Wikipedia:Featured article review/archive/August 2007

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 11:12, 27 August 2007.

Hey Jude

Review commentary

Messages left at Johnleemk, The Beatles Project and Songs

Message left at John Cardinal

I'm nominating this article for FAR because;

The sections "Cover versions" and "Cultural references" are extremely listy, violating 1. a. They need to be converted into clear, eloquent paragraphs which tie their subject matter together cohesively.
"Critical acclaim" fails 1. b. and isn't comprehensive at all. Firstly, the section title fails NPOV and should be renamed "Critical reception". Secondly, the reaction of critics past and present hasn't been touched upon in no shape or form in the section (apart from an AMG quote). Considering the popularity of the song, critical reaction should be easy to find.
There's no evidence to prove that Alan Pollack is a reliable source, and that the website in question is reliable. Is he an esteemed musicologist? How many publications does he have to his credit? At the moment the Pollack article used seems to be self-published and fails reliability.
The song's musical structure is discussed briefly in the "Critical acclaim" section - this isn't critical acclaim, so it shouldn't belong there. It should be in its own section entitled "Musical structure".
"Promotional film" section has an uncited quote.
One citation links to Youtube, which is likely a copyright violation. Another citation (23) is a broken link.
The "Love" subsection under "Single release" has no information on how the song was remixed, no nothing. It also fails to discuss critical reaction to the remix.

I feel all these points need to be addressed for this article to retain FA status. LuciferMorgan 19:01, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Is the...erm...fair use "rationale" for Image:Heyjude.jpg enough? Just out of curiosity. I've thought about dedicating the section to "talk page highlights" a few times. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 19:43, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the rationale for that image will have to be amended accordingly in order to apply to guidelines, and written properly. LuciferMorgan 19:49, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I have no interest in fixing the article; however, about half the problems mentioned could be resolved by reverting the article to how it stood as of when it became an FA. Most cover versions and cultural references have not received sufficient attention from secondary sources to warrant a mention. I have no interest in the ridiculous reliable sources guideline when applied in wedge cases such as this; however, as stated here, the works in question are not being published by Pollack, and were compiled and published by other people. And as for the fair use rationale, whoever wants to fix it is more than welcome to, but considering that it is a still from the promotional film and TV show episode both discussed heavily by the article, this shouldn't be too hard to do - and I doubt anyone doing it would do more than slap the ridiculous boilerplate which serves no purpose except to slavishly serve the literal meaning of non-free content policies without addressing their principles. </rant> Okay, sorry, I won't be bothering y'all again. Johnleemk | Talk 15:39, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I personally don't like this article. I am right now seeing this article from the view of a non-editor who has just come to wikipedia to get information. The things which will be a turn off are:-

Not systematic at all.Quite a messy article.

Not many pictures. Thus, makes the article dull.

The flow of the article breaks up in between a lot. Didn't have a nice smooth time while reading the article.

Perfect song article has to be Hollaback Girl. Hey Jude and Hollaback Girl both are FA, but you can yourself see the difference. I don't want to be rude, but i think this article does'nt deserve to be FA and has reached till here because of Beatles' fans. Luxurious.gaurav 15:55, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment. Progress update? This article looks to be within striking distance of restored status, so it's not clear why the few remaining loose ends (listiness, etc.) can't be cleaned up. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:56, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Nobody has opted to undertake the article and improve it, so all the concerns I highlighted remain unresolved. LuciferMorgan 22:46, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I've discovered this FAR and am throwing my hat into the ring. I'll do a cleanup first and then search for any news sources that might be pertinent (time.com, msnbc.com, etc.). Give me a week or so. WesleyDodds 23:05, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

The listy sections have simply been taken out instead of being cleaned up as I recommended, although the info there actually needed to be there. This means now that comprehensiveness is at fault (1. b.) also. LuciferMorgan 18:03, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll work back in what I can, but a lot of it was essentially trivia. Those sections had been added well after the first FAR. WesleyDodds 21:46, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are prose (1a), comprehensiveness (1b), and quality and sufficiency of citations (1c). Marskell 07:28, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Remove per 1b and 1c. The listy info that was removed needs integrating into the article, and not simply taken out. LuciferMorgan 00:21, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Comment Still working. Should finish with prose fixes soon enough. Hopefully will go to the library soon to check out additional sources. WesleyDodds 21:59, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Aside from one "cite needed" tag, the article is rather well sourced now. Is there anything I should look up? My library literally has an entire shelf of Beatles books. WesleyDodds 23:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment I don't see a problem with the current level of sourcing, once you make that fix of course. The o/s issues are poor prose in areas, and in general the article is overlinked. Ceoil 01:54, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I worked on the overlinking, better now? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:34, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I just redid the "Release" section. Found some sales figures that were more accurate, so all the cite needed tags have now been addressed. Someone should review my prose for that section, though; all the shifting around I did might have confused things. Now I need to expand the "Musical structure" section (I have a source, it's just a bit . . . esoteric at times) and work some of the cultural references stuff back in under a "Legacy" section. Once that's done (by the end of the week, I promise you) we should be able to keep this article featured. WesleyDodds 08:05, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

"Musical structure" section taken care off. Now to work some of the cultural references back in, and we should be done. WesleyDodds 07:56, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Keep (many of my edits to the article are quite minor). Good save. If there are any outstanding issues, I'm confident WesleyDodds will address them within the appropriate timeframe. CloudNine 16:57, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep Well done Wesley, but a light copy editing is needed yet. My only quibbles are from the lead, can you rephrase:

"begins with McCartney singing gently while accompanying himself on piano" - its a Paul song fine, but still the phrasing is too sentimental.
"Despite being over seven minutes long" - Carnt say why I dont like it, but I dont.
"Hey Jude" lasted two weeks at number one in the British charts" - lasted?
"for example, it appears at number eight in Rolling Stone's 500 Greatest Songs of All Time" - too informal, sound like you are addressing your reader.
These are qibbles only. Ceoil 11:49, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll probably just rewrite the lead. Been thinking about it. WesleyDodds 20:34, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Done. WesleyDodds 06:48, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

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

The article was kept 07:09, 26 August 2007.

George I of Great Britain

Review commentary

Messages left at WP British Royalty, WP Germany and WP England.

Messages left at Danbarnesdavies, Ian Rose and Lord Emsworth.

No inline citations. Epbr123 21:03, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment, no lead. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:43, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I've begun expanding the lead but I am not familiar enough to automatically be able to do the salient points. The prose isn't too bad really. What this really needs is someone to pop down the library and pick up a book to reference alot of stuff.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:54, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment The article doesn't really expand on the title "Archbannerbearer" nor does it provide a wikilink. This is not a common title, and needs some more context, probably at least a wikilink. There are language issues as well that need clearing up, such as repetitive word choice "Shortly after George's accession ..." stands out as one example. Also spotted at least one contradictory statement "Pursuant to the 1707 Act of Union, George became King of Great Britain..." The article earliers states that it was the 1701 Act of Succession (barring Catholics) that made him (his mother actually, he became second in line until her death shortly preceding Queen Anne) heir presumptive. The lack of inline citations is a major problem as already noted above, but there are other issues that accumulate to make this article in need of some real help. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 06:26, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Support - Dramatic improvement, huge amount of inline references and a 3 paragraph lead. Great job! Judgesurreal777 04:00, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are citations (1c) and LEAD (2a). Marskell 09:04, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm still working on it. DrKiernan 09:14, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
- It's improving, I should note, but still needs work. Also, could the section titled "Early Reign" be renamed to something more descriptive, such as "Reign as Elector of Hannover" or something, since the title does not make that distinction.... Keep working on it! --Jayron32|talk|contribs 19:27, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Comment Trivia section needs zapping. LuciferMorgan 12:14, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Comment Please, nobody vote yet. DrKiernan is still working and making great progress. --mav 02:12, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep I'm fairly happy with it now. There are just a few very minor niggles: (1) I haven't been able to confirm the title "Archbannerbearer" yet; (2) the Castle of Ahlden is also referred to as a palace and a manor house, "castle" sounds more prison-like, "palace" and "manor" sound luxurious (which of course it was compared to the vast majority of people) (picture here)—any preference?; (3) I've used one self-published web-site as a source (Francois Velde) but his essay looks well-researched; and (4) I'm not sure about the "Highnesses" in the "Titles" section but they're correct according to http://www.heraldica.org/topics/royalty/highness.htm and http://www.heraldica.org/topics/royalty/royalstyle.htm#sub_german. These are all far too minor for me to consider demotion. DrKiernan 11:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Keep tweasked some prose - over the line now. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Keep It's always good to see this process work as intended, rather than see an article either ignored, or to spend pages fighting with another editor over needed changes. It is nice to see this article brought up to standard, and DrKiernan and anyone else involved shoudl be commended for great work. This is back up to feature quality now easily! --Jayron32|talk|contribs 18:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Keep Good save. --mav

The article was kept 14:13, 18 August 2007.

Casablanca (film)

Review commentary

Messages left at Films, Clarityfiend, Henry Flower, PhantomS

I just happened upon this article... and it makes me wonder why no one's listed it on FAR until now.

1(a) issues include:
- Tiny paragraphs, especially in the "Sequels and other versions" section.
- Well-written in spots, but needs a gentle copyedit overall. For instance, there are far too many sentences beginning with "he", "she", "Rick", "the", "there", etc. Many such sentences appear two or three at a time, e.g. "He refuses to give her the documents, even when threatened with a gun. She is unable to shoot, confessing that she still loves him. Rick decides to help Laszlo..."
Doesn't meet 1(c): three fact tags (one dating back to February), and an unreferenced section, "Censorship in fascist and ex-fascist states", which has been tagged for two months.
The WP:LEAD is too short, and consists of two lumpy paragraphs.
Some content amounts to little more than trivia, such as the entire paragraph about an inaccurate depiction of the French Morocco flag.

This page was featured in September 2004. In the original FAC discussion, the supporters appeared to be judging the article by Brilliant Prose standards. szyslak 05:12, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Update please? The review is at two weeks; some work has been done, but there are still citation needs, including some direct quotes, opinions, and hard data. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:50, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are prose (1a), citations (1c), LEAD (2a), trivia (4). Marskell 08:37, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Two of the images lack fair use rationales. DrKiernan 14:46, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I've replaced one and added a rationale for Image:Casabl meetrick.jpg, but should it be replaced with Image:Principal Cast in Casablanca Trailer.jpg? I'm hoping not, because the free-use image does not show interactions between the characters, i.e. Rick and Ilsa are not looking at each other, with Renault in between and Laszlo looking worried. DrKiernan 08:03, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Keep I think all the fact tags are now cleared. I had no other unaddressed concerns. DrKiernan 09:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Work needed. Another ce review is needed. I flagged one nonspecfic "to date" statement, I saw sentences that begin with numbers, and I made a number of WP:DASH corrections. With one final runthrough on the prose, this could be a Keep. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:47, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

The article was kept 10:02, 17 August 2007.

FairTax

User:Feco, User:FCYTravis, User:Unfocused, User:Morphh and Wikipedia:WikiProject Taxation notified

This article presents arguments for the proposed so-called "Fair Tax", but omits essential analysis and also omits major criticism. Specifically, the impact on people with incomes above US$320,000 is not shown in the graph provided, and the analysis of impact on those with incomes above US$200,000 lumps them all together.

This is a highly contentious and politically polarized issue. It is not sufficient to quote sources with no indication of possible bias, or to acknowledge the existence of contrary views without giving attention to the arguments given for them.

FAs are supposed to be

well written: I don't agree that this is.
comprehensive: See omissions mentioned above.
factually accurate: See uncritical use of references cited above.
neutral: Hah! This is propaganda.
stable: There have been numerous edits, and a lot of complaints on the Talk page, and there is going to be a lot more if I have anything to do with it.

Cherlin 00:52, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Please follow the instructions at WP:FAR, using {{subst:FARMessage|FairTax}} to notify involved editors and WikiProjects, and post notifications here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:05, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Comments. Seriously overlinked (see WP:MOSLINK and WP:CONTEXT), needs WP:MSH attention to repeat words in section headings, and External links are used inappropriately (which orgs support or oppose should be referenced in the text, not included as External link farm) and should be pruned per WP:EL. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:05, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Comments - This user has not presented anything for us to attempt to address. We can not make up what the impact on people with incomes above $320,000 - likewise, the studies we have "lump" as he calls it. We have no data for this. All criticism that I know of are presented in the article. He has not presented any criticism that is not present in the article. He has not made a single edit to prose. Controversial articles often get pot shots, but we address points as they are brought up - I consider myself to be friends with one of the main critics on the talk page (GeorgiaTex) and we e-mail offline all the time and he said that it is reasonably well balanced. This editor wishes to have a criticism section, although the criticism is woven into the article as suggested by policy. I think we have an overzealous user that jumped right to FAR, rather then provide any discussion. One has questioned the FAC as BS. The article has gone through many reviews with many editors reviewing it. It has been described by both proponents and opponents as balanced. The article has only been FA for four months and any edits normally minor copyedits by me. I say we end the FAR - nothing has even been discussed on the talk page yet. Morphh ^(talk) 1:14, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Sandy - it was increased per AndyZ tool suggestions but was then decreased recently. Morphh ^(talk) 1:14, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

What was increased and decreased? (That tool isn't highly reliable.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:11, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

The wikilinks for context / build the web. The tool kept telling me to add more, so I kept adding until the message went away. Recently it was reduced by Ground Zero but I guess not enough. :-) Thanks for your help with it. I'll continue to work on it. Morphh ^(talk) 16:56, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

GeorgiaTex, the guy who came into the article saying "I hate to keep sounding like a broken record, but there are still WAY too many bogus cites in this article -- all of which conveniently support the FairTax."? He doesn't seem to support the article. Furthermore, even if he did, that would mean just one FairTax opponent supporting it, as opposed to the many more against it. -Nathan J. Yoder 07:18, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

~~Remove~~Comment - Read my comments on the talk page. I don't think the original FAC should have been passed for various reasons. The original FAC page had 56 supporters total which seemed to be mostly FairTax supporters at that. In addition to this, I think it suffers from serious balance issues and its main proponent (Morphh) doesn't seem to understand NPOV/undue weight that well. Basically, an article needs to be balanced in proportion to the popularity of the views held (regardless of merit of the views or intelligence/knowledge of the people holding them). FairTax is a minority view...even if it had a whopping 50% support, then that would mean it would need to be divided 50/50 and this holds true even if there is more Wikipedia-acceptable material supporting FairTax than that (it would require reducing the amount used if that were the case). When it comes to keeping an article feature, the burden of the work in terms of changing/fixing/improving the article is 100% on whoever wants to keep it an FA--it's not the obligation of those offering criticisms to fix the problems their criticizing (that would imply a poor article could stay on FA indefinitely as long as no one bothered to fix problems brought up). Also, consensus on Wikipedia is clearly for criticism sections regardless of the opinions of the person above. -Nathan J. Yoder 07:18, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

That's not correct. See the talk page archives of the Criticism page; Jimbo specifically discouraged Criticism sections and said opposing views should be woven into the text. Separating criticism isn't NPOV. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:01, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

So your only argument here is that "Jimbo said so"? Jimbo's opinions don't override overwhelming consensus. Yes, he technically can make an Official Dictatorial Declaration that overrides everything, including consensus, but nothing indicates that was the case and furthermore, even if he had, that would be against the spirit of Wikipedia (using dictatorial power to enforce a personal opinion regarding writing style instead of enforcing something on a serious issue). I have still not received a single answer as to why the overwhelming consensus is invalidated, especially considering the cited page by Morph earlier is just an essay, not even a guideline. -Nathan J. Yoder 21:26, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I have to say, I'm unaware of the "overwhelming consensus" for the use of criticism sections. Rather the reverse, in fact. Perhaps you could clear this up with some references/links? J.Winklethorpe ^talk 21:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm referring to my experience from reading Wikipedia. When there has been a significant amount of criticism, more often than not, it's put in a criticism section. In other words, it's a de facto consensus by virtue of current editorial choice. I just searched and can't find any places were it was discussed by a largish number of people and I can't get the search engine to search "==Criticism==" (section only); it tries to search for the word "criticism" anywhere not just as a section. -Nathan J. Yoder 21:56, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

May I suggest that if the majority of wikipedia articles use criticism sections more often than not, that doesn't necessarily lead to the conclusion that FA quality articles should use them? A lot of things occur in ordinary articles that are weeded out in FAs; I believe this to be one of them. J.Winklethorpe ^talk 22:05, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Keep or Remove are not declared during the review phase, which is intended to suggest and facilitate improvements; please see the instructions at WP:FAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:21, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

This is a really innapropriate FAR. Not much has been done to work out on the article's talk page the specifics of the criticisms of the article. Give that time, work in good faith, then come here. The original FAC had 6 supporters btw Nathan, and I don't see any evidence to support your position that most of those supporters are Fairtax proponents. Either way, the only way to improve the article is to be specific and constructive in helping improve issues that are identified. It's not "us vs. them", we're in it together. - Taxman ^Talk 14:32, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Remember, I'm not the one who made this. I would have waited until I spent more time on the talk page before I nominated it, but since it's done, it's done. If the original FAC was invalid, then it's a moot point as to whether or not anything was changed, because it shouldn't have been qualified in the first place. I have given specific criticisms; I simply haven't created a long detailed list, which is rather difficult to do for an article of this size demonstrating undue weight, which is my primary NPOV concern. I confused different people when I said they were mostly FairTax supporters, but I still stand by my main point. Also, I agree with others that it seems to have a lot of redundancy too and overlinking. -Nathan J. Yoder 21:26, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I can't speak for the other five support votes on the original FAR, but I'm entirely neutral on the FairTax. As I live in the UK, supporting or opposing it would be entirely futile. In fact, prior to reviewing the article, I had never heard of FairTax.

I would also note that on previous occasions on which issues have been raised on the talk page, they have been discussed and actioned if necessary. The short amount of time taken to discuss on the talk page before resorting to FAR is disappointing. J.Winklethorpe ^talk 20:56, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

(Replying here to Nathan J Yoder's 14th August comment, to avoid orphaning my 13th August comment) You query whether the original FAC was invalid. As far as I can tell, you are the only person making that suggestion, and you are basing it on the number of support comments in it. A quick survey of recent FACs shows that 6 supports and no opposes is not out of the ordinary for a successful nomination. As to whether or not your criticisms are specific, it may well be that myself and others are failing to take your points; can I ask you to work with us by expanding on your concerns? I will also note that work on the linking is currently underway. J.Winklethorpe ^talk 21:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

From my understanding, and please correct me if I'm wrong, Nathan your main points of contention are that there needs a criticism section (instead of or in addition to interweaving the arguments) and that the article should be more then 50% criticims, since you believe it has less then 50% support by Americans. I not only linked to the eassy on criticism sections but to the NPOV policy on article structure. As to the 50% figure of Americans (which itself is your own figure - like saying 50% of people don't like Chevy because they're driving a Ford.. but anyway), this is not how NPOV works and your misreading the policy. Using your figure, 50% of Americans could oppose the FairTax for one single reason. They don't have to have criticims for every single little aspect of the plan and they don't. Most of the article is a descritpion of the bill and the research performed in particular areas. If there is criticims for any particular area or an argument on terminology (like regressive / progressive), it is included and discussed. If there is verifiable research that is critical or debates proponent data, it is included. We should not, as you suggest, cut down the article to make up for lack of publish criticism. If we are giving undue weight to a particular proponent viewpoint over a criticism, that certainly is something we can work on... but we haven't been presented with anything. I don't know what to do in regard to your statements as they deeply change the article and seem to violate the policies you claim to be defending. Also the article should keep a global viewpoint in mind, so 50% of Americans (which I dought that 95% are even aware of the plan) doesn't mean anything unless you have a study or something to include in that regard (on that note - a study has been done that shows that something like 85% of Americans informed about the FairTax support the plan, but it has not been included it in the article). This does not suggest that 85% of the article should be support - it has no relation. Morphh ^(talk) 13:25, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

(This is also a response to Winklethorpe regarding criticism sections). No, my point concerning the criticism section is secondary to the NPOV (undue weight) concerns I have and I only brought it up because people were asserting that it's a matter of policy that it must be written that way; it's not. It is suggested that it should be avoided in some circumstances in the NPOV article, but that's pretty much it as far as guidelines and policies go. I brought up consensus specifically to counter the point that this is some sort of mandate. If a criticism section should be discussed, it should be discussed only on its particular merits for this specific article, rather than dwelling on wikilawyering (e.g. "it's policy because blah blah blah"). I'll do that back in the article itself when I get to it.

As for undue weight, can some other people help me explain this as well? I have encountered articles where undue weight was a serious issue, especially considering how contentious the topic is. Articles on evolution/creationism and abortion are particularly susceptible to this kind of problem--and the consensus on those was basically what I said: you document something in proportion to its support in the general population. Undue weight doesn't require that the article explicitly support a viewpoint (e.g. by saying "view X is right about this"); it requires that the number of statements describing a given view or presenting evidence for it be out of proportion. In other words, if I described 10 studies supporting subject A and 5 supporting subject B, but subject B was actually much more popular in the dispute, then it would be undue weight.

If you disagree with my interpretation, please give your own and link to the relevant parts of the policy supporting it. For example, how would you address the issue of an article covering evolution and creationism? What criteria determines the weight given to each.

I will quote from Wikipedia:Undue weight: "NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all. For example, the article on the Earth only very briefly refers to the Flat Earth notion, a view of a distinct minority.

We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views." -Nathan J. Yoder 06:36, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Right, we understand what undue weight means, but we need you to be more specific about how you think this article fails to meet the requirement. Pick a paragraph or section or so that you feel is problematic and give specific examples that you feel make it violate the undue weight principal. Only with that type of detail can we all work together to get closest to NPOV. - Taxman ^Talk 13:40, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Nathan, this article is the "except in articles devoted to those views". You will find very little on the FairTax in Taxation in the United States, Income tax in the United States, Sales tax in the United States, or even Tax reform. In regard to the views on the FairTax, what evidence do you have that the viewpoints published by opponents have significantly more prominence then proponent viewpoints? Several of the studies promoted by opponents are not even of the FairTax, but we include them anyway (this is almost bias in my view). You can't look at the entire population and say most people don't support and therefore supporting research should not be included. The vast majority are not even aware of such politics. John Linder is still trying to inform his fellow Congressmen about the plan. Lack of interest does not equate to opposition and opposition does not equate to undue weight. Undue weight is meant to help determine what is important enough to include in an article on that topic and to what degree to include it. The research and studies done by the proponents are significant to the topic. We've included opponent studies, research, and opinions that are significant to the topic as well. The evolution / creationism articles may be poor examples - I'm quite familiar with them and it's a war zone (as I'm sure that Sandy can attest to after the last Intelligent Design FAR where they started attacking her for some conspiracy against Raul654). Your dealing with a different topic over there that hits on science, pseudoscience, and religion. Morphh ^(talk) 14:32, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Nathan, on the criticism section, I entirely agree that it "should be discussed only on its particular merits for this specific article". And it has been, already. This exact point has been discussed on the article talk page, and consensus reached. Now, I'm not going to claim that a consensus decision cannot be re-discussed, and overturned if necessary, but I consider the fact that it's been looked at already to hold some weight. And in my personal view, the consensus reached was correct, and I would support it again. On the issue of weighting, I believe the previous two replies have covered any point I would make. J.Winklethorpe ^talk 19:24, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

And to follow up on your point about a lack of policy on criticism sections, please see Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid#Article_structure, part of the MOS and therefore mandatory for FA's: "Separating all the controversial aspects of a topic into a single section results in a very tortured form of writing, especially a back-and-forth dialogue between "proponents" and "opponents". It also creates a hierarchy of fact — the main passage is "true" and "undisputed", whereas the rest are "controversial" and therefore more likely to be false, an implication that may often be inappropriate. Since many of the topics in an encyclopedia will inevitably encounter controversy, editors should write in a manner that folds debates into the narrative rather than "distilling" them out into separate sections that ignore each other." J.Winklethorpe ^talk 19:40, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Comments. I've taken advantage of the FAR to do some Manual of Style cleanup. Cherlin, if you have specific examples of poor writing or POV, it would be helpful to see them. So far, you haven't given specific actionable reasons for the FAR. For example, do you have some sources of over $320,000 income commentary that have not been included? Do you have some samples of the poor quality of the prose ? Do you have samples of criticism that is left out? The intent of a featured article review is to review and improve the article, so samples would help. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:12, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Minor image comments—The rationale for Image:FairTaxBook.jpg is not article-specific, and I don't believe it qualifies for fair use in this article. The article is not about the actual book, and I don't see how an image of the cover helps the reader to understand the subject. Morphh, it would be appreciated if you could change the licensing of the images you've uploaded from {{GFDL-self-with-disclaimers}} to {{GFDL-self}} to improve licensing compatibility with other sites, such as the Commons. Pagra shtak 16:59, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the suggestion - I'll make the changes to my licensing. The book cover is the most known image of the FairTax, since the book was a NYT bestseller. The article does discuss the book and the book topic. I'll take a further look at the fair use. Morphh ^(talk) 17:31, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
  - It's not "the most known image of the FairTax"—there's no such thing as an image of the FairTax, just an image of a book about the FairTax. The fair use rationale is still not article-specific, and there is no assertion as to what the image conveys that cannot be conveyed with text in this article. Pagra shtak 17:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
    - Ok... it is the most widely distributed and known image associated with the FairTax plan (being a NYT bestseller). I've tried to add rationale for each article that contains the image. See if this addresses your concerns, if not - we can remove the image until it is addressed. Morphh ^(talk) 19:17, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Comments. Please note the FA lead here, the current lead was modified by Cherlin yesterday. I've added my comments at the talk page but I just wanted to make everyone aware of the change since I beleive it added bias language and poor prose. Morphh ^(talk) 18:02, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I've suggested on the article talk page that the best way to handle Cherlin's points is to restore to the prior version, and then discuss his desired changes. I'm confident that consensus can be reached. J.Winklethorpe ^talk 21:36, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment, reviewing the article and talk page history, there does seem to be a process issue here. Cherlin's first talk page entry was August 12 at 18:24 UTC. Cherlin's first article edit was to install an NPOV tag at 18:26, his/her second talk page entry was the FAR listing, and his/her third talk page entry was wording which didn't sound like an intent at resolution. ("I'm not accepting reverts. The next one goes straight to management. This is pure propaganda.") FAR is not dispute resolution; it doesn't appear that Cherlin attempted any resolution before coming to FAR. Some specific examples of the article's deficiencies should be provided. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

The time since being made FA is also at the low end of the minimum time between promotion and review ("Three to six months is regarded as the minimum time between promotion and nomination here, unless there are extenuating circumstances such as a radical change in article content.") I see no radical changes in article content. J.Winklethorpe ^talk 22:01, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Because FAR is not meant for content dispute resolution, I'm a little leery of leaving this open. I'm struck by the fact that the nominator does not appear in the talk page history until two days ago; this indicates that there was no attempt to address the POV concerns through discussion. However, more than one person appears concerned about the content. We need to see:

Evidence that article has changed significantly since its nomination; or
Actionable examples of reliable sources that are being excluded and/or unreliable sources that are being included.

Without this, the review should be closed. We can wait a couple of days. Marskell 09:01, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Sounds eminently reasonable. - Taxman ^Talk 12:32, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

The only notable change made was to the section on "Revenue neutrality" in which we worked (myself, GeorigaTex, Cielomobile) to change it to a summary style that focused on the most recent and primary proponent & opponent studies and created a sub-article that expanded on the early and additional studies (before / after). GeorgiaTex (often using an IP) and Cielomobile are opposed to the FairTax. We reduced the prose in this section by about one-half. Morphh ^(talk) 18:27, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment - I've been watching and monitoring this article for quite a long time now (since November 2006), and I fail to see any POV issues (and I still oppose the FairTax). When I first ran into this article, I sounded a lot like the nominator ("[t]he whole article is basically literature for supporters of the FairTax" and so forth), but the article has been improved significantly since then, and in my opinion, it represents all major views to the best of its ability, considering the sources that we have. The fact of the matter is that there have only been two reputable studies of the FairTax, the Beacon Hill and Brookings Institute studies, so there is not a lot to go on. If we had graphs and such for people earning $320,000 and over, I would be eager to include them, but sadly, no such graphs exist, as far as I know. The article truly is stellar; there's no need for FAR. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 03:37, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Closing. As the FAR nominator has yet to come back and specify concerns, I think this was a hit-and-run nom; we still haven't been told in any concrete way why this violates NPOV and others seem to feel that this process is unnecessary at the moment. Outstanding concerns can be taken up on the talk page, and it should only be brought back here if talk isn't working. Marskell 09:58, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

The article was kept 10:02, 17 August 2007.

Flag of Hong Kong

ZScout370, K.C. Tang, Deryck Chan, WP Hong Kong notified Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 17:05, 31 July 2007 (UTC) WP Heraldry and vexillology and WP China notified.

Message left at Mcy jerry

Obvious lack of references, prose is rather weak as well. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 16:53, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:HK Japanese Occupation poster radio exercise.jpg has no source (its on Commons and mentions English Wikipedia as the "source"), so we cannot verify the copyright. Design and History sections totally clear of inline citations. The last paragraph of Desecration section does not adhere to MoS on currency. Resurgent insurgent 03:39, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- Image has been removed[1] and currency format has been corrected.[2] Adding citations will take a little more time. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 04:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Forgot to leave a note here, but I've started working on the article, adding sources and doing general clean-up. I've left a message at WikiProject Hong Kong about this FAR and User:SandyGeorgia also left a message at WikiProject China. Some of the content might need some reconstructive surgery if we can't find sources to back them up. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 04:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
The article, in its current state, is not up to the FA standard, which has kept rising over the years. The most valuable things in the article are the graphics. I won't be surprised if it is de-featured, which has happened to many a FA created during the earlier years of Wikipedia. Cheers.--K.C. Tang 06:03, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

perhaps I shouldn't've said "standard", but something like "paradigm". People just have different expectations these days.--K.C. Tang 06:07, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

It can be seen that the majority of information provided appear to be derived from one primary source at [3]. This may be the reason why referencing and prose becomes an issue, since the writer may not find it neccesary to insert frequent references to the same source, and much of the article's text are paraphrased from the source text. The graphics are definitely very well-done, thou.--Huaiwei 09:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
The article is not long, it's absolutely possible to get it back to FA standard. So please help. I found a great source that has a lot of the information we need as references.[4] Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:46, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Inline footnotes are being added, linking to sources already cited in the article or somewhere else. Moreover, I suggest that Mcy jerry be informed and have him responded before this FAR comes to a close. Jerry was the primary contributor of the early stages of the article. He contributed at least half of the original text and nearly all of the external sources. --Deryck C. 02:03, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- I'm afraid he's not likely to respond... he's made only 50 edits since June last year - "busy in real life", according to his user page. Resurgent insurgent 12:12, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
It's been a few days since anybody has commented here, so I just wanted to leave a note here to say that the article is steadily being worked on. Here is a diff between the current version and the version that existed at the time this FAR was filed.[5] Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 08:03, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
I made a couple of small fixes, but this phrase in section "Respect for the flag" really stumped me: "Furthermore, certain actions... may be considered flag desecration. An exception is the use of flower petals when unfurling the flag." If anyone knows how the flower petals are really being "used", please correct that phrase. Resurgent insurgent 12:07, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah that section needs a bit of copy-editing and maybe expansion. It also needs some sources. The Regional Flag and Regional Emblem Ordinance Section 7 covers flag desecration[6], and Section 6 covers how it may not be used[7], specifically that it should not be used in trademarks and advertisement, as well as other uses stipulated by the Chief Executive. But the "Respect for the flag" section states other uses that are prohibited which I can't verify with the Ordinance, like using it as a tablecloth or drapery. That may be usages that were stipulated by the Chief Executive that were not spelt out in the Ordinance. We'll have to find sources for that. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:52, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
- Alright I've re-written the section. But I think I'll combine it with the existing "Desecration" section later. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:06, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Concerning Jerry's inactivity, I should be able to contact him from outside Wikipedia in a few days through the HK Wikimedians' networks. --Der yck C. 17:27, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Alright, all or most of the facts presented in the article should have references now. If there's still anything that needs referencing, please leave a note either here or in the article Talk page. I've either found sources for the content or have deleted content I cannot verify. The article still needs some general clean-up in terms of better prose and maybe some re-arranging of the sections. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:13, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Ok, please take a look at the article to see what else needs to be done to keep its FA status. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 06:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- On a quick pass, it looked OK: pls leave a message to Jaranda to revisit. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:33, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  - Ok. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:48, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
    - Sorry for the delay. Yea...have been very busy in real life of late, so I could not make any prompt responses for the time being. Thanks fo all your hard work anyway. :-) -- Jerry Crimson Mann 01:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
    - Everything seems fixed Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 01:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
    - Same feeling here. --Der yck C. 05:56, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

The article was kept 10:02, 17 August 2007.

Cleveland, Ohio

Review commentary

Clevelandguy, PacknCanes, 69.173.200.21, Confiteordeo, 24.208.184.226, Beirne, Aivazovsky, EurekaLott, WikiProject Ohio, and WikiProject Cities notifed.

There are 10 cite needed tags, most of which date back over a month. The references aren't listed in a consistent format. There are copious redlinks in Tourism. Entire paragraphs are unsourced. I do not believe article to meet Wikipedia:Featured article criteria.--Loodog 00:43, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Most of the citation needed tags would be very very easy to cite. Most of them deal with basic facts that could be found in numerous sources. The absence of redlinks is not a criterion for being FA. --- RockMFR 04:35, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
This article is awful. Main articles (economy ect.) need to be created, them summarized. More references needed. Suggest removal of status.71.116.61.6 02:16, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Comment I would like to hear from the editors involved in the article that improvements will be made soon, as that might swing my vote. As of this moment, I do not believe the article meets featured article standards, for a variety of reasons.

The lead could be a little better composed, and the first sentence is not appropriate; it should define Cleveland as a city in the United States and Ohio, and it does not.
There could be a few more references, and it looks like most of the current ones are cited incorrectly.
The article needs some general copyediting periodically throughout
Several spelling and punctuation errors

The article isn't horrible, and I believe more time could have been taken before initiating a FAR. However, again, I would like to hear from the article's editors and see some genuine work being done soon, especially on fixing the current references. If nothing happens soon, I will support this article being demoted. Okiefromokla•talk 04:39, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Before nominating this article, I posted that the it needed serious cleanup lest it incur an FAR. The notice received no response in 5 days. In nominating this article, I did notify the dozen or so most frequent editors of this article.--Loodog 03:12, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Remove Specific problems with FAC:

1a) Examples:

Strange writing and wikilinking of dates: "Like other major American cities, Cleveland also began witnessing racial unrest, culminating in the Hough Riots from July 18, 1966–July 23, 1966 and the Glenville Shootout on July 23, 1968–July 25, 1968."
"the lake effect snow that is a mainstay of Cleveland" umm.. mainstay?
Redlinks abound.

1c)The aforementioned significant lack of sourcing in the article.

2a)The lead rambles a bit, telling us that Columbus is the capital of Ohio.

I would be willing to change my vote if someone put some work into these problems.--Loodog 03:12, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment- I frankly disagree with many of these reviews because I believe that a better use of the nominating editor's time would be to fix the problems that s/he sees in the artcle. I'm currently very busy in real life, and don't have time to work much on this article, but if you have the time for this review, why don't you edit yourself? As it says on WP:Cite, one of the best ways to contribute to Wikipedia is to add sources to articles, and in my opinion, a lack of sources is the only real reason this article should be considered for review. Everything else you mentioned is cosmetic and would take very little time to correct. Confiteordeo 04:44, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment: I've also been busy, but took the time to address some of the shortcomings identified here. I added the requested citations, edited the lead, and did some other copyediting. I'll try to do some more work soon. Any improvements to the article made by the reviewers would be welcomed. - EurekaLott 06:39, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Much better. As soon as I get the time within the next day or two I will go through and give specific examples of more statements that should be cited. If you want to work on the article before I or someone else does this, A good rule of thumb is just cite any and all things that sound like they could be a fact (so pretty much everything), especially statistics. Also, just did a quick search with my browser and found instances of the word "many" that need to be removed (see WP:WW). I would love to see the article reach somewhere in the vicinity of 100 citations; at that point, I believe this article can be kept. Okiefromokla•talk 21:38, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

One more thing. Too many of the current citations show nothing but the title of the webpage and the access date. Add the date or year of each publication cited, as well as the publisher of the webpage, etc. This is still the main obsticle for the article at this point. Okiefromokla•talk 21:44, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, If the current references were fixed, I would be satisfied and vote to keep the article, as long as the other problems I mentioned were fixed some time in the future. As it is, it looks like most the references are incorrect or incomplete. Okiefromokla•talk 03:58, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are citations (1c), LEAD (2a), general copyediting (1a). Marskell 06:29, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment. I spent a couple of hours cleaning up this article (diff includes one revision that's not mine) this evening. Sustained attention is still needed. I removed some editorializing touristy uncited hype, but there may be more. I replaced many, but there are still many dead links and uncited text. About.com (not a reliable source) is used to cite a lot of text. I hope regular editors can complete and correct the citations needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:01, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- Status? Is anyone able to finish up the citations? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:56, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
  - Worried that I've ended up citing this article; not sure anyone is watching it. There are a couple of citaitons missing. Google coughs up enough info that I know the text is factual, but the sources are mostly JSTORS so I can't access them. I wish someone else would have a look. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:08, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
I've went and done a bit of work on it. Most of the citation needed tags I saw looked very petty, though the couple that weren't were taken care of. Really, I don't see anything wrong with this, and would keep as FA based on what I see. Wizardman 03:11, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I suppose the two or three cite tags left after I spent ten hours cleaning up and sourcing could look petty if you came in after the fact for a look at a clean article. Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:43, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Keep - Well, my main concern wasn't so much the current citation needed tags as much as many of the refs already there being incomplete. I just glanced over it and it seems much better now, though I'm not sure what is up with ref 29. The article needs some toutching up for sure, but its not too bad. I'm willing to give the editors the benefit of the doubt. Hopefully it can get a good polish over soon, and I'll be sure to check back every so often to see if it gets any worse or better. As for now, I say keep. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Okiefromokla (talk • contribs) 04:03, August 10, 2007

I've replaced about.com. I could not source that the MOCA does not have a permanent collection and hid the info; their site doesn't mention one. Any other concerns? I think we're more or less OK here. Marskell 15:13, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

agreed. Okiefromokla•talk 15:39, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm satisfied; there are a few things which could be better, but it's within range. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:40, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

The article was kept 08:47, 13 August 2007.

Geology of the Bryce Canyon area

Messages left at WP Geology and Mav.

I nominate this article to be reviewed or delisted because:

Its very very short Y Done
~~Has far too many pictures~~ Has pictures that make the article look cluttered
It has a complete lack of inline citations Y Done
It is improperly laid out and in my opinion looks unprofessional

--Hadseys 19:15, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to disagree with you on the "too many pictures" part. The only problem I have with the images is that they should be hosted by the Commons rather than on English Wikipedia, which isn't a concern for FA status one way or the other. Jay32183 20:43, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Once I get another article featured, I'll work on this. As for size; even after I'm done this isn't going to be large article due to the fact that there isn't that much to say about the geology of the area. I also disagree about the images, but that will be less of an issue once a bit more meat is put on this article. --mav 21:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the images make it look cluttered; either way it doesn't detract from the fact that the articles claims are completely unverifiable —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.36.182.217 (talk • contribs) 23:58, July 9, 2007
- That is completely incorrect; the article lists all the references used. Adding inline cites where appropriate simply makes it easier to verify. --mav 19:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  - I'm fairly certain that Mav's saying the images aren't a problem doesn't mean Mav will ignore the other issues the work begins. Jay32183 19:43, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
    - You are correct - the article will be fully inline cited very soon. Expansion will have to wait for the weekend. --mav 20:52, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Some inline cites added. More later. --mav 03:16, 11 July 2007 (UTC) _

Refs are from just one source.Rlevse 16:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not done yet. I'm in the process of reading a new long reference for this article along with all the other references previously cited for this article. --mav 01:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Inline cites from two sources now. I'm also using the new source as a reference while I add more text. First part of expansion complete. A few more parts to go along with clean-up. --mav 04:16, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Second part of expansion complete. The article is almost twice the original size now. A bit more later. --mav 00:38, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Expansion of the body is now complete; the article is now over twice the size it was before. I will now focus on article structure and proofreading. Looks like some subsectioning is now in order along with adding more images. The lead section also needs a modest expansion. More cites to be added by a 3rd book reference. Should be done by the end of this weekend. --mav 03:53, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm still working; article structure is much better now. My time has been more limited than I originally thought, but I'm getting real close to finishing. Stay tuned. --mav 03:31, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

More or less done. One more ref and copyedit pass should do it. --mav 02:17, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Comments. Looks good enough for a Keep without FARC, but the parenthetical See below and See X, sending readers to and fro within the text, are a distraction. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:31, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment. I'm working on a final ref and copyedit pass now. So please don't close this FAR yet. :) --mav 22:00, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I think I'm Y Done now; much more detail added (prose doubled in size), citations added throughout, and article has been copyedited to conform to current MoS (thanks Sandy!). I think this is ready to be de-FARd since I feel it now conforms to current FA standards. Looking 'unprofessional' and 'cluttered' are not, IMO, actionable objections on their own. Even so, I think the expansion combined with the new article structure address those concerns as well. Compare: before and after --mav 01:20, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

OK then, that's all folks. Well done as ever, mav. Marskell 08:44, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

The article was kept 07:55, August 11, 2007.

Austin Nichols

Review commentary

Messages left at Dev920, Stevenscollege, Actors and Filmmakers and Bio. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:39, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

The article is of good quality and I think it would pass a good article nomination, but it is not of featured article quality. I will give some feedback concerning all featured article criteria to improve the article to achieve FA status. – Ilse @ 21:19, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Well written, comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral and stable

Not much information about what critics think about his acting performances, apart from his game of tennis
Not much information about his roles for TV

Manual of style

Lead text is not a good summary of the article
Infobox contains almost no information (no notable roles, years active, residence, etc)
Biography is a bad heading, the entire article is a biography
The structure of the biography section could be improved
Early life section also contains information on his personal life
TV and filmography tables have no headers, which table is about TV?

Images

No photographs that visually identify Austin Nichols

Length and focus

Information about acclaim of John P. Aguirre should be on his WP article
Too much detail about his game of tennis compared to his acting and other roles

Comment. Ilse@, please notify relevant parties with {{subst:FARMessage|Austin Nichols}} according to the instructions at the top of the FAR page. Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:45, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I already notified User:Dev920 and User:Stevenscollege, they are the users that contributed the most to the article. The other top 3 contributor was an IP. How many other users do you want me to notify? – Ilse @ 22:05, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I am currently on exam leave and have no solid block of time to devote to this FAR. As I was planning to update his article when I come back anyway (as Austin has now done a wave of publicity to promote John from Cincinnati and I have more to write about him now), can this FAR please be delayed until the 22nd? DevAlt 22:24, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

In the FAR policy, I read the following: "The nomination should last two weeks, or longer where changes are ongoing and it seems useful to continue the process." On June 23 the two week period of the FAR for this article will end, and I think this is the time to evaluate whether it is useful to continue the review period. – Ilse @ 00:29, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, given I don't intend to participate until the 22nd, and I wrote the entire article from this, and Stevenscollege, the next largest contributor, edits approximately once a week, it seems somewhat of a waste of everyone else's time to have this FAR open. 21:24, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

The article has indeed improved a lot, and I'm sorry you feel this way. There is always the opportunity the renominate the article later on. – Ilse @ 23:09, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

You're going to FARC an article simply because I can't stick to your absurd schedule for mitigating reasons I have already given? How silly. DevAlt 13:15, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

The practice at FAR has always been to allow extra time when someone notifies they can work on the article; the 22nd is well within the time the FAR would run. In the meantime, others may work on some of the issues, including Ilse, who brought the nomination ("Nominators are asked to improve an article that they nominate for review to the best of their ability".) Bio infoboxes are controversial, and not a WP:WIAFA requirement, btw. Ilse, have you notified yet the WikiProjects linked on the talk page per the instructions above? Please follow the example on other FARs on this page and include the notifications at the top of the FAR. Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:59, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I didn't think about notifying the biography project, thank you for the suggestion. I have made some edits to improve the article. – Ilse @ 17:22, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

There's no hard limit. We can leave it in the FAR period a week or two after the 22nd, if need be. Marskell 17:40, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree the review period should remain open as long as the article will clearly pass all criteria within reasonable time. At this moment I would classify Austin Nichols as a B-class article that will probably pass a good article nomination easily. I believe there is nothing wrong with a GA classification. – Ilse @ 18:13, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Note Per the main contributor's request extra time will be granted for this FAR. If the main contributor feels that he/she will not be able to work on the article he/she should inform this and the extra time will be waived. Joelito (talk) 22:02, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree and I think we have spent enough time discussing the review period. Please comment on weaknesses of the article and the possible improvements. And maybe you can help improving it. I believe the section on Austin Nichols' acting career needs to be rewritten or at least some serious copyediting. – Ilse @ 22:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I have one exam left: I will be ready to receive your suggestions in about four hours. See you then. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 05:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I'm going to start adding info from his recent publicity, if anyone would like to make constructive suggestions, bring it on. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 15:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Some days ago, I've spent considerable time on improving parts of the article, including the lead section which is now reverted by Dev920. Dev920 explains that the lead section is otherwise too short for FA status, which is in my opinion a bad argument because FA status is not about quantity but about quality. I believe several of the elements Dev920 has just put back in (parents professions, waterskiing as a child, lead actors of the films he played in) are not important enough to be part of this summary. I am willing to compromise on the waterskiing by leaving a short sentence about his waterskiing in (something like "During high school he was a trick water skier participating on a international level."). I also believe the style of writing of "...and is known for his film roles in..." should be changed into a more encyclopedic wording such as "...he had roles in...". – Ilse @ 21:11, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I have changed the wording as suggested. However, I disagree with Ilse@'s view on the lead and, suggest that if it was not FA quality, it would not have passed FAC with such support. The lead has not changed significantly since it passed (ie, the wording you just now suggested and an update about JFC). The contents of the lead are fairly standard for an FA and I am somewhat surprised that Ilse@ thinks removing the entire second paragraph improves it. What do others think? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:29, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I approve of the last change. For the rest, Dev920 uses an argumentum ad populum, which doesn't make this easier. I think the supporters didn't use the FA criteria as a checklist, unfortunately. Still, I hope the article will improve and I will continue to try and help. – Ilse @ 21:53, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

And you are making an argumentum ad logicam, wherein proving I am using a fallacious argument somehow makes you right. You are aware of the concept of consensus on Wikipedia, right? The very first sentence of WP:FA is "Featured articles are considered to be the best articles in Wikipedia, as determined by Wikipedia's editors.", so excuse me if I think your point is merely to needle me ("doesn't make this easier"? You are not obligated to participate, so why say that?) rather than actually contribute. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:04, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

No needling intended towards Dev920. With the word "this" in "which doesn't make this easier" I was referring to the discussion about the contents of the lead section. The reason why I think the lead should be altered is because I question the significance of the elements in this lead as a summary, as I stated before, and not because of your argument. – Ilse @ 22:24, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I have notified all users that voted for this article's nomination (and that were not already notified) about this review. – Ilse @ 23:51, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure they'll love that.