, trim, and work on the prose, please don't remove for a little while, I am going to be working on it. Thank you for your consideration. Judgesurreal777 00:09, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Status The review will be kept open until your work is finished. Please notify when you are done so that the article's review may be finalized. Joelito (talk) 22:05, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep -There has been massive improvement, new images, good rationales, gone from 17 to over 40 reliable references, tons of material trimmed and referenced, and is now worthy again of being called a Featured article. I have to find a definition of "ladder", but other than that, this FAC can be closed. If there are any other issues, please say so :) Judgesurreal777 16:04, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
I also have here for your inspection the day it was called an FA, and I think it is currently much better than then. [1]
  • Keep. Tony 04:51, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, and FYI, the ladder example isn't cruft, it's an unexplained term :) — Deckiller 06:43, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Bulbasaur

Article is still a featured article

Review commentary

Messages left at Wikipedia talk:Pokémon Collaborative Project, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Nintendo, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Role-playing games, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computer and video games/Featured articles, and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computer and video games. Sandy 14:26, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

This article consists of a fairly weak intro section followed by a number of unstructured sections with grammatical errors. --P3d0 13:52, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and it's also mostly in-universe. --P3d0 14:28, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Intro section begins with some quotes about the popularity of Bulbasaur. The format of these citations is very unusual; for example:
CNN calls them one of the "lead critters"
We would normally present this as follows:
Bulbasaur are one of the "lead critters"[1]
...with the citation to CNN. When written in this form, it becomes obvious that this statement's presence in the article is hard to defend: it is a subjective statement, and while CNN is a credible source for news, it's hardly an authority on Bulbasaur. The same criticism goes for the statement attributed to Time.
Intro reworked - is that any better? —Celestianpower háblame 15:40, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Intro section then contains a sentence that begins with the origin of the name "Bulbasaur", and then degenerates into a run-on sentence about the Japanese name for the creature (which wasn't even mentioned until this point).
    The Japanese name is in the Infobox and at the top (just after "Bulbasaur"). —Celestianpower háblame 15:40, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
  • The final intro paragraph starts with an oddly prominent statement about what Bulbasaur looks like "in one version of the Pokémon series", without contrasting it with other versions. It then ends with a statement about how the artwork has remained unchanged, despite the fact it was immediately preceeded by the "in one version" statement. The confusion caused is characteristic of this article as a whole.
    It looks like that in all versions. Corrected. —Celestianpower háblame 15:40, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
  • After the intro comes a sequence of formless sections about Bulbasaur's various appearances. Each section is an unstructured grab-bag of facts.
  • Furthermore, the sections are strewn with commas, comma splices, and parenthetical remarks.
Runaway commas example:
The Bulbasaur’s reasonably high Special Attack and Special Defense statistics mean that they both have strong Grass attacks, such as Vine Whip and Razor Leaf, and resist these sorts of attacks well, but their standard Attack statistic is quite poor, causing the Bulbasaur’s physical attacks, such as Tackle, to be relatively weak. However, Bulbasaur have the ability to undergo evolution, a metamorphic change within a Pokémon caused by gaining experience in battle, twice.
Comma splice example:
It also took part in the Orange League Tournament, however, it was quickly defeated by a more experienced Electabuzz, making it the only Pokémon on Ketchum’s team not to defeat at least one of the opposition’s Pokémon.
Parenthetical remarks:
There are seventeen different Pokémon types (a special attribute determining strengths and weaknesses of each species), offsetting each other in a complicated series of rock-paper-scissors relationships. Bulbasaur are a Grass/Poison-type (though they don’t have the ability to learn any damage-dealing Poison attacks naturally) so their attacks are particularly effective against Ground-, Rock- and Water-type Pokémon, but Psychic-, Fire-, Ice- and Flying-type attacks are particularly effective against them.
If these parenthetical remarks are worthy of being in the article, they should be worked in without the parentheses.
Fixed this problem. Highway Return to Oz... 14:38, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Is there really a need for this FAR? The article was just on the main page and was virtually unchanged [2]. Most of these problems are minor and could have been taken to the talk page. Please remember that talk pages are for article improvement also and FAR is for articles that lack the qualities/criteria of a FA. Joelito (talk) 16:13, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
    • The minor parts above have been addressed, but I still think the sections are unstructured grab-bags of in-universe "facts". --P3d0 17:42, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I agree with the above user. This is going to turn into another 200 KB "debate" about Bulbasaur being "worthy of a FA". Editors should spend more time editing their target articles, not degrading themselves to childish behavior because an article about a children's icon is featured. Yes, saying "eww! a pokemon is featured; delist!" is equally as immature as watching this show at the age of forty. Concerns like the nominator's are reasonable can be addressed, but I seriously sense this turning into something much more volitile. — Deckiller 16:21, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I agree, but the above comments are mostly the memoirs of a GrammarNazi, no offence to the nominator. ;) Unfortunately, I think people are going to long remember the problems Bulbasaur caused, which will most likely hinder the promotion/main paging of other Pokémon articles. I am not saying that the vandals are right, but we need to think of the enclyopedia, are we just dmaging it by putting these articles on the main page. Highway Return to Oz... 16:28, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
      • But I think grammar nazihood is appropriate and even important for featured articles. --P3d0 17:48, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
        • I agree, but I was noting that the user probably isn't a Poke-hater, wnating to start a notability argument. Highway Return to Oz... 18:11, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
          • I didn't say that either; I'm just worried that people may seize the moment and start one while it's on FAR. — Deckiller 18:16, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Joelito says above that "Most of these problems are minor and could have been taken to the talk page." - I agree, but I will note here that I have raised several problems (not really that minor either) on the talk page, and there has been no reponse yet. This sort of makes a mockery of the "raise it on the talk page" philosophy. See here, for the comments where I point out that historical context is not prominent enough or has to be found in other articles (ie. say that Pokemon's creator was born in 1965 and Pokemon began in the 1990s), and location context is either missing or unclear (ie. say that Pokemon is Japanese in origin before going into Japanese name details). Carcharoth 09:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm sure you can appreciate that Friday was a busy day for the article, and people replied. If you still have concerns, please note them here in full. Cheers, Highway Return to Oz... 10:16, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, the specific examples of problems I pointed out above seem to have been addressed to some extent, but the systematic problem of this article is that each section is an unstructured collection of in-universe "facts". This should disqualify it as a featured article. --P3d0 10:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

  • As requested above, concerns copied from the article talk page to here. Carcharoth 16:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
    • After the lead section, the article is heavily detailed and probably only of interest to Pokemon fans. Sounds like its been written by fans for fans. Not much here of interest to the reader of a general encyclopedia.
    • The inventor of Pokemon, Satoshi Tajiri, is mentioned in the article, but the article doesn't say that he was Japanese and was born in 1965 - stuff which help put the subject of this article in a real-world context.
    • The article fails to make clear that Pokemon is Japanese, or at least originated in Japan - you have to click through to the Pokemon article to find this out, or at least infer it from one of the Japanese references (eg. the bit about the Japansese names).
    • The article fails to give the historical context of Bulbasaur within Pokemon history - the Pokemon article says that it started at least by 1995, and since Bulbasaur's debut date is given as 1996, it would seem relevant to know that Bulbasaur was one of the first Pokemon. There is a fleeting reference to "original series", but this is not made clear. Also, it would be nice to say how many Pokemon existed before Bulbasaur, and how many have been invented since.

The above can be summarised as a lack of "where" and "when" context in the article. These real-world facts are missing, and the article is skewed towards detailed Pokemon fan trivia. Carcharoth 16:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

These concerns are easily fixable. Be bold. Joelito (talk) 16:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

If I may interject - these problems are indicative, not definitive. The whole article has similar systemic problems. If these examples (like the ones I gave) were to be fixed, this would still be a largely unstructured collection of in-universe pseudo-facts. --P3d0 02:56, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Oh, I will fix them if no-one else does. But I'm deliberately making a fuss because this is a featured article. I could hang around FAC and point these things out then, but I don't. This article came to my attention when I saw people on the Main Page talk page defending it as a "well-written article". I think a note should be added to the "be bold" guideline along the lines of "be bold, but also make sure others learn from their mistakes". I can't be bothered to find those who originally wrote the article, but there should be a general attempt to keep standards high to avoid poor writing overwhelming Wikipeidia. Carcharoth 17:12, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Even if the article does have these errors/ommissions etc, I really don't think that you could call this article's writing poor... —Celestianpower háblame 18:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Sorry for any offence caused. I tend to lump "errors and omissions" in with "poor writing" as I think writers need to learn not to leave stuff out, and get the basic facts in an article. Maybe call it lack of comprehensiveness? You are right, the actual writing style and basic grammar and spelling and articulateness is mostly fine. Carcharoth 12:39, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Is this any better? —Celestianpower háblame 18:54, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Not really, though I appreciate the effort. Putting context into a section called "Context" is rather odd: context is something that should be available for every statement in the article, not something to be corralled into one corner of the article. And the sections themselves are still as unstructured and as "in-universe" as before. --P3d0 02:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I think Celestianpower's sandbox version has improved the article. P3d0's comments are still relevant, but I think context like this does help. I would also suggest weaving such comments into the "in-universe" bits to make those bits more accessible to the layperson.

One simple way to do this is to put dates for the release of all the games and other media mentioned: FireRed; LeafGreen; Pokémon Yellow; Pokémon Stadium; Pokémon Gold and Silver; Pokémon Snap; Hey You, Pikachu!; Pokémon Channel; Super Smash Bros. Melee; plus some date context for the "Pokemon anime and series films" section; the trading cards section already has date context (1999); the Pokemon manga section has no dates, but the books are dated to 1999 and 2000, though not all the books are dated. It would also be nice to have a date for the McDonald's and Burger King promotions. Carcharoth 12:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that's it. Talk about how Bulbasaur started, where the idea came from, how it was promoted, how it spread, its cultural significance, etc. That's an encyclopedia article. Currently the article is almost devoid of this kind of information. --P3d0 02:09, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I've just been reading the Pokemon article, and what I find worrying about all this is that Bulbasaur is a featured article, but Pokemon isn't (though it is a former featured article candidate). I find it easier to understand what the Bulbasaur article is talking about after reading the Pokemon article, but the ridiculous thing about this situation is that I have to read a non-featured article to understand a featured article! I would suggest that the Pokemon WikiProject get Pokemon to featured article status (it has lots of interesting encyclopedic stuff), before trying to get any more Pokemon creatures to featured status. Carcharoth 12:47, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Many of scientific FAs also require some degree of previous understanding of a topic in order to understand them. Even though as we try to make articles as same contained as possible, the line has to be drawn somewhere in order to keep readability and article length manageable. Check for instance Raney nickel; are you suggesting I should have got catalyst up FA standard before?
Also there's nothing particularly hideous (or "ridiculous") about reading non-featured material: more than 99.9% of Wikipedia's content is not featured. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 17:43, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree with what you say, but in my opinion Raney nickel does a better job of this balancing act than Bulbasaur, which is probably why Bulbasaur is up for review and not Raney nickel. Carcharoth 09:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Pokémon is unlikely to meet any reasonable stability standard any time soon, given that a new wave of games and a new anime are in the very near future. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 11:48, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
  • The characteristics section flunks WP:WAF miserably; it describes Bulbasaur as though it were a real creature, and borderlines on original synthesis of the Pokédex entries. We shouldn't be repeating the Pokédex entries as real-world fact, and this section probably needs sources other than verbatim quotes of the Pokédex. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:09, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
    • I'll fix that today, I do the rest of them anyway. Highway Return to Oz... 09:24, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Fixed! Cheers, Highway Return to Oz... 19:26, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
        • Is this diff fixing it? You've just weasel-worded it; who has said this? Who is thinking this? This doesn't add any out-of-universe perspective; it just makes you sound like a Pokédex with a major confidence problem. These parts need to be attributed to a speaker: for example, "Such-and-such game describes Bulbasaur as such and such, but such and such later anime episode fills in more about their evolution" or whatever. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:31, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
          • I've tried to fix a bit, I'm not sure how to work out what you're getting at without making it very messy. If the franchise kept to one version of a story throughout, it'd be easy, but it's not. Highway Return to Oz... 20:15, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
            • If it is messy, the encyclopedia article needs to reflect that. Trying to streamline or simplify what the history is would be misleading. Carcharoth 14:46, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I've reworked the intro to remove questionable "facts" like the "lead critter" bit. I tightened it up and made it more factual. This is what the whole article needs. As it stands, it's certainly not Ffeatured Article quality, especially with the "in-universe" tag. I don't see these systematic problems being fixed any time soon, so I think this needs to become a Featured Article Removal Candidate. Thoughts? --P3d0 12:14, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Is the "Biological characteristics" section now non-in-universe and tighter? Thanks! —Celestianpower háblame 13:13, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
No, not really. For example...
“ When battling in the video games and anime, trainers can release the stored solar energy as a powerful Solarbeam attack. Bulbasaur can also attack using seeds from this bulb, sapping health from the opponent. Bulbasaur are able to extend two vines from themselves, both for attacking and for manipulating objects. ”
...that's more or less gibberish to anyone who hasn't played the games. I think there's a bit too much to try and synthesize a 'characteristics' section that covers all of the various incarnations; instead...well, I'm not sure. There's not much more to say other than "Bulbasaur has both plant and animal-like characteristics. It has a pair of retractable prehensile vines, and can attack by throwing seeds or razor-sharp leaves, or blasting with stored solar energy." Maybe looking at the powers sections in the comic-book character FAs (e.g. Captain Marvel) would be a good model to follow? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 16:58, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I wasn't sure about that paragraph - it seemed in the wrong place to me. Is the rest any better though? Is quoting the way to go? —Celestianpower háblame 20:45, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure. I know it feels wrong, but I don't know how to make it feel right. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:53, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Then that's a dilemna indeed. We've tried tonnes of ways of making it work, and none seem to fit. Perhaps we have to review the whole section structure? The "Powers" idea sounded like the start of a good one. —Celestianpower háblame 21:04, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are prose errors (2a) and LEAD (3a). Marskell 09:36, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep featured - I don't agree that the problems are too great. The lead certainly isn't (by the nominator's own submission - he fixed it to his liking). It was recently Main Paged, meaning that Raul still thinks it good enough to be featured (or at least, that was my impression). Generally, I think it's a great article that many people spent lots of time on, and so deserves to keep its star. Thanks! —Celestianpower háblame 09:54, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Anarcho-capitalism

Article is still a featured article

Review commentary

This article has extensive problems that have existed before and after its recieving featured status:

  • 2(a) The article continues to suffer from many copyedit issues as evidenced by continuous fixing, 23:45, 14 July, 19:14, 14 July, 15:17, 7 July, 13:10, 5 July, 14:18, 22, 16:44, 21 June, 01:45, 20 June. Many of the passages are long-winded or tangential due to multiple editors adding one line at a time in response to each other, rather than writing a coherent passage. These issues call into question the status of its prose as "compelling, even brilliant".
  • 2(c) The article fails to cite proper sources and in some cases even misrepresents them, I removed 8 already today. Many of these sources where placed by two editors (RJII and Hogeye) who have since been banned for intentionally disrupting wikipedia, in part by continuously misrepresenting what they cite. Some of the sources that remain are not peer-reviewed, are secondary sources that do not use primary sources themselves, are not independent, and have conflict of interest in representing the issues they discuss, violating reliable sources guidelines.
  • 2(d) It is not uncontroversial in its neutrality, with the discussion page displaying a prominent warning that it is a controversial topic next to 14 pages of archives dealing with many POV objections that have been resolved/ignored/dismissed to various degrees.
  • 2(e) The article has changed considerably both from when it was first nominated and on a day to day basis, with many editors making extensive changes on a semi-daily basis. It is also occasionally the subjet of ongoing edit wars, both of these issues compromise its stability.
  • Several previous calls by myself and other editors (172, Revcat, AaronS, infinity0) to address these and other issues have largely been ignored or dismissed by editors, and while some issues have been slowly resolved, others have resurfaced or never been addressed. This page is simply not up to the standard of being the best wikipedia has to offer, the controversial nature of its subject matter seems to draw edit warriors to it like a magnet.

Blahblahblahblahblahblah 10:58, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Agree, I'd add that the whole "Modern Somalia" is uncited. - FrancisTyers · 12:35, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Agree. I've been trying to clean up this article, removing a lot of fluff and theoretical speculation. I'll add more when I have time. I'm not sure why it was ever given FA status. --AaronS 18:56, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  • WP:NPOV, WP:NOR and WP:V problems. Not our best work. Jkelly 19:31, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Agree. I'd also note the content problems noted above are likely symptoms of the article's overall poorly laid out structure. 172 | Talk 11:17, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Agree, the article at present is a mess, and featured status reflects poorly on Wikipedia. Sarge Baldy 01:35, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Agree with all of the above. The article's lack of stability and the constant disputes regarding its neutrality and factual accuracy, alone, are enough to remove its FA status. These problems have been exacerbated by the recent influx of anarcho-capitalist partisans, some of them sockpuppets. -- WGee 00:30, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Response to Blahblahblahblahblahblah's comment:

  • 2(a) You showed that copyedit problems were fixed, not that this article suffers from them.
  • 2(c) I don't see any unreliable sources [3]. Can you point out which sources are you contesting?
  • 2(d) There is no POV tag on the article or on any of its sections; taking into account number of the people who strongly oppose anarcho-capitalism as an ideology, that's quite a proof of its neutrality.
  • 2(e) This version of the article was featured. Article remained basically the same. Only difference is that objections regarding size, neutrality and verifiability were taken into account; so the article only gained on its quality and readability.
  • Their objections were taken into account. 172 and Revcat were skeptical about Modern Somalia section – that section is now removed since it was largely based on original research. AaronS complained about article's length of "nearly 70KB", article in now long 51KB (40KB in readable prose). Infinity0 complained about presence of personal webpages, blogs and podcast links in the "External links" section. After short discussion, they were removed [4].-- Vision Thing -- 13:37, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I would like to see a review that focuses on the article content and issues, rather than editors involved and past edit history. There is a lot of detail provided in the review request about editors and edit history, but little in the way of actual examples of the current problems with the article. Please provide specific examples of the following mentioned above:

  • The article continues to suffer from many copyedit issues ... Can you list some examples of current issues.
  • The article fails to cite proper sources and in some cases even misrepresents them, Can you list some current examples of sources that aren't "proper".
  • Some of the sources that remain are not peer-reviewed, are secondary sources that do not use primary sources themselves, are not independent, and have conflict of interest in representing the issues they discuss, Rather than discussing banned editors and their edit history, please give concrete examples of current sources which are problematic.
  • It is not uncontroversial in its neutrality ... 14 pages of archives dealing with many POV objections. Examples, please, of current POV problems.

Also, have you notified the authors who originally brought the article to FA status? And can you give us a link to the article when it attained FA status? Sandy 14:24, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I see VisionThing provided that link. Sandy 14:33, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure I can oblige your requests. The reason I gave evidence of recent problems in the article, rather than current ones, is that the moment I see a problem in the article I fix it. My evidence was not meant to point out particulars that could be easily remedied, but a series of problems with the entire article that are ongoing. As evidenced by my numerous examples above, all the copyedit and source problems that I have found I have done what I could to fix, rather than simply complain about them here, my goal is not to remove from FA status an article that could be easily fixed. I would encourage anyone who is interested in verifying the status of the page to just give it a quick read themselves and check the current sources and external links that are still there (and are currently being added even now), to see if they accord with the explicit standards of FA status for wikipedia, or if like myself and others you feel this is an article that still needs a good deal of work. If nothing else, the major edits and somewhat frequent edit wars that are added or removed on a regular basis call into question the stability of the page.
One thing I can at least address is the POV problems, as they are more systemic than particular and more difficult for me to fix. For example, the page includes a box which gives a series of definitions that anarcho-capitalists use in non-normative ways. Many of these definitions are highly selective and do not match those used in dictionaries or even in the field of socio-politics. Because these anarcho-capitalist definitions are then used as such in the article, it thus transforms the article from a neutral wiki presentation of anarcho-capitalism into a pov anarcho-capitalist presentation of anarcho-capitalism every time they use one of these words. Any subsequent criticism of their use of terminology can then be immediately removed by citing "the box" as evidence that the article is upfront concerning its bias. This may be the case, but the fact that it readily admits bias does not make for a neutral description of the subject matter.
In addition, there is a strong tendency by editors of this article to remove sourced evidence that is critical of anarcho-capitalism or contradicts statements made by anarcho-capitalists, and insert in their place highly selective quotes from particular sources rather than ones which represent the field they are taken from. For example, in the last day alone Vision Thing has removed quotes by E Armand (citing that he is only an individualist and not an american individualist), Joe Peacott (claiming it was "not important"). He then included a series of quotes that he has carefully farmed from various sources to suggest that anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism, while specifically (and I would guess willfully) ignoring those that contradict his prefered conclusion.
There is also a strong tendency to give summaries of all issues in anarcho-capitalist terms, for example explaining individualist anarchism primarily in terms of the labor theory of value, which is an anarcho-capitalist method and not one generally used by historians or individualist anarchists themselves. Of course, most anarcho-capitalist editors on the discussion pages immediately dismiss these concerns, and I imagine Vision Thing will attempt to give a quick response that dismissed them here, but the fact that they exist (and in most cases have been brought up repeatedly) demonstrates that the page is not "uncontroversial in its neutrality". I hope that helps Sandy. Blahblahblahblahblahblah 20:48, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for the long explanation. Besides the problems you mention, the article is a blooming link farm and a subsidiary of Amazon.com, which is a tipoff the POV issues that are occurring.Sandy 01:11, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately, his explanation is not an objective one. All problems he mentioned above are more or less fabricated. Also, if you look into his contributions list on the day he started this review, you will notice that he had left a note about it only on a talk pages of editors with a negative stance towards anarcho-capitalism. [5][6][7][8][9]
What do you mean by subsidiary of Amazon? -- Vision Thing -- 21:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
I'd ignore that comment about us awful editors. Vision Thing has a tendency to characterize anybody who does not endorse an anarcho-capitalist point-of-view as being a hardline communist with dark ulterior motives. I for one could care less about anarcho-capitalism in itself. What I do care about is the accuracy of the encyclopaedia. I'm not here to endorse a viewpoint. Wikipedia is the worst place for that, not only because it ruins the project, but because, unless you're looking to raise an army of pimply-faced technogeek revolutionaries, you're better off evangelizing in the real world. --AaronS 13:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
And if I were to ask you to show me were I characterized anybody as "a hardline communist with dark ulterior motives" you, just like Blah..., couldn't do that because that claim is made up. -- Vision Thing -- 20:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Talk message left at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics. Sandy 21:59, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Response to Blahblahblahblahblahblah's comment:

1) Can you show examples in which are words from box used in a non-normative ways?
2) For example, I removed [10] Joe Peacott claim from section "Dispute over the name "anarchism"" because he doesn't deny that anarcho-capitalists are anarchists and his claim was already mentioned in part of the article about Individualist anarchism.
3) I don't know how you can claim that article describes individualist anarchism primarily in terms of the labor theory of value when labor theory of value is mentioned exactly one time in the whole section about Individualist anarchism, and even then only in a context of differentiating individualist anarchism and anarcho-capitalism. -- Vision Thing -- 21:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Given Vision Thing's history on this issue and the quality/tone of his responses I'm happy to let my previous comments stand. I believe I have provided sufficient evidence for any reasonable person to take the time to review the page themselves and come to their own conclusions. Blahblahblahblahblahblah 07:44, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

article review

I would like to see that those who argue that anarcho-capitalism should loose its featured article status, present their arguments based on the diff of the current article in respect to the version of the article when it was given featured article status [11]. Thanks! Intangible 17:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Opposition and Extreme Objection to this Review

I agree with Intangible and oppose this review for the following reasons:

The Anarcho-capitalism article meets the requirements for a featured article by easily passing each and every one of the criteria necessary to pass it's tests.

  1. [12] here,
  2. [13] here,
  3. [14] here,
  4. [15] where User:Blahblahblahblahblahblah makes 15 edits on July 13 alone. here,
  5. [16] where User: AaronS makes 7 edits on July 12 and 8 edits on July 6, and User:Blahblahblahblahblahblah makes 6 edits on June 27.

As far as an attempt at sabotaging this article goes I find it a bit odd that User:Blahblahblahblahblahblah joined Wikipedia as an editor on June 27,