Contents 1 Removed status 1.1 Autism 1.1.1 Review commentary 1.1.2 FARC commentary 1.2 Mixed-breed dog 1.2.1 Review commentary 1.2.2 FARC commentary 1.3 Celtic Tiger 1.3.1 Review commentary 1.3.2 FARC commentary 1.4 Floppy disk 1.4.1 Review commentary 1.4.2 FARC commentary 1.5 Kitsch 1.5.1 Review commentary 1.5.2 FARC commentary 1.6 Pashtun people 1.6.1 Review commentary 1.6.2 FARC commentary 1.7 Bath 1.7.1 Review commentary 1.7.2 FARC commentary 1.8 Mark Antony 1.8.1 Review commentary 1.8.2 FARC commentary 1.9 Split infinitive 1.9.1 Review commentary 1.9.2 FARC commentary 1.10 Lawrence v. Texas 1.10.1 Review commentary 1.10.2 FARC commentary 1.11 Julia Stiles 1.11.1 Review commentary 1.11.2 FARC commentary 1.12 United States House of Representatives 1.12.1 Review commentary 1.12.2 FARC commentary 1.13 Revised Standard Version 1.13.1 Review commentary 1.13.2 FARC commentary 1.14 Space opera in Scientology doctrine 1.14.1 Review commentary 1.14.2 FARC commentary 1.15 James II of England 1.15.1 Review commentary 1.15.2 FARC commentary 1.16 World War I 1.16.1 Review commentary 1.16.2 FARC commentary 1.17 Bodyline 1.17.1 Review commentary 1.17.2 FARC commentary 2 Kept status 2.1 Chess 2.1.1 Review commentary 2.1.2 FARC commentary 2.2 Order of St. Patrick 2.3 Operation Downfall 2.3.1 Review commentary 2.3.2 FARC commentary 2.4 Toilets in Japan 2.4.1 Review commentary 2.4.2 FARC commentary 2.5 James Joyce 2.5.1 Citations list 2.5.2 New look? 2.5.3 Another new look 2.6 Order of the Garter 2.6.1 Review commentary 2.6.2 FARC commentary

Removed status

Autism

Review commentary

Messages left at Medicine FAR and Psychology. Sandy (Talk) 03:20, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion this article is no longer up to featured status. It has 12(!) {{fact}} tags on it, and a couple of sentences are either weaselly or POV. Examples of the latter include:

• Some now speculate that autism is not a single condition but a group of several distinct conditions that manifest in similar ways.(weaselly)

• Parents who wanted to have sex with thier kids were not able to because the kid was to retarted so the parents through the kids out on the streets

If these problems are addressed I will happily support its remaining a featured article. Until such time, I beleive it should be delisted--Acebrock 02:21, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment The weasle words and broad patches of uncited text are problematic (indicative of POV and OR), but the article has far bigger problems than just the cite tags and weasle words.
  • It doesn't conform to WP:MEDMOS
  • It is severely undercited, and relies on some sources which are personal or support group websites rather than medical sources.
  • The lead is too long and doesn't summarize the article.
  • External links have become a link farm for support groups, see WP:EL and WP:NOT
  • See also needs pruning and/or other articles incorporated into text.
  • Infobox isn't complete.
  • Article isn't tightly focused on its topic, with entire sections discussing other conditions.
  • Problem with Fair Use image.
  • Doesn't rely on highest quality medical sources, and References appears to have grown piecemeal; it's not clear those references were actually used in the article.
  • The Table of Contents shows an unorganized approach to the topic, and could benefit by following suggested sections per WP:MEDMOS, modified as needed for a neuropsychiatric condition.
  • There's a red link in See also.
  • There are external links. jumps.
  • It relies on daughter articles which are in very bad shape, speculative, and poorly sourced.
  • It is not comprehensive
    • Treatment is inadequate
    • Causes is inadequate
    • There is no Diagnosis or History section
    • There is no Prognosis section, or Prevention/Screening section
  • Sociology section could benefit from being trimmed and making better use of Summary Style
  • It has numerous mentions of individual researchers or research institutions, which look like attempts to promote those people rather than an encyclopedic entry.
  • It duplicates the DSM criteria, which is a copyright violation.
• In order to maintain FA, a serious and organized effort at improving this article is needed. Sandy (Talk) 03:10, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with Sandy, however I'm sure her approach from the [Asperger syndrome] article is very inappropriate. The current autism article is extremely biased and *published* research that is no longer relevant needs to go. --Rdos 08:27, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: Rdos, I think that a reviewer's approach elsewhere is irrelevant. Here, all that matters is improving the article at issue. I, too, agree with Sandy's points. And while we're at it, the writing is sorely in need of improvement. Here are random examples from the lead for "Characteristics".
  • "Typically-developing infants"—Isn't there a better standard term? The hyphen after -ly is wrong.
  • In a contrast, the wording should be equivalent, not "individuals who have autism are physically indistinguishable from those without".
  • "Enlarged brain size appears to accompany autism, but the effects of this are still unknown." False contrast: why "but"? A semicolon would present a more logcial relationship between these assertions.
  • "Much of this is due to the somewhat vague diagnostic criteria for autism, paired with an absence of objective diagnostic tests. Nevertheless, professionals within pediatrics, child psychology, behavior analysis, and child development are always looking for early indicators of autism in order to initiate treatment as early as possible for the greatest benefit."—"Somewhat" adds nothing but uncertainty. Just get rid of it. "Paired with" is not idiomatic in this context. The contrast in "Nevertheless" is unclear. The subsequent assertions require referencing (a long-shot that all of those professionals do the same?). And there's too much crammed into the last sentence. Tony 14:00, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
• Move to FARC, little improvement in concerns raised. Sandy (Talk) 14:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria are comprehensiveness, sources, prose, POV/OR, lead, and images. Sandy (Talk) 01:49, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

• Remove Insufficient inline citations. LuciferMorgan 22:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Remove Very long list of problems (detailed above) almost completely unaddressed during FAR/FARC. Sandy (Talk) 13:35, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Mixed-breed dog

Review commentary

No original editor, messages left at Dogs and Tree of Life. Sandy (Talk) 23:49, 3 November 2006 (UTC) Message also left at Wikipedia:WikiProject Dog breeds. Joelito (talk) 03:20, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Very few references for a FA and non of them are in-line references. A lot of POV OR can be found on the article as well, with sentences such as "many people enjoy owning mixed breeds". Michaelas10 (T|C) 21:06, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

This needs massive re-writing. Potential OR, rather than prose (which isn't too bad), is the fundamental issue. It's an interesting and, I'd guess, fairly well-searched topic—no doubt for these reasons, lots of people have added nuggets of BS. In discussing intelligence of mixed-breeds we find: "For example, Benji, the hero in a series of films named for him, was a mixed-breed terrier." A fictional example used to support a real-world point?

Other random OR concerns:

• "Some American registries and dog clubs that accept mixed-breed dogs use the breed name All American, referring to the United States' reputation as a melting pot of different nationalities." That's really how the term arose?
• "Mixed breeds also tend to have a size between that of their parents, thus tending eventually toward the norm." What is the norm?
• "If one knows the breeds of the parents, some characteristics can be ruled out; for example, a cross between two small purebreds will not result in a dog the size of a Great Dane." No shit?
• Ah wait, there is some info that suggests someone read a book. The norm is provided: "With each generation of indiscriminate mixing, the offspring move closer to the genetic norm. Dogs that are descended from many generations of mixes are typically light brown or black and weigh about 18 kg (40 lb). They typically stand between 38 and 57 cm (15 and 23 inches) tall at the withers." OK, this is good and encyclopedic, if we have a source.
• "It's important to note that..." I just love "it's important to note that...". It helps you clearly identify non-encyclopedic writing.
• "Mixed-breed dogs can be divided roughly into three types:..." Roughly divided by whom? This screams OR.
• After saying just the opposite, the article declares: "Overall, mixed breed dogs tend to be healthier. They have more genetic variations than purebred dogs." That needs sourcing.

This really is an interesting topic (as a dog lover), but I think this page is a good example of the "semi-OR" that went unnoticed a year or two ago: written with good intent and no desire to deliberately include inaccuracies, but still of the vague, unsourced, "I-sort-of-know-this" type. Hopefully it can be picked up and worked on! Marskell 21:46, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

• Needs inline cites (1. c.). LuciferMorgan 15:00, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
• Good article, but needs inline citations. Right now, I would question it's FA status on that basis. Badbilltucker 19:20, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

• Move to FARC. Sandy (Talk) 04:11, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria are citations and OR. Joelito (talk) 04:40, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delist. This is one of only two featured articles a project I am associated with can point to, so I have very mixed feelings about saying this. But I do believe that the objections raised above are serious enough to merit the article being delisted. Maybe doing so might jolt some editors into working on it. Maybe I might even stop trying to assess articles to do it. Maybe. Can I get back to you on that one? :) Badbilltucker 15:46, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Remove as per FAR commentary. --RelHistBuff 13:26, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - I'm going to check whether this can be referenced/rewritten from the sources I have available, so please leave it on for a couple of days. Yomangani^talk 02:11, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
• Remove - now I've had a decent look through. It's uncited, original research, poorly written and US-centric. Needs rewriting from scratch in my opinion. Yomangani^talk 11:58, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
• Remove - too much uncited OR. Sandy (Talk) 21:20, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
• Remove per Yomangani (nice summary of the article's flaws!).--Yannismarou 21:24, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
• Remove Lacks inline cites (1. c. violation). LuciferMorgan 21:28, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Celtic Tiger

Review commentary

Message left at CGorman --Peter Andersen 16:36, 2 November 2006 (UTC) Additional messages left at Ireland and B&E. Sandy (Talk)

A very old FA. Needs more inline citations (1c) - a lot of the links that are actually there doesn't work. I doubt it is comprehensive (1b) and it is very listy (1a). --Peter Andersen 16:27, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. External jumps, mixed reference styles (refs need to be converted), not clear if "Online references" are really References or External links, but the sources necessary for adequate inline citations appear to be available, and this article should be salvageable. Sandy (Talk) 17:11, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - Indeed - not as bad as I was expecting, given its antiquity (FAC in late October 2004). It has not changed all that much in two years (diff from 31 October 2004, the last version before it was promoted, to 20 October 2006, the latest edit before today). Inline citations are required, inevitably; the listy sections can no doubt be prosified, if necessary. -- 17:49, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - I've worked on this article considerably and it has gone from here to current. I will probably review the text one more time. It could still do with more citations and improvement in flow but I think it's considerably improved. –Outriggr § 01:47, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Since there is still a lot of uncited text, we should move to FARC just to keep things moving. Sandy (Talk) 04:09, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are citations and flow. Joelito (talk) 04:21, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Is anyone still working on this? There are still some statements needing citation (for example, the first thing my eyes fell on was "Today, wind power supplies only 5% of Ireland's electricity."), and the blue links in Notes need to be expanded to include bibliographic info and last access date. Sandy (Talk) 15:28, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

• No, I'm done. –Outriggr § 23:17, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I can expand the refs that are there, but if no one is working on finishing the citing, it might not be worth the effort ... ??? Sandy (Talk) 00:52, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
    • I tend to agree with you. (Which kind of reinforces for me the 85° uphill battle that I feel this process is!) –Outriggr § 00:57, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
• Remove. Unfortunately, in spite of excellent improvements by Outriggr, no one else pitched in to finish the job. Sandy (Talk) 16:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• Remove Still patches of uncited text. At least the article has been improvised though. LuciferMorgan 21:27, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Would it be worth the effort to remove the uncited statements without affecting the context in order to preserve FA? If you all think it is possible, I might try giving a first pass at it. --RelHistBuff 11:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I spoke too soon. It looks unsalvageable unless someone has the sources. Too many uncited sections that really need cites. I change my vote to Remove. --RelHistBuff 13:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Floppy disk

Review commentary

Messages left at Litefantastic, Computer science, and Computing. Sandy (Talk) 22:13, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

An old FA that lacks inline citations in many sections and has a variety of {{fact}} tags. Lead is insufficient (two sentences). Bloated trivia section ("In Marvel's Transformers comics continuity, Optimus Prime's personality was downloaded onto a floppy disk after his death"). Some "weasely" sentences ("It is probably true that floppy disks can surely hold an extra 10–20% formatted capacity versus their "nominal" values, but at the expense of reliability or hardware complexity."). Gzkn 06:38, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• Move to FARC. Inadequate lead, listy and trivia-loaded, weasly, no improvement during FAR. Sandy (Talk) 16:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are lack of citations (1c), weasel words (1d), and trivia (4). Marskell 18:35, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Remove until Sandy's FAR review comments are addressed. LuciferMorgan 03:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Remove - unfortunately, nothing doing towards fixing deficiencies. Sandy (Talk) 00:55, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Kitsch

Review commentary

Brilliant prose promotion, no original author. Messages left at Germany and Aesthetics. Sandy (Talk) 22:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

This brilliant prose promotions has no citations, has become an External link farm (some commercial promotions), has a trivia section, and is filled with weasle words and what appears to be original research, editorializing, and opinion. There are several cite needed tags, and a good deal of redundancy in the prose. Sandy (Talk) 22:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I tend to agree, plus the pictures are not great Johnbod 02:44, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment It is listy in sections, and needs inline citations (1. c. requirement). LuciferMorgan 21:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment There is an obvious need for inline citations. Some of the weasel words might be from the original sources, but without citiations no one can know that. While acknowledging the difficulty of creating an article on such a poorly-defined subject, the article is still in desperate need of improvement. Badbilltucker 17:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• Move to FARC, no significant improvement. Sandy (Talk) 14:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria are citations, trivia section, and prose (lists). Joelito (talk) 17:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

• Remove—The quality of writing does a good job in depicting the topic. Take just the lead:

"Kitsch is a German term that has been used to categorize art that is considered an inferior copy of an existing style. The term is also used more loosely in referring to any art that is pretentious or in bad taste, and also commercially produced items that are considered trite or crass.

Because the word was brought into use as a response to a large amount of art in the 19th century where the aesthetic of art work was confused with a sense of exaggerated sentimentality or melodrama, kitsch is most closely associated with art that is sentimental; however, it can be used to refer to any type of art that is deficient for similar reasons—whether it tries to appear sentimental, glamorous, theatrical, or creative, kitsch is said to be a gesture imitative of the superficial appearances of art. It is often said that kitsch relies on merely repeating convention and formula, lacking the sense of creativity and originality displayed in genuine art.

Though kitsch and kitschy may be terms used to criticize, the term is sometimes used as a compliment as well, with some finding kitschy artwork to be enjoyable for its "retro" value or unintentional, ironic humor or garishness."

• It's a German term, but it's now an English term too. Need to insert "originally"?
  • "Categorize" is pretty ungainly, in concept and phonology.
  • "in referring to" --> "to refer to"
  • Replace the em dash with a semicolon or a period?
  • Many people will object to the concept of "genuine art". Why isn't kitsch genuine?
  • "kitschy"—is that a word? "May be terms used to"—clumsy.
  • "Some"—some what?
  • "Where" should be "in which".

Very messy and lacking authority. This should be binned. Tony 12:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• Remove: lack of inline citations (unverifiable), too many non notable trivia and most of them uncited and orphaned paragraphs. — Indon (reply) — 13:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Remove. Under-cited and with listy and trivia sections.--Yannismarou 19:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Remove Insufficient inline citations. LuciferMorgan 14:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Pashtun people

Review commentary

previous FAR

WikiProjects notified

Article lacks sources in many places, and these are badly formatted or mostly from adhoc websites that are not reliable. MOS violations. MAny single sentence paragraphs. Has also been the subject of edit wars from anons which has caused a bit of irregularness in the presentation of the article. YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model) 05:19, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Issues with images:

• • Image:AhmadShahDurrani.jpg lacks permission, source.
  • Image:Nv-army-gray BG.jpg, source, date not given to support PD in India claim.
  • Image:Sharbat Gula.png: no fair use rationale.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 14:52, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are reliable sources (1c), MoS (2), and stability (1e). Marskell (talk) 14:48, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

• Remove. Per YellowMonkey (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 17:58, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
• Remove Citation needed markers should be replaced with reliable sources verifying the claims made. The rationale for Image:Sharbat Gula.png is too weak: it's just a picture of a girl, so fair use doesn't apply. In addition the citation at the end of the sentence, "The difficult lives of Afghan female refugees gained considerable notoriety with the iconic image of the so-called "Afghan Girl" (Sharbat Gula) depicted on the June 1985 cover of National Geographic magazine." does not support the claims made in the sentence. It is a link to the article but it does not confirm that the image is iconic. That would require a third-party source referring to the image and the article. The Image:Mamoud Tarzi-203.jpg has no author information, so the fact that one of the sitters died over 70 years ago is irrelevant. The important factors are when the photograph was first published and when the portraitist died. Image:Ahmed Shah Durrani.png is not acceptable. The uploader is a sockpuppet of an impersonator, and on flikr it says very explicitly "all rights reserved". I have tagged this image as a copyright violation. DrKiernan (talk) 17:38, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Bath

Review commentary

Messages left at OldakQuill, UK notice board, Cities, Geography and UK geography. Sandy (Talk) 19:04, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

This FA has several problems.

• As with most nominations here, it lacks inline citations. The article is 45k long and has only 7/8 footnotes.
• Fair use rationale missing (and possibly an incorrect tag) on Image:Coat of Arms - City of Bath.jpg. Other images not checked.
• Very thin lead for such a long article.
• Poorly written: see e.g. first sentence of the Politics section
• Degenerates into a list in the Bath in arts section
• Horrible layout, too many headers, stubby sections, lists
• Possibly excessive external links section.

--kingboyk 11:33, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Insufficient inline cites. LuciferMorgan 16:03, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Per LuciferMorgan, plus other issues: some section have tiny paras that need to be merged or expanded and there are stub-sections(like 'The Spa'). Lots of red links, but I don't consider that issue a criteria for objection/removal personally - but it would be nice if somebody would do some stubs.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:22, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria are citations, images, LEAD, layout, and prose. Joelito (talk) 00:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• Remove Insufficient inline cites. LuciferMorgan 00:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Remove as per Lucifer, and 1a and 2a. The lead is too short and represents a clumsy attempt to summarise the article. The prose is poorly written.

"Bath is a city in South West England most famous for its baths fed by three hot springs. It is situated 159 km (99 miles) west of central London and 21 km (13 miles) southeast of Bristol.

The city is founded around the only naturally-occurring hot springs in the United Kingdom. It was first documented as a Roman spa, although tradition suggests that it was founded earlier. The waters from its spring were believed to be a cure for many afflictions. From Elizabethan to Georgian times it was a resort city for the wealthy. As a result of its popularity during the latter period, the city contains many fine examples of Georgian architecture, most notably the Royal Crescent. The city has a population of over 80,000 and is a World Heritage Site."

• • The opening sentence is stilted. Try: "most famous for its baths, which are fed by three hot springs." Are they underground springs? Thermal rather than hot?
  • Founded earlier? No reference, which would be OK if this point were referenced in the History section; but it's not even mentioned.
  • As a result of its popularity there is great architecture in the city? Fuzzy. Buildings arise from wealth.
  • No hyphen after -ly, please.

This deserves a prompt demotion. Tony 11:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• Remove. Inadequately cited, prose issues, poor image placement, external jumps, short stubby sections and paragraphs, mixed reference styles, and no one working on any of it. Sandy (Talk) 00:38, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Remove as per everything above- --RelHistBuff 11:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Remove per Sandy.--Aldux 14:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Mark Antony

Review commentary

No original editor, messages left at Bio, Classical Greece and Rome, MilHist and Ancient Egypt. Sandy (Talk) 23:53, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Needs inline citations, and also needs to have the first image replaced, and it is of unknown origin. In addition, the references used are almost solely from ancient texts or Britannica 1911, so could definitely use some updated scholarship. Judgesurreal777 22:51, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - Needs inline cites. LuciferMorgan 10:10, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

• Move to FARC, still uncited. Sandy (Talk) 04:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria are citations. Joelito (talk) 04:32, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• Remove - Lacks inline citations (1. c. violation). LuciferMorgan 15:14, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Remove per above.UberCryxic 18:03, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Remove per above. Badbilltucker 14:55, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• Remove per above. --RelHistBuff 15:39, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• Remove per above.--Yannismarou 14:51, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
• Remove per above.--Aldux 17:47, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
• Remove per above.--Dwaipayan (talk) 04:51, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Split infinitive

Review commentary

Message left at Dpbsmith. Sandy 16:23, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I just noticed that this article needs to references to add. I guess this will be fixed the fastest way if I put it here. Otherwise, the article is still fine. --Tone 22:23, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• It's more than references at issue. Take this bit:

Germanic languages (including Old English) do not permit an adverb to fall between an infinitive and its preposition. Compare German:

Ich beschließe, etwas nicht zu tun.

I decide not to do something.

"Zu" here is not analogous to "to" in the English infinitive. This example, I think, is misleading.

And this statement:

"In the 19th century, some grammatical authorities sought to introduce a prescriptive rule from Latin that split infinitives should not be used in English." Um ... how can you split an infinitive in a Latinate language? Infinitives are all single words in that branch.

And:

"It is likely that the split infinitive originally entered the English language under the influence of French; at any rate, it first appears in the time after the Norman Conquest when English was borrowing very widely from French". Same problem—in French, infinitives are single words. An example or two would be nice. And the fact that split infinitives first appeared after the Norman conquest doesn't prove that French had anything to do with it. Before we talk about split infinitives, let's work out from what time was the infinitive in (Old) English expressed with a "to"?

This nomination looks as though it will be defrocked. Just referencing it will take careful work by a specialist; clearing up the other problems will be a further challenge. Tony 09:20, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't entirely agree with Tony: historically the zu in German beschließe zu tun and the de in French decider de faire are certainly related to the to in English decide to do, though obviously the way these are used today diverge, and the traditions of analysing them in these languages are miles apart. So the comparison is valid, though maybe it needs to be handled more discriminatingly. But Tony is quite right that the argument from Latin is nonsense: Latin uses no such preposition (or whatever we want to call it) with the infinitive, so there is no precedent in Latin, one way or the other, and I don't believe the story that the prescriptive rule against split infinitives was inspired by Latin. The article on Linguistic prescription tells a different story (but then I wrote it). Parts of the split infinitive article sound like anti-prescription crusading, and most of it would benefit greatly from better references. --Doric Loon 22:03, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Doric, does "zu", then, mean "for the purpose of"? That's what I suspect, and if so, it's not a part of the infinitive construction. Tony 02:04, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

No, that would be um ... zu. Depends on the sentence of course: as in English, because the uses of the infinitive can be quite complex when you analyse them in detail. But in a sentence like When I couldn't find my key I tried to climb in through the window German has the exactly parallel infinitive construction Als ich meine Schlüssel nicht fand, versuchte ich durch das Fenster zu klettern. But I think we're getting away from the FA question - so if you want to talk more about this maybe we should continue in the article's talkpage. --Doric Loon 08:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

But coming back to the question in hand, I think Tony and I agree that this article is certainly not ready to be a featured article. --Doric Loon 08:59, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've put my thoughts on the split infinitive from a comparative linguist point of view onto Talk:Split infinitive#history. Please engage with me further there. --Doric Loon 21:22, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment I'd suggest changing "Probably the most famous split infinitive is..." to "One famous split infinitive is..." Gzkn 06:36, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are citations and accuracy of information (1c). Marskell 11:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Over the last couple of weeks, many of the above concerns have been met. The article has improved beyond recognition. I would now support FA status. My above reservations are therefore withdrawn. --Doric Loon 22:06, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

• Remove Is anyone still working on this? Numerous cite tags, and mixed referencing styles in History section. Sandy (Talk) 07:17, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

What does "remove" mean? Remove FA status or remove review request? I think we should keep the FA status. This article is now rather good, and it is ceratinly impressively well referenced. I and a couple of others are still working on it, but at present there doesn't seem that much to do. --Doric Loon 10:33, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Remove means Remove FA status: if you are still working on the article, we can let the review run longer (the two week FARC period ended yesterday, and it wasn't clear work was progressing). Are you working on the cite tags? Also, the mixed referencing style in History should be addressed (some use Harvard referencing, while others use cite:php). Sandy (Talk) 19:36, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Don't really see your problem. There are not "numerous" cite tags - there were a couple of places where a superceded tag was left from an earlier stage of work, and I have just deleted those. There is ONE tag left, a theory that ought to be referenced, but so-far a source eludes us. As for the references, this article is particularly well referenced, and to me the references all look full and in proper academic style. If you are worried about commas and points, YOU change them - that would be more constructive use of your time than challenging the FA status on such flimsy grounds. But if you see anything substantial that needs to be done, please tell us. --Doric Loon 21:43, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

You misunderstand the role of reviewers. The cite tags appear to have been addressed, but the mixed referencing style has not yet been fixed: is anyone working on it? Harvard style is mixed with cite:php - either system is fine, but please pick one style to use throughout the article. I'm still a Remove, unless the referencing and Tony's concerns are addressed. Sandy (Talk) 14:51, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

• Remove—numerous problems with content. Tony 07:30, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

That wasn't your most helpful comment, Tony. What exactly do you see as needing improvement? (But the best place for detailed suggestions is on the article's talk page.)--Doric Loon 10:33, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I recommended removal for the same reasons I explained in the review: problems with the content. You appeared to at least partly agree with me at the time. Here are more problems, taken at random.

• In the lead: "The construction is still the subject of disagreement among native English speakers as to whether it is grammatically correct or good style." Remove "among native English speakers"—it's unnecessary to drive home notions of superiority here. Ungrammatical: change "it" to "its use".
• "people frequently place adverbs ... before the bare infinitive, as in "She will gradually get rid of her teddy bears"), or in transformational-grammar terms from a re-analysis of the role of to.[5]". Where's the infinitive, please? The last bit, after "or", will float above most of our heads, even if referenced.
• "The split infinitive appeared after the Norman Conquest when English was borrowing very widely from French."—Reference required.
• "the majority of infinitives"—why not just "most infinitives"?
• "Then in Middle English, the bare infinitive and the infinitive after "to" took on the same uninflected form"—"Then" is suitable in a narrative register, and usually unsuitable in an encyclopedic one. Why not provide the approximate year or part-century?
• "was borrowing very widely from French. Other Germanic language such as German still do not permit an adverb to fall between an infinitive and its particle (preposition), but French and other Romance languages do. Compare modern German, French, and English:"—"Very" can be dropped. And why does French come into it at all? English is a Germanic language; comparisons with French are tenuous, since Norman French had little influence on the native English grammar; by contrast, it left its mark on the lexis.

I still strongly recommend removal. This article is far too messy to be a FA. Tony 14:22, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Tony, that's much more detailed. Half of this is very trivial points of style, and to be honest, you could have removed the word "then" yourself with far less effort than it took you to write two lines complaining about the stylistics of the word. I personally like the phrase "the majority of split infinitives", but by all means change it if it bothers you. Let's concentrate on content. You are right, I did broadly agree with you above, but if you do a "compare versions" you will find that the article has been largely re-written since then. All the problems we both saw there have been worked on. You raise four new points of content, but I don't agree with them. The relevance of French as a neighbouring language with a parallel construction and a history of influence in both directions is very obvious to me. The fact that French influenced English after the Norman conquest is such basic knowledge that it doesn't need to be referenced. In the teddy-bear sentence, the bare infinitive is "get", here being used as part of the future tense; I would have thought the parallel being drawn was pretty obvious. The re-analysis of "to" is explained at least twice in the article: it was originally a preposition, later it was perceived as a "verbal marker" (however one chooses to describe this). I really don't think the article is messy, but please do tidy up any "verys" which are annoying you. --Doric Loon 14:48, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Reviewers are under no obligation whatsoever to edit the articles they critique. You don't present a convincing case that French is a useful comparison. Just how did French influence English grammar, as opposed to the lexis? The fact that it's a "neighouring language"—across the channel, I guess you mean, is irrelevant. Basque and Spanish are "neighbouring", but couldn't be more different. Polish and German are neighbouring, and are significantly different. The world is full of linguistic discontinuities. What exactly is this "parallel construction" between Fr and Eng? Why is a history of influence from Eng to Fr relevant (as you imply)? A reference is required for the assertion that the "the split infinitive appeared after the Norman Conquest", not that there was influence in general related to the conquest. What is "infinitive" about "will get"?

And what does annoy me is not the occurrence of "very" in the article, or even your preference for several words when one would do, but your contention that half of the points I raise are "very trivial points of style". So, little glitches in the editing of a film that are allowed to survive into the cinema are trivial, are they? It's not a professional angle. Disappointing. Tony 15:25, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

OK perhaps I misunderstood what you think you're doing in critiquing this - I thought you were interested in contributing. I'm only going to answer your specific points in case you are really interested; I'm not arguing with you about the article itself. 1. There are strong areal features in which French and the Germanic languages influence each other in both directions. This goes far beyond lexis. The French perfect tense is borrowed from Germanic, the German pronunciation of the letter r is borrowed from French, and French influences on Middle English include the loss of cases, the plural in -s and a host of other syntactic and morphological features. In the case of the split infinitive, the article shows the close parallel between English and French, which is interesting even if they are unrelated, since very few of the world's languages have anything comparable. But the article points out that there is a possibility (no more than that) that they are indeed related: the preposition + infinitive construction may have been borrowed from Germanic into French and the French idiocyncracy of putting the negation in the middle may have been borrowed back into English as the split infinitive. I should say that is a significant point of comparison. 2. The English future tense (will get) is made up of an auxiliary (will) and a bare infinitive (get). That is the normal way to analyze this - check any beginner's grammar. The article cites scholarship suggesting that the position of the adverb in this (very different) infinitive construction could have been transferred to constructions involving the to-infinitive, thus creating a split infinitive. It is just a theory, but entirely plausible. I think the article explains this pretty clearly. 3. The article does give a reference for the split infinitve appearing shortly after the Norman conquest: it even cites the text verbatim. This is the Layamon passage, which is given in Middle English with verse numbers and translation - you can't reference more specificallly than that. Please read the article - the answers to all your questions are already there. --Doric Loon 21:56, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Beginners' grammar books or not, I can't easily accept this construction of the future tense as rooted in the infinitive. I go by [[Michael Halliday|functional grammar], which will have none of that. Thus, I think the line taken in the article is potentially POV. (English grammar is notoriously POV, which makes it hard to promote related articles to FA status.) When you say "It is just a theory, but entirely plausible.", you're hitting the nail on the head. I've learnt something from what you say about the French influence on English grammar, but can we have better referencing of these assertions? I'm suspicious about your claim that case was lost in English on account of the French influence. Are you sure that it wasn't the creolisation of Anglo-Friesian and Norse that did it, from the ninth to the 11th centuries? Tony 01:54, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I almost knew you were going to say that about the future. Quite right: there are different ways to analyse. Historically, of course, the "get" in "will get" goes back to an Old English infinitive, I think we can agree on that. But the loss of inflections means it is possible to talk about a base-form of the English verb and dispense with the concepts of infinitives, present subjunctives, imperatives etc for the modern language altogether. That makes sense for some purposes, for example for understanding how first language acquisition works in modern English, but trendy and fashionable as it is in some circles, it is neither the tradtional nor the most usual current approach. I don't think it's POV to use mainstream terminology just because there is an alternative, especially when the alternative would be less helpful in the context of the particular point which is being made.

Where's the proof that "will get" is derived from the infinitive? It seems counterintuitive to me.

And of course you are right that the loss of English inflections can have several causes at once, and since loss of inflection is in any case a general phenomenon in IE languages the question here is merely what accelerated it so suddenly, so OK, that wasn't my best example. But 11th century Englis was still far more highly inflected than classical Middle English. --Doric Loon 15:16, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Proof that the Norman influence accelerated the loss of inflection? I understand that it was the creolising process between the Anglo-Frisians and the Norse people in previous centuries.

• I still see problems of content in many places. For example: "in modern English syntax it is better regarded as a particle before a verb form"—I'd have thought the "to" was part of the verb form, not a separate particle preceding it.
• "Some are said to dislike the split infinitive on the grounds that it is not a natural construction in a Germanic language. This is a weak argument today, as standard English has many constructions novel to the Germanic language family. Also, while German and Dutch never allow an adverbial to fall between the preposition and the infinitive, Swedish does. However, given that the further back in history one examines the English language, the more typically Germanic it becomes, it is possible that the reason the medieval split infinitive never gained widespread acceptance was that it was still uncommon enough to sound foreign." False contrast: remove "However". I think the last sentence is drawing a long bow (too long for an authoritative encyclopedic article) and should be removed. There's no verification—just speculation.

I've asked a non-WPian expert on the history of the language—Dr Gary Symes—to comment on the article. Tony 01:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Looks as though he's going to take longer than I expected to respond. Over to you, Joel. Tony 11:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

He emailed me and said: "soon". Hmmm. Tony 07:59, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Eek, seven weeks. I guess one more can't hurt... Marskell 22:45, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Dr Symes says:

"I found the piece quite informative on the history of the subject, much of which I was not familiar with. The presentation of the arguments for and against is not especially cogent, & the section Special situations less than helpful. Overall, it is not very well written or organized.

As I expect with these sorts of things, the information is not all reliable. It says that the first known use of the term split infinitive was in 1897 & gives as reference, note 13, Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, Eleventh Edition (2005–2006), s. v. split infinitive. Merriam-Webster are just recycling the info in the OED article, infinitive, sb., published in July 1900, which had the 1897 cite. OED notes that the phenomenon is also called cleft infinitive, a term which the Wikipeida article nowhere mentions. The OED cite for 'cleft infinitive' at 1893 mentions an article on the cleft infinitive published in the American Journal of Philology, which the Wikipedia article is ignorant of. The OEDS (1976) s.v. infinitive, sb., provides no earlier cites for either term, but has cites for the compounds infinitive-splitter (1927) and -splitting (1926).

My own view is fairly conservative; I do not usually split infinitives, unless it would be patently artificial or mannered not to do so. But it does not generally matter much; & thinking back, I seldom bothered to 'correct' it in student essays, unless it were particularly egregious. What the Fowler brothers said in 1907 remains apt."

The contributors may take these details into account. I guess the article should stay featured. Tony 02:39, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Please thank Dr Symes on all of our behalf. That is very useful. --Doric Loon 06:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

The mixed reference styles (and lack of information about the references) in History still needs to be addressed.

• (Bache, 1869;[15] William B. Hodgson, 1889; Raub, 1897[16]) were condemning the split infinitive, others (Brown, 1851, lukewarmly;[17] Hall, 1882; Onions, 1904; Jespersen, 1905; Fowler and Fowler, cited above)

I could combine all of them into one ref tag for you, which would solve the problem, but the information on some of those refs isn't provided. Sandy (Talk) 00:38, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

• Remove At one time I was a devoted defender of the "Quit the split" cause. In the role of overseer of some of the future's newspaper copyeditors (COM 456 "Newspaper Copyediting" Purdue University, late 1980s) the editor in me considered it a noble cause. And I suppose it made me feel good; knowing stuff that separated me from the rabble.

This changed when I was challenged by a student to defend a finity of splits in some rather major newspapers. Come to find out, those who wrote the stylesheets had neglected to ask me before declaring the entire issue irrelevant. They seemed to say "split or not, makes no nevermind to us."

So: Is this article here to document the history of this specific usage, provide the current best thinking about the issue, or some combination?

This distinction is important. If the conclusion stays entirely within the history bounds (could even be contemporary; I am thinking teleology not chronology) these distinctions are critical and the focus ought to be about how we got to where we are.

The anthropological linguist in me asks that if we include some "how to " focus we need to lead with some version of "now even the experts agree that a split infinitive is not necessarily 'wrong' and a split infinitive does not in itself represent a grammatical error. Those who think it matters, don't matter."

As it now sits I'm not sure where the article lies along this line.

We live within a language that is itself living (unlike Latin, Old English or even Middle French). Today's wart might be tomorrow's bloom. We should only describe, leaving those areas or nations with Royal Appointed grammarians to decide what is proper for their own small and diminishing sphere of those who care.

The article does seem to imply that anyone splitting an infinitive is in error, with the jury still out over the magnitude of the crime.

If this is rather strictly an historic treatment we should ask whether the issue warrants so much attention. Even the uber-populous Wikipedia cannot feature the history of every twig. There are grammar usage errors of far greater consequence and there are parts of speech with pedigrees far nobler, or more interesting.

After all, we gain nothing by agonizing over the rights and wrongs about the 1960's grade school guerrilla actions over "ain't". It just doesn't matter.

My understanding of the mission of Wikipedia (I might have missed this boat as well) is to be an already-NOW resource for anyone who can grab a keyboard for even a few minutes. I have thought that Wikipedia is not trying to render redundant the host of small scholarly journals which do the truly important work (just to be clear, I intend no irony here) of working through mountains of material to make sense of some small corner of the world.

The semiotician in me suspects so much type has been devoted to the split infinitive because it has a cool, easily remembered name. It serves to stand for all that divides the stilted user of formal grammar from the rest of us, in a real sense not at all about grammar. Now that is a topic that still wants a good public airing! That will probably happen over in Ebonics land. Who is publicly campaigning over this issue? The split infinitive has never (to my knowledge) been the subject of a Broadway musical. ;)

I guess this makes it a candidate for de-throning. Can we insist that a featured topic matter, even if it is carefully documented and skillfully addressed? Roy 03:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

• Actually, if you look at WP:FAC you'll see that an article's subject matter has no bearing whatsoever as to whether it can be an FA.--Zantastik talk 03:11, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Nope, 1c requires factual accuracy. Tony 03:42, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Of course it requires factual accuracy. What I was suggesting is that the topic has no bearing on an article's FA-worthiness. An article on everything from the word "the" to an article on the 2nd world war can reach FA status, if it's written so as to meet WP:FAC. --Zantastik talk 07:22, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I can only say that I found working on this to be very interesting. This is something which everyone has heard about and people are curious to know what is behind it. We did not find it easy to put together the historical sections, because the information was not readily available (though the research had been done and with effort we could find it); is that not precisely the point of Wikipedia - to make the access easy when people want to know?

Since my own interests are in historical linguistics, the point of the article for me is to chart the history of the construction, and of the controversy. I didn't contribute much to the last part, but I don't think it really intends to make recommendations: just to describe how things were and are.

I would be grateful to know what part of the article gave you the impression that any of us working on it think the split infinitive is wrong. I thought we were successful in staying neutral on that. --Doric Loon 11:19, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Lawrence v. Texas

Review commentary

Messages left at Neutrality, Law and Supreme Court cases. Sandy (Talk) 18:57, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Only one in-line citation and a few scattered external links in the article itself. This does not pass 1c. Hbdragon88 02:17, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - Lacks sufficient cites (1. c.). LuciferMorgan 09:25, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I'd prefer if the article had a bit more about the aftermath and what happened as a result of the case. JoshuaZ 20:30, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

It would be nice if the article had more on the affects of the case, but the law doesn't move terribly quickly so courts are still deciding what the implications of Lawrence are. For instance, the Supreme Court hasn't heard any case since Lawrence that raised the same issues. So, it is impossible for the article to have a comprehensive review of the effects of the case for several years.Dekkanar 18:30, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking in terms of social and political aftermath not just legal. JoshuaZ 14:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Aren't all these court reporters inline cites? What the hell else are they? I agree that more references should be added (especially for interpretive statements), but this article has more than five inline cites, even if they don't appear at the bottom. Moreover, it's not in an obviously worse state than Roe v. Wade. But yes, cites for all the bullet points under "Broader implications" would be useful. Cool Hand Luke 04:01, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Okay, I can see how the opinions sections are already cited (learned this while citing my own court cases in a recent essay), but the whole section talking about history (like no-fault divorces) all needs to be cited. If you don't think Roe v. Wade is an FA either, nominate it as well, but please don't use the article status of Roe to justify the status of Lawrence. Hbdragon88 01:50, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

• Move to FARC, work still needed. Sandy (Talk) 14:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria are inline citations and comprehensiveness. Joelito (talk) 17:52, 30 November 2006 (UTC) And prose. (Tony1)

• Remove—Poorly written: when it comes to matter legal, precision of prose is of great concern. The lead is appalling:
  • Very clumsy opening: "not finding a constitutional protection of sexual privacy"—Shouldn't that be "finding that there is no constitutional protection of sexual privacy"? "The Lawrence court held that"—better as "The Lawrence judgment"?
  • "Lawrence has the effect of invalidating similar laws throughout the United States that attempt to criminalize homosexual activity between consenting adults acting in private." Remove "attempt to"; no two ways about it. Remove "acting". Heck, there's a lot of redundant wording ....
  • "The case attracted much public attention, and a large number of amicus curiae ("friend of the court") briefs were filed in the case. The decision, which contained a declaration of the dignity of homosexual citizens, was celebrated by gay rights advocates, hoping that further legal advances might result as a consequence"—"The case ... the case." The agency for "hoping" should be crystal clear. "Hoping ... will", not two hedge words (might). Remove "as a consequence". Tony 12:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weak and reluctant remove. I like the analysis, but the lack of inline citations is a huge problem. The article mentions previous Supreme Court decisions and achieves a high-level legal analysis. But the lack of any scholarly backing, and subsequently, of citations, do not allow me to support it. There are also some stylistic problems, such as some external links not properly linked.--Yannismarou 19:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Remove. Prose problems, mixed reference styles, inadequate referencing, and no one is working on it. Sandy (Talk) 00:40, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• If I was a bit more familiar with the Americal legal system, I would love to work on this article!!! It is so close to FA status after a slight copy-editing and the addition of the missing sources. Unfortunately, my library does not include books of Americal Law and I do not know to what extent I should trust Internet source.--Yannismarou 20:50, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

• Remove per Yannismarou.--Aldux 14:09, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Remove Insufficient citations. LuciferMorgan 03:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Julia Stiles

Review commentary

Messages left at PedanticallySpeaking, Bio, Films and Theatre. Sandy (Talk) 21:14, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, this old FA is no longer up to featured status. The lead is insufficient, lacks inline citations (only 6), the quotes are not cited, none of the images have a fair use rationale, and it has several stubby/one sentence paragraphs. Nat91 21:04, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

• Move to FARC - no improvement, and a recent (unsourced) edit changed her from a Mets to a Red Sox fan, so accuracy is in question. Sandy (Talk) 20:52, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria are LEAD, citations, images, and prose. Joelito (talk) 23:12, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• Remove Insufficient citations. LuciferMorgan 02:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Remove per Lucifer.--Aldux 14:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Remove I'd give it a B-class. Wiki-newbie 16:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Remove per Lucifer.--Yannismarou 20:56, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

United States House of Representatives

Review commentary

Messages left at Omaryak, MisfitToys, Daysleeper47, Stealthound and Lord Emsworth. Thesmothete 07:29, 26 November 2006 (UTC) Additional messages at United States, Congress, and Politics. Sandy (Talk) 14:13, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Here is a point-by-point rationale following the FA critera. For such a prominent article, it does not reflect current standards for FA status.

1 It is well written, comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral and stable. ??

• (a) "Well written" -- the prose is neither "compelling", nor "brilliant". Organization of the article is haphazard. Factual statements often occur without context.
• (b) "Comprehensive" -- while major facts and details have good coverage, some significant aspects of the House are not covered at all, such as the system of bells, the significance and use of the Mace, and the visitors’ gallery, a more complete listing of Speakers and their significance, controversies about delegates voting in the Committee of the Whole House, the full significance of the Committee of the Whole in organizing the House, etc.
• (c) "Factually accurate" – the vast majority of statements in the article are accurate. However, many claims are not verifiable against reliable sources, such as statements that the House is “more partisan” than the Senate, or that “fewer than 10% of all House seats are seriously contested in each election cycle” (more than 43 seats were seriously contested in 2006). The article does not accurately present the related body of published knowledge. Claims throughout the article are rarely supported with specific evidence and external citations. Inline citations are almost non-existent.
• (d) "Neutral" – for the most part, the article the article presents views fairly and without bias; however, the opening of the article is somewhat pejorative (the “lower” “more partisan” body of Congress), and there are additional statements throughout that could be phrased with greater neutrality.
• (e) "Stable" – the article is stable.

2 It complies with the standards set out in the manual of style and relevant WikiProjects, including: ??

• (a) The lead section is not concise, does not summarize the entire topic, and does not prepare the reader for the higher level of detail in the subsequent sections, except insofar as it contains substantial minor facts without organization as with the rest of the article.
• (b) The article has a proper, if limited, system of hierarchical headings; and
• (c) A limited table of contents (see section help).

3 It has very few images for such an important subject, particularly given the likely volume of material available without copyright from the US government.

4 It is of appropriate length, for the subject, but it does not stay focused on the main topic – it goes into extensive unnecessary detail about the history of the Constitution, Pombo’s legislation about the Northern Marianas, the Gilded Age, etc.

Thesmothete 06:22, 26 November 2006 (UTC)]]

I disagree with your characterizing the introduction as non-neutral. Neither "lower" or "more partisan" are pejorative - the former is a neutral fact (see Lower house) and the latter, if sourced properly, would be an important and relevant piece of information. --Tim4christ17 ^talk 14:26, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

• Move this one down, I say.
  • "Because its members are elected from smaller (approximately 690,000 residents as of 2006) and more commonly homogenous districts than those from the Senate, the House is generally considered a more partisan chamber." The logic escapes me. And just why the founding fathers would characterise the Senate as being more "deliberative" escapes me too.
    • (Interjecting) In answer to the last point: mainly because of its smaller size, as well as the fact that its members served smaller terms and were not elected, shielding them from pressures to which the House members were exposed. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:01, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • There's a stubby paragraph in the middle History, surrounded by big fat ones.
  • Why is there talk of a presidential veto before the relationship between Congress and President has been explained? Where is the 2/3 override of veto mentioned? Why does the lead not announce that Congress has the sole power to legislate? Isn't that basic?
  • Why is there no discussion of the relationship with the British model? Is it the case that the relationship between the British Parliament and the king at the time is reflected in the Congressional–Presidential power balance? (Whereas the Canadian and Australian Governors-General vs Parliaments reflect the British state of play in a later century ....?)

Very superficial. Tony 12:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria are prose, LEAD, and citations, among others. Joelito (talk) 00:25, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Remove Insufficient citations. LuciferMorgan 03:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Remove—Zilch done since my comments above. This is an obvious demotion. Tony 03:46, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
• Remove, no inline citations, poor quality for an FA. Terence Ong 08:51, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Revised Standard Version

Review commentary

Messages left at Bible and Christianity. Marskell 11:24, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

With the FAR page finally settling down, I thought I'd nominate one myself. This article fails to meet the criteria on a number of counts:

• 2a. The LEAD, consisting of one sentence, is obviously insufficient.
• 2b. The headings are entire phrases, in some cases.
• 1c. Completely lacks inline citations. There are references, but unfortunately sourcing will be difficult for someone relying on the web.
• 1a. Not terrible, but many one sentence paragraphs. Some of it is stylistically limp, such as "owing to its aim" in LEAD. Later: "The RSV New Testament was well received, but reaction to the Old Testament was different. Many accepted it as well, but many also denounced it." This doesn't need to be two sentences and it feels like it was written with a six year-old in mind.
• 1b. This weighs in at 13.5k. Yes, it's comprehensiveness not length, but the size is on the low-end of what you'd expect. The description of the drafting of the version overlaps the first and second sections and needs to be better rationalized and expanded. The International Council of Religious Education is redlinked and the reader needs to know what it is. Who were some of the scholars involved? How were they chosen?

A tough nut, to be sure. Hopefully someone will pick up on it. I can work on the prose, at least, if there is interest. Marskell 11:17, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Article has several serious flaws, and, personally, given the significance of the textual differences of the various editions, could and should be much longer. I also agree with all of the above reservations cited by Marskell. Badbilltucker 17:58, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria are LEAD, style (headers), citations, prose and comprehensiveness. Joelito (talk) 21:53, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

• Remove. Nothing doing. Marskell 14:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Remove. No improvement. Sandy (Talk) 20:47, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Remove No inline cites and an insufficient lead section. LuciferMorgan 04:00, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Space opera in Scientology doctrine

Review commentary

Messages left at David Gerard, ChrisO, and Scientology. Sandy (Talk) 16:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

This article is long with lots of list-like sections. The prose is not compelling, hence failing criterion 1a. There are lots of quotes from Scientology literature, hence it appears more like a Scientology pamphlet rather than a Wikipedia article. My suggestion is to cull some of the text and rewrite it into a more summary style. --RelHistBuff 15:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Other problems:
  • The article uses mixed reference styles (at least 3 different styles): needs to consistently employ one reference style.
  • External jumps should be removed.
  • Rambling, out-of-control Table of Contents, reflecting lack of organization and possible failure to tightly focus on subject.
  • Not clear if all of the References were used to source the article, or if some should be eliminated, Further Reading, or External links.
  • Possible POV because of lack of critical sources.
  • The article is listy and stubby, appears to have grown via piecemeal edits, and needs a rewrite/reorganization.
  • Text relies largely on quotes. Sandy (Talk) 16:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - The article is NOT neutral. It gives inordinate emphasis to casual remarks by Hubbard as being part of Scientology doctrine. Arslycus is a good example; that was a casual remark in the PDC lecture made to illustrate a point (I actually listened to that very lecture not long ago while on a long drive). It is not a part of Scientology. Hubbard was always careful, IMO, to distinquish between his opinion or his self-admitted tendency to act the raconteur and what he considered to be the technology of Scientology. Additionally; he specifically excluded space opera (as a general topic) from Scientology; lumping it in, along with lots of other "unprovables", to what he termed "para-Scientology"; meaning that most Scientologists have VERY little intersection with space opera and it is by no means a core belief (the core belief being that you are an immortal spiritual being inhabiting a body and using a mind and that you can improve your state of being, by-and-large, using very concrete techniques that have nothing to do with space opera). The only actual alleged example of space opera that I know of that has any relevance to Scientology is the claim by ex-Scientologists that OT 3 includes the Xenu incident. But if that were the entirety of the article, I guess it would not be as "interesting" (although it might be a lot more accurate). Interestingly, I just looked again at the article and see that critics like to pooh-pooh Scientologist's protestations that LRH's far-out stories, anecdotes, and jokes are not a part of mainstream Scientology. So I guess we are "damned if we do and damned if we don't". Anyway, the article needs a lot of work to bring it to a neutral state. --Justanother 16:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Needs inline cites and needs to observe NPOV. LuciferMorgan 23:58, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. The main problem with this article, aside from its blatant POV problems, is that most of the wacky stuff this article gleefully delineates in slobbering detail is NOT "Scientology doctrine", not by the dictionary definition of doctrine, not by Wikipedia's own Doctrine article, and most importantly, not by The Scientology Handbook. Subjects like the "Obscene Dog Incident" are taken from Hubbard's lectures, which were not always about Scientology, and were/are NOT Scientology doctrine except in the most ridiculously all-inclusive sense. By that same all-inclusive standard, we would also have to consider "Scientology doctrine" to include Hubbard's many tangents gone off on during lectures which had nothing at all to with Scientology, old war stories, stories told to illustrate a point but clearly not necessarily real, anecdotes from his personal life, and moments such as when, in one lecture, he commented at length about the hors d'oeuvres being served at the lecture and how tasty they were. Who's ready to start Hors d'oeuvres in Scientology doctrine? At the very least, the word "doctrine" needs to be stricken from the article's title and introduction. Highfructosecornsyrup 20:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. The article needs massive cleanup, and a lot of time is being chewed up on a POV dispute instead. If the editors intend to retain their featured status, they should get crackin' on resolving the problems, and start writing in accordance with WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:CITE, WP:LAYOUT, and WP:MOS. Sandy (Talk) 23:49, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment (I am copying this over here from an unregistered user that put it on the talk page for this review)

I am a Freezone Scientologist. In the past I worked for the Church of Scientology, but I do not currently work there or participate in any of their activities. I do, however, continue to participate in Scientology (but not Church of Scientology) activities. I continue to be in agreement with the aims of the subject, even if not entirely with the official organisation. I have at least a passing familiarity with pretty well of the material which is referred to in the article and have done the level known as "OT3".

My overall impression of the article is that it has been written for the purpose of poking fun and/or titilation. Much of the material does not form part of what you could really call doctrine and was mentioned only in passing. The parts that refer to something you genuinely could call doctrine are quoted way out of context and thus do not give the reader a fair/neutral impression.

Further, many things which are actually part of Scientology doctrine seem to barely merit even a mention in Wikipedia. Thus the overall impression a reader obtains from this and other pages on the subject is heavily skewed.

Many from the official Church would be utterly shocked and offended that this material is mentioned in public at all. I do not feel that way personally. But I do object to the overall bias.

Nick Warren—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.139.185.125 (talk) 02:43, 12 December 2006

• Comment I disagree that the article needs "massive cleanup". It has citations for the Scientology teachings and Hubbard quotes. It believe it is written in an NPOV manner, but I'd be willing to improve the article if someone could provide a specific suggestion for what needs to be changed in this regard. And while I sympathize with those that are Scientologists or Freezoners that they don't consider these particular Scientology teachings to be "doctrine", it is clear that the Church of Scientology does in fact believe that Space Opera is not just a funny story that Hubbard came up with in a lecture. The Church of Scientology specifically says Space Opera is NOT FICTION. When a Church and its guru make proclamations like this, you can't just dismiss them out of hand. It is true that most Scientologists are not exposed to Space Opera until upper levels of Scientology, but that doesn't mean that it isn't a part of CoS teachings -- because it is 100% certain that CoS teaches that Space Opera is real, that CoS upper level courses specifically discuss aliens, and that Hubbard himself spoke about alien civilizations and alien beings on a number of occasions. Vivaldi (talk) 08:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I already provided a list (above), and none of the structural items (aside from possible POV) have been addressed. Sandy (Talk) 20:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I have no stake in this on either side, and it does seem to me that, like "Zionism" or "Creationism" or even "Baptism", it will be nearly impossible to do much more than provide "equal space" and let the POV proxies duke it out.

However, I would like to point to what seems to be a significant error in categorization: It is indeed possible for a philosophy or religion to teach that something is "real" and for adherents to talk about it without it being doctrine.

Doctrine can not reasonably include everything a group believes. This would be a most unhelpful definition which would dramatically increase the amount (and pettiness) of Doctrine for all of the World's faiths. Doctrine, as technically defined, could be construed to include just about anything. It could arguably be part of the Jesuit doctrine that the Sun rises in the East; of the Zoroastrians that it sets in the West.

For the sake of utility (see our own somewhat flawed article on "doctrine" for inspiration) I would suggest that we accept as doctrine "whatever a religious, political or social group claims as doctrine." This makes sense precisely because the utility of doctrine lies in its ability to discriminate, and it must be the purpose of any group charged with teaching doctrine to isolate those things that make "us" stand apart from all the others.

It is doctrine that enables our scholars to prove that your scholars are wrong. Doctrine tells not only what may be believed, but what must be believed. Doctrine tells us who is and who is not one of us. This is the strength, and the weakness of doctrine.

Applying this to Scientology, I would suggest that we accept what the church says is doctrine, as the doctrine of the church. This does not mean that many or even most of the church members don't believe something in addition to the doctrine, but that someone will not be thrown out of the group for refusing to believe these other things. This might help clarify our statements.

Roy 05:38, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are structure, sectioning, and TOC (2), prose (1a), and consistent referencing (1c). Marskell 20:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

• Remove: My initial comment on simply culling and rewriting was being generous as I had the hope that some Scientology experts would rework this article. However, now that it appears that there are different viewpoints, a lot more work on agreeing on the subject matter needs to be done. --RelHistBuff 11:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Remove: massive problems, unaddressed during FAR, the article is an embarrassment to FA standards. Sandy (Talk) 01:08, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Remove: as per Sandy --Justanother 01:36, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Remove as per Sandy. LuciferMorgan 13:09, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

James II of England

Review commentary

Messages left at Emsworth, Bio, Royalty,