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 21:56, 19 December 2007.

---

Premier League

Review commentary

Notified Wikipedia:WikiProject Football, User:Pal, User:Mark272 and User:Oldelpaso.

This article has a few problems:

• The lead section says "The FA Women's Premier League, more specifically the National Division, is the Premiership's female counterpart, as most of its clubs are affiliated with Premiership and Football League sides; however, the league is semi-professional and has a much lower profile than the men's game." and "The 2007–08 Season sees the Premier League introduce a new theme song, logo, typeface for player names and numbers, and patches.", but the rest of the article does not say anything about it.
• Many sections have no references. For example, "Origins", "Competition", "Transfer records" and "Former Premier League members".
• There are some English mistakes in the article. For example: "the top 22 teams broke off the First Division and formed a new league: The FA Premier League", "In 2007, the premier league negotiated" and "emailed a warning to 101greatgoals.blogspot.com, an independent website that links to youtube videos, that forced its temporary closure"
• The "Premier League problems" section is POV and unneccesary.
• Some references, for example 2, 17 and 45 (and the one after "which has an average per-team annual revenue of over US$190 million") have formatting problems.

--Kaypoh 04:31, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Please follow the instructions at the top of WP:FAR to notify relevant WikiProjects and involved editors, including the original nominator. You can review other FARs on this page for samples. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:23, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

OK. Did I do it correctly? --Kaypoh 15:40, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Thanks. DrKiernan 15:43, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Eventually! Whilst I would say that most of the problems come under the bracket WP:SOFIXIT, I will do all that I can to keep it featured. I do think it would have been courteous to let the projects know a bit quicker. The two week gap is unacceptable. Woodym555 15:43, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

We can always extend the review period. DrKiernan 15:45, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok we will see how it goes. The problems don't seem to be major. Nothing a quick copyedit and a reference check won't solve. Woodym555 15:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

As this is an article which attracts a lot of drive-by edits, a spring-clean would be beneficial. I'll take a look over the weekend and see what I can do. Oldelpaso 18:35, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Looks like some vandalism slipped through and decimated the history section at some point. I've restored some material from the promoted version. -- Oldelpaso (talk) 17:31, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are lead (2a), citations (1c), and POV (1d). Marskell (talk) 08:43, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• Remove The article is better now and can pass GA, but many paragraphs still have no references and some references have formatting problems. References must always go after a comma or full stop. I think the "Managers" section should not be there or should be in the "Players" section. "History" section only talks about how the Premier League was formed and needs more info about what happened in the 15 seasons. "Women's Premier League" section should be expanded. I am not sure if the POV problems with the Criticism section are all fixed. Finally, the article needs a copy-edit, especially the new paragraphs/sections. --Kaypoh (talk) 09:11, 22 November 2007 (UTC) (amended —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaypoh (talk • contribs) 13:27, 9 December 2007)

Are there any specific paragraphs for which referencing is a concern i.e. containing material likely to be challenged? Footnote counting for its own sake is not particularly useful, and I wouldn't regard the current level of referencing as skimpy.

There really isn't that much more to put in a summary style section about the Women's Premier League; it is a part-time league which receives very little media attention. Oldelpaso (talk) 20:27, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I also don't think that this should turn into a summary of all the Premier League seasons. I think the current content is adequate and well balanced. We have Template:Premier League seasons for that. The current history section sums up the creation of the League and the processes leading to its creation and that is what this article should be about, (in my opinion of course). Woody (talk) 17:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

You don't need to give a summary of every season. For that, a table that shows which team won each season is enough. But you need to mention major changes in the Premier League rules and the way it is run. For example, it mentions that the number of clubs was changed from 22 to 20 and the name was changed this year. Anything else? There must be info about major events in the clubs. For example, Man U did not win a title for 26 years until the first season of the EPL, during the 1995-96 season Newcastle were ahead of Man U by 12 points but Man U end up winning the title, when Arsene Wenger joined Arsenal in 1996-97 they became a club that challenged for the title, from being a top-four club Leeds went bankrupt and were relegated and in 2003-4 Roman Abramovich bought Chelsea and they won two titles for the first time in 50 years. You have 4 paragraphs about 1-2 years and 1 paragraph about 15 years. That is not balanced. --Kaypoh (talk) 04:45, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Almost all that you have mentioned is trivia about the clubs. It belongs in their club pages and not an article about the League. It is not an article about the clubs in the league, it is an article about the League itself. A key part of that League is its formation from the old League system, therefore it receives a lot of "article space". It is not undue weight. Woody (talk) 09:30, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Let the FA director (or the person who closes FARs) decide what is actionable and what is not. The first paragraph of "United Kingdom and Republic of Ireland" section is unreferenced and so it is also POV. The last paragraph of "Worldwide" section is only one sentence, not well written and unreferenced. Two paragraphs in "Top scorers" have statistics but are unreferenced. I don't think the information is trivia about the clubs because it is about how well they did in the Premier League. If one club win the Premier League for 5 seasons then another club win the Premier League for the next 3 seasons then you want to report the change in the "best teams". If a club changed manager, that info is trivia, unless the new manager made the club win the league. --Kaypoh (talk) 13:38, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I have addressed all your referencing concerns. Thanks for pointing them out. There are three people who could close this, Marskell, Joel, and Raul.

In terms of your content qualms, frankly I disagree with them. Managers don't win Leagues, and this is not a season summary for the Premier League. It lists all the neccessary statistics to have a good understanding of the league. It is now complete, factually accurate, referenced, and meets all the FA criteria. Woody (talk) 21:16, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

• Could the review period be extended? As I was not informed of this FAR until last week I am only partway through addressing the concerns. Oldelpaso (talk) 17:49, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I would also ask for an extension, the status of the notifications means that some more work needs to be done. Thanks. Woodym555 (talk) 00:56, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Kaypoh (talk · contribs) hasn't edited since Nov. 26. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Note As long as you are commited to addressing the concerns provided above this FARC will not be closed. The FARC, however, will be closed if no progress is made and no status is provided. Joelito (talk) 21:40, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Of course, thanks. I am planning on rather large scale revisions tommorrow. Woodym555 (talk) 21:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

• The lead and first half of the article should be better now. Tackling what used to be the "Premier League problems" section is in progress. More to follow. Oldelpaso (talk) 20:37, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
  • UPDATE, I think the whole article has now been reviewed, copyedited, and referenced where appropriate (I think). All initial problems have been fixed. Any further issues would be helpful. Thanks. Woodym555 22:35, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

• Can you all put the External links last per WP:GTL? Also, wondering if some of the Seealso is already in or can be incorporated into the article; ideally, See also should be minimized (see WP:GTL). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  • External links moved and see also section nuked. Woody (talk) 20:31, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• There are still incorrectly formatted citations (they all need publishers, author and publication date when available, see WP:CITE/ES), I found quite a few minor MOS glitches when running through, but more importantly, there is still a lot of uncited hard data. I did some of them, but there are still many endash fixes needed on date ranges. Nice progress, but keep going. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:00, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Looks like you picked an unfortunate time, the hyphens and a few paragraphs of uncited material were added shortly before you looked. I've removed some parts of it outright, and am considering the best way forward with the other bits. I'll look into the citation formatting now. Oldelpaso (talk) 15:37, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

• Dead links need to be addressed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:35, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Done. I have also done a WP:DASH sweep and fixed up the references where I can. Woody (talk) 10:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
    • This is looking like a keep. I would suggest one change if you think it helpful: I would change the footnotes ^ a b c d e f g Played in every Premier League season and ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m Founding member of Premier League. They aren't references/sources per se, but by using the ref tags, they end up in the References list. You might consider changing them to superscripted notes a and b, and putting them into a line at the bottom of the actual table rather than in the sources. There's a sample at Diagnosis of Asperger syndrome#Multiple sets of diagnostic criteria. Nice work ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
      • Implemented that. I agree with the reasoning. It was annoying me when I did the ref sweep, but couldn't see a way around it. Thanks for the suggestion! Woody (talk) 16:51, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Looks good; unless anyone knowledgeable on the topic has content issues, I'm a keep. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:03, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Read my "Remove" comment above. There are still content issues. --Kaypoh (talk) 04:45, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

"...with member club revenues totalling in excess of £1.4 billion." The source doesn't actually give this figure. It's repeated again in the body and should also be sourced there. (I presume it's cumulative member club revenues.)

I'm going to go over the prose myself. Lots of duplicate blue links off the top and some wordiness. Otherwise, it's keepable. The Women's League does not need greater description, as it has its own article. "...more info about what happened in the 15 seasons." Possibly, but it's not sufficient to remove status. I'd suggest coming up with a couple of sentences on article talk. Marskell (talk) 16:48, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I think I've taken care of my first point. Marskell (talk) 16:55, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I've found the £1.4bn ref and put it in. I suspect that the number was updated when the latest figures were released but the ref was not. Oldelpaso (talk) 18:06, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the work you have put in Marskell, I saw it through my watchlist. I have attempted to trim down the links, some clubs had been linked on every instance. I tried to be reasonable, ie, if linked within the last three main headings (==XYZ==), then I would delink them. I also removed a sentence of speculation which I caught on my run through. Thanks. Woody (talk) 18:24, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

The article is almost FA now, but I think everyone needs to agree whether it needs more info about what happened during the 15 seasons. I think it also needs a copy-edit (because the new paragraphs must be well written) and POV check (I pointed out a POV paragraph about the TV rights, and the Criticism section, maybe there are more problems). After all of this, I will vote Keep. --Kaypoh (talk) 06:56, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

As Marskell says, suggest a couple of sentences on the talk yourself. I don't see the need, for me, the wikilinks cover it all as does the prose on this page. Also, it wasn't POV, it was uncited, there is a difference. It can still be POV even if it is cited, it is just a particular stance. You pointed out problems very early on, they were fixed. Since it has had a rewrite, have you seen any problems with it? I accept that it is/was wordy in places, but Marskell has seen to a lot of that. (Thanks again). Woody (talk) 11:43, 19 December 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 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 12:22, 15 December 2007.

---

Political integration of India

Review commentary

Notified WT:IND

Fails 1c (ie., not enough refs from reliable sources, major part of the article is unsourced). Another concern is comprehensiveness - not enough detail about the Northeastern states, for example. Issues related to integration of some of the northeastern states still linger and are at the heart of some of its problems and need to be treated in more detail. Sarvagnya 08:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Sarvagnya, please follow the instructions at the top of WP:FAR to notify involved editors and relevant WikiProjects, and follow the samples on other FARs to post the notifications here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:23, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

The involved editor has left and locked his page. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and that's a big problem here. Because he had this book from which most citations of the article are given, and the rest of the article is based on that book(s). I don't know if there is anybody else involved in wikiproject India in possession of the book. The book was used as a reference all through-out the article. --Dwaipayan (talk) 19:31, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can see, this is precisely the problem with the article. It relies entirely too much on that one book, and as a result has a number of gaps and inaccuracies. For example, the Standstill Agreements were critical documents in the accession process, but the article makes no mention of them whatsoever, save in reference to Kashmir. The Covenants of Merger used to create big states from small princely statelets should also be at least be mentioned. All this is probably because the principal source used focused on Patel's role, and therefore did not dwell on the elements of the accession process where he did not participate. V.P. Menon's book, which is a far more relevant source, is only used in passing in one reference.

More fundamentally, the article thoroughly ignores the fact that the integration process did not begin upon independence, but well before that, during British rule itself. Integration was always a big Congress project, and the British Government toyed with it on and off, coming up with the Federal Scheme of 1930, for example, which would have integrated all of India - including British India and the princely states - under one government (it was only the outbreak of the second world war that caused this to be abandoned). Ian Copland's work discusses these project, and their position within the overall process of integration of India, in great detail. Again, because this article relies entirely too much on a description of Patel's role, it misses this altogether.

Finally, the end peters out altogether. It seems to me that the article isn't quite sure what it's trying to do here. Is the article principally about the integration of princely states into India, or is it about the broader process of forging a national identity? The references to the reorganisation of states and seccessionist movements are really only relevant if it is the latter, but at present the focus of the article seems to be on the former, with these just being tacked on as a footnote, which doesn't really work. If we're going to look at the latter, we'll need to focus on the extent to which regional identities both presented problems to be overcome in acheiving political integration, and tools that were used to further political integration, and focus a little more on regions such as the North-East. We'll also need to broaden the article's treatment of seccessionism - much of the Government's policy on this point, including the 16th Amendment to the Constitution, was shaped by the Tamil secessionist movement led by the DMK, which doesn't even merit a mention at the moment.

Notwithstanding this list, I think the article's problems can be fixed with relatively little effort and the article kept as an FA. But it will require looking at a whole lot of other sources, and not just the source that was originally used to write the article, and it will need some level of consensus on what exactly the "integration" the article's title focuses on is supposed to be - the one-off integration of princely states, or the wider ongoing project of what we often call "national integration". -- Arvind 11:22, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Arvind, what do you exactly mean by the ongoing process of national integration? This article focuses on the political integration that took place around the independence of India. If you mean by "ongoing project" the process of controlling several dis-integrative movements (Khalistan etc), I don't think that comes under the purview of this article. Yes, it does need sources. Are you in possession of the sources you talked about/or any other sources. Those will be extremely helpful to save the FA status of this article.--Dwaipayan (talk) 02:52, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

This article focuses on the political integration that took place around the independence of India.: No, it doesn't. Read the last three sections of the article. The article covers the reorganisation of states, the Punjab problem, Sikkim, seccessionism in the North-East, the creation of new states in 2000, the Telengana movement - all of which have nothing to do with the political integration that took place around the independence of India. They deal with what you say is "beyond the purview of this article". So, either we decide that the article should focus only on integrating the princely states into India - in which case we take all this out - or we decide that it should have a broader focus, in which case we talk about how successive governments dealt with the problem of creating a national identity and controlling secessionist movements.

I have access to Ian Copland's work, and I think I have a copy of VP Menon's book lying around somewhere. It is my intention to work on adding info from them, and from other sources, over the coming week. -- Arvind 13:40, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I was wrong. The article has broader focus. Can you please go ahead, adding references and trying to save the article?--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:58, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) I'm working on it - the past week's been a bit busy at work. I'm about half-way through reworking the bit of the article dealing with the integration of the princely states. But I really have no idea what to do with the rest of the article, though. Should the article deal with Goa, Pondicherry, Sikkim, secessionism, regionalism, etc., or should it stick to dealing with the princely states? The status quo - where the article deals haphazardly with a few random aspects of these issues - isn't really something we can stick with, but which way should the article go? -- Arvind (talk) 13:21, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

imo, the article should deal primarily and largely with the events leading upto the consolidation of princely states into India and then the subsequent reorganization of the states based on linguistic demographics. A section should also deal with the slo-mo restructuring that keeps happening every now and then with states being split to form new states (chattisgarh etc etc..), creation of new UTs etc.,. A section should also be dedicated to discuss the political, sociological and other(if any) impact that the integration (ie., consolidation of princely states under one political entity + reorg of states) had in the decades that followed. Here, the various khalistan, northeast, dmk secessionism etc., issues can be dealt in as WP:SS way as possible. Sarvagnya 23:50, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Just an update, so people don't think this has gone dead - I'm very much working on the article, and I hope to post a revised version which addresses most of these concerns by the end of this week. -- Arvind (talk) 12:40, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are comprehensiveness (1b) and referencing (1c). Marskell (talk) 14:39, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I've now made several rather substantial changes to the article. The article now deals only with the process of integration and the issues that arose therefrom - so it deals with the seccessionist movements in Kashmir, Tripura and Manipur, but not Punjab or Tamil Nadu, because the latter had nothing to do with the integration of the princely states or colonial enclaves into India. I've significantly expanded on the article's description of the integration process, because it was brief to the point of being misleading (for example, the privy purses had nothing to do with the initial instrument of accession as the article used to claim - they were provided as compensation for merger and the loss of princely prerogative). This's increased the size considerably, but I think this is necessary to address the issue of comprehensiveness, and at approximately 8500 words, it's still within the guidelines of WP:SS. I've also added a section on modern critical perspectives, which strikes me as being essential for encyclopaedic coverage. I believe this should address all issues raised thus far and should ensure that the article is kept, but I'd like to hear other views. Also, assistance with proofreading and polishing up the language would be welcome. -- Arvind (talk) 23:28, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, my changes have been reverted without any explanation by User:Bharatveer, right back to the version that started this process. I've asked him to explain, but I'm not interested in getting into a revert war so I have not reinstated my changes. The version I'd worked on is here. -- Arvind (talk) 11:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• Fixes needed.
  • Almost every section heading starts with "The"; see WP:MSH. Why does Fast-track integration: Merger Agreements have a capital A? Can the section headings be shortened?
    • I've removed most "the"s (the three that remain are justified, I think) and shortened the headings. -- Arvind (talk) 10:37, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Copyedit needs, sample sentence:
    • The termination of paramountcy would have in principle have meant that all rights that flowed from the states' relationship with the British crown would return to them, leaving them free to negotiate relationships with the new states of Indian and Pakistan "on a basis of complete freedom."
      • Hm. I suspect I am constitutionally incapable of writing short sentences. I would be quite grateful for help from other editors on copyediting. -- Arvind (talk) 10:37, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
        • It not only needs to be shorter, it has a grammatical error; can you get someone to run through the text? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:50, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
          • Thank you very much for your help with the overlinking. The copyeditor's league seems to be backlogged, but I'll ask on the India Wikiproject. Sundar has already copyedited two sections. -- Arvind (talk) 09:51, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Lots of WP:OVERLINKing, see WP:MOSLINK and also lots ofWP:MOSDATE linking issues, full dates should be linked, sample edit:[1]
    • I've fixed the date issues, but I'd like it if someone else could take a look at the overlinking. -- Arvind (talk) 10:37, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Can anyone find a way to work the bolded title into the first line, per WP:LEAD?
  • I will ask Brighterorange (talk · contribs) to fix the endashes on the page ranges in refs.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:19, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• Also, please consider the use of named refs (see WP:FN) to reduce the lengthy citation list and combine like refs into one line. Sample:[2] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:07, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I've combined all the duplicates I could find. -- Arvind (talk) 10:37, 12 December 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 following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept 19:01, 11 December 2007.

---

Louis Riel

Review commentary

Notified Wikipedia:WikiProject Manitoba, WP:BIO, Wikipedia:WikiProject Canada, Wikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America, Wikipedia:WikiProject Saskatchewan

This article seem to be totally without any sort of referencing - 1(c) Xdamr^talk 22:58, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, the article pretty much lacks inline cites, and some images lack detailed source information and have depreciated tags. As well, what is a list of "Graphic Novel Biographies" doing there? I say take this to FARC. Green451 00:31, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Began inline citations and referencing, and miscellaneous peer review checks. Will revise section listing of reference books - re-named Further reading. SriMesh | talk 23:00, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Fixed depreciated tags which were in use on the images. SriMesh | talk 00:31, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Started to add inline citations and references - as of this date and time about half way through article. Also contacted major contributors who originally brought article to feature article status. SriMesh | talk 02:33, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep So far the edits mentioned are very easy to do - have been started already. The biography is of someone very notable in Canada's history and of the west in particular. SriMesh | talk 03:14, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Added quite a few inline citations throughout article - should there be more? SriMesh | talk 02:20, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Note that I was one of the editors to help get it to FA status the first time. I believe that the major concerns have been addressed. The tags on the pictures and the "Graphic Novel Biographies" has been addressed by SriMesh. She has also added a number of inline citations. The lack of inline citations was actually discussed in the original FAC discussion. The rationale was given that the bulk of the biography aligns with the consensus in all of the major biographies written about Riel. As such, verification of the vast majority of the facts contained in the article is then quite easy. Given this and the fact that SriMesh has added a fair amount of citations already, I believe all the concerns have been addressed. If there are additional concerns, I'll help address them within a week of being raised. -- JamesTeterenko 18:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
• Conditional Keep. Very impressive work in such a short amount of time! There are still a few things that I can see that I would like addressed. Notably, citations are supposed to come after punctuation (including commas), the image of Riel on trial lacks source info, and the "Montana and family life" and "Riel remembered" sections need more references. After these are addressed, I'll be happy to change my vote to keep. Green451 19:02, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

• I found another copy of that photo that is slightly better quality, so I have uploaded it (with source information) and replaced the existing picture. That should knock off that concern. -- JamesTeterenko 04:38, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

• Conditional Keep Impressive work, getting all that referencing done so quickly. That is certainly my major concern dealt with. I'll take another look at the article as a whole and see if anything else strikes me, but once Green451's concerns are dealt with I see no reason why this should not remain a FA.

Xdamr^talk 21:33, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

• Please read the instructions at WP:FAR; Keep or Remove are not declared during the review phase, which is for discussing deficiencies or improvements. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:21, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Pah, bureaucracy - WP:IAR :) --Xdamr^talk 23:53, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment, I started, but too much to do. WP:MSH issues, massive redlinks in dates in refs need to be fixed, inline URLs on refs need to be fixed, WP:DASH problems in refs, mixed citation and cite templates give inconsistent results, WP:MOS#Captions punctuation attention needed, and I stopped there. Unlinked dates everywhere. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:59, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I started on the refs, but there's a smorgasborg of MOS fixes needed; maybe someone else has more time to continue. The cite templates and the old (yuk) citation template handle dates differently, which invalidates global replace. Also see MOS:CAPS#All caps, WP:MOS#Images (size). I haven't looked at the prose or citation level yet because I got stuck in basic cleanup. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:19, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Good: Sandy is dealing with these minor matters herself, rather than insisting that others do so; this is the right collegial spirit, which not all reviewers have. Please do look at the prose and references first, however; if they need to be rewritten, Sandy's cleanup will be wasted. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:42, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
• Second look; still a smorgasborg. I got through about half of the article, but there are still MOS issues, problems in the citations, missing publishers, and I found multiple instances of non-reliable sources or info not verified by sources.[3] Sustained work still needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:32, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are references and their formatting (1c, 2c) and MoS issues (2). Marskell 19:25, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

• Stalled? No progress since earlier comments.[4] Uncited sections, for example, Riel reconsidered is uncited, and Arts, literature and popular culture and Commemoration are two sections covering the same territory that could be merged with trivia reduced. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:55, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• MOS breach: logical punctuation required: "Father of Manitoba." (done punctuation moved outside of parenthesis)
• Hard to believe he's only 14 yo in the pic.
• "Red River Rebellion"—Why the last upper-case R? (done is the title of an event)
• "Fifty", yet "48"—which is it to be, words or numerals? (done words)
• What kind of $? Specify on first occurrence. (done Canadian Currency)
• Do we really need to link "United States"? And "whisky"? Sift through and weed out all trivial links. Tony (talk) 14:41, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

• Retain if these are the worst that can be said against it.
  • Red River Rebellion is a proper name, like, say, "War of 1812"; both should so capped.
  • The rest of this MOScruft should be ignored, like the page itself. I regret that Tony feels the need to ride his hobbyhorses here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:15, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I regret the same of you. Marskell 12:31, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

• Replaced and / or added citations for tags covering unverifiable citations, and tags for facts needing citations. SriMesh | talk 04:10, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment Citations are required in several places:

• "credited with ending the monopoly," Credited by whom?
  • p.13
• "Riel was therefore well known in the Red River."
  • pp. 13,16, 17
• "The Riels were noted for their devout Catholicism and strong family ties." Noted by whom?
  • pp. 19-20
• "Descriptions of him at this time" Described by whom?
  • p.26-8. His contemporaries, but the source does not say which. Stanley has several pages on Riel at Montreal college, and cites descriptions by different classmates, but the moodiness is mentioned without a name.
• "but his fiancée’s family opposed her involvement with a Métis,"
  • p.33
• "Compounding this disappointment, Riel found legal work unpleasant,"
  • p.33
• "He is believed to have worked odd jobs in Chicago, Illinois" Believed by whom?
  • The account of his fellow-student Louis Schmidt, and some other sources which Stanley does not name. p.34

This is just in the first section. The remainder of the article similarly needs extra citations. DrKiernan 11:16, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for finally raising substantive issues; it's a pity it's so late in the process. Most of these appear to be the consensus story of Riel's early life; they are largely supported by Dict. of Canadian Biography, the first external link, the devoutness of his parents is also mentioned here, under the second. As a curious reader, I would consider the life by George Stanley (which is mentioned as the principal source) to be the obvious place to check; I have not yet done so. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:11, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

• • Now that the Teller matter is resolved, I will see if I can lay hands on a copy of Stanley. This reads like it was written out of one principal source, presumably that. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:10, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
    • It was. I have rephrased slightly, and noted the page numbers from Stanley above. Since I was doing so, I added a collective note to the end of the section; but I'm not sure this aids the reader more than the general note in the bibliography. We can add additional such notes to the end of each section, I suppose, but why?

• • A reader with Stanley's book should be able to find any such reference in less than 5 minutes, note or no note; one without it will not actually be helped by any footnote. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:05, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I have struck my objection but need to look over the rest of the article before switching to keep. DrKiernan (talk) 09:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep The "Riel reconsidered" and "Commemmoration" sections could do with a copy-edit and some of the websites used as footnotes don't qualify, in my opinion, as reliable sources (they're self-published). However, the information in the article seems to correlate well with the one reliable biography that I have looked at. DrKiernan (talk) 15:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

• Will someone please deal with the WP:OVERLINKing? Samples. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:05, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
• Note I will be giving this article extra time because I feel that the concerns raised are minor and can be addressed in a short amount of time. Joelito (talk) 02:04, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

• Remove—Awkward prose, such as these, from just one small section:
  • "The majority population"
  • "a scholar of science"?
  • "progressed to the point of Riel having signed a contract of marriage"—ouch.
  • Unencyclopedic vagueness (also a MOS no-no): "He remained in Montreal for a period". Insults our readers. Same for "and perhaps as early as 1866 he had resolved to leave Quebec"—Perhaps? Where's the reference, or is it the whim of a WPian editor?
    • Stanley, again, p. 33. The "period" could be refined, to "for somewhat over a year", but the vaguemess reflects the vagueness of the source, which itself is plainly dealing with inadequate evidence. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:05, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
      • Y Done Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

PS Sandy, like you, is under no obligation to perform any work at all on nominations, PMA. Tony (talk) 13:53, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• ??? I praised her for acting to improve the encyclopedia. I stand by that praise. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:15, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

• Remove; although Joelito allowed extra time, these are the only changes since my last comment several weeks ago, before Tony's comments. There are still prose issues, large amounts of uncited text, and MOS breaches as mentioned (for example, WP:MOSDATE links needed, and WP:OVERLINKing not addressed). Nothing happening here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Always ignore MOScruft. This case is aggravated by the irrelevance of the complaints here made to the quality of the article; also by the lack of actually relevant examples. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

This can still be saved. I've added three refs (two per above) and also three fact requests. The over-linking is quite bad and I've trimmed some. If there specific prose examples, I'll edit myself. Marskell (talk) 10:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

• ah, ha, in addition to your work, the good Doc Kiernan has also been in there,[5] so I can now strike my Oppose. Nice work! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:57, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Closing: I'm going to go ahead and keep this; I know Joel was leaning that way. Stray sentences can still be found but this is within criteria in general, especially after the work today. The one thing that stands out is the first paragraph of "Reconsidered". It does, in-phrase, cite historians, and the content isn't particularly drastic or challengeable (to a Canadian). So good. Marskell (talk) 19:00, 11 December 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 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 16:25, 10 December 2007.

---

Elizabeth I of England

Review commentary

Notified Wikiprojects Anglicanism, Biography, British Royalty, England, and User:ALoan

An Emsworth classic, seems to have had a small effort at updating its references, but I notice one reference is not there, and it looks like more in-line citations and some copyediting are in order. Judgesurreal777 21:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

• Bummer it already appeared on the main page - I was going to suggest going full-tilt at buffing it up and getting it on the main page while the movie is on. Not in too bad shape but yes on the copyediting and inline reffing. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:37, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

• • The article has the full support of WikiProject Anglicanism and we will do what ever is suggested to maintain this articles status. -- SECisek 06:07, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Primarily, it needs inline citations throughout, and secondarily, it needs some copyediting as it is now a very old Featured article. Judgesurreal777 22:16, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

We will get on it. -- SECisek 20:09, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Copy of the following to article talk:

The article has become enormous (85 kb). I've moved all the lists of films, fiction, video games etc. to a new article Cultural depictions of Elizabeth I of England (crossed fingers it doesn't get deleted). I intend instead to add some good material about Elizabeth and depictions of her during her reign, using Strong, etc.

I've cut the section "Patrilineal descent". This is a recent and superfluous (in my opinion) addition, since we already have a family tree. You don't even get lists like that in the history books. We shouldn't be influenced into keeping it by the fact that these lists have appeared all over British monarchy articles. The "styles" section is another one you don't see in history books: those too are dumped everywhere, presumably by the one-man royalty project. qp10qp (talk) 19:07, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I've trimmed the bibliography down to a few good books. As I edit the article, the list will grow longer again, but with the addition of different books—the ones used to reference the text. In case anyone thinks this is a little drastic in the short term, I've listed the removed books on the article talk page where anyone can read it and check it against what I am doing. If you wish to add anything back, please be selective, because there are some dreadful books there (I suspect someone just pasted a list from a website). I am also going to change the format to author-first, and add more details about the books still listed. In the short term, one or two footnotes (not many, because most of these books do not seem to have been used to source the text) may be slightly stranded, but I will sort this out when referencing the information. qp10qp (talk) 19:17, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the list of historical fiction books and added it to Cultural depictions of Elizabeth I of England. qp10qp (talk) 19:43, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

(By the way, if anyone wonders what I am up to instead of getting on with the good old business of citations, well, I can only say that before you can paper the living room, you have to move the furniture out of the way. This is always a good opportunity for a bonfire.) qp10qp (talk) 19:54, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the section called "References". I looked the links and sources up and found them all to be not worth using (see article Talk page, whereto I have moved them). I have made a "Notes and references section", and the cites will refer to books listed alphabetically in the bibliography.

I've removed the section called "Style and arms". It is obscure, in my view, and you don't find this sort of section in history books or other encyclopedias. No doubt the royalty project will try to dump it back in the article; but if any of this material deserves a mention, it can go in the main text, in my opinion (having this random section after the "Legacy" section, seems to me anticlimactic and straggly). If you click on the "more" link above the infobox portrait, you'll find another horrid infodump by the royalty project; since it doesn't interfere with the surface of the article too much, I suppose I'll leave it (though it creates design ugliness in the infobox heading); these "more" links were added to all the monarchs a while ago and sit there like carbuncles. At least they help with the case for dropping the styles section, since they make the latter even more redundant.

By all means disagree with me; I've posted the section on the article talk page for scrutiny and discussion. qp10qp (talk) 22:58, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Sheesh! Some more styles cruft removed, a stylebox template thingy in the middle of the article. I've posted this thing on the article talk page.qp10qp (talk) 18:41, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are referencing (1c) and focus (4). Marskell (talk) 14:45, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

• I hope people won't vote yet. I've been working on the article for a week and will need at least two more before it is in shape (could do it more quickly if I didn't have a job and other distractions!). I will say here when I feel the article is possibly up to present FA standard. qp10qp (talk) 18:49, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Progress report: I've been working on referencing for the last few days; I'm also rewriting, rephrasing, and shortening as I go and have got as far as the marriage section so far. I intend to re-cover my tracks a couple of times, to add density and variety to the refs. I'm leaving purely prose issues until last, and the refinement of the lead to the very last. qp10qp (talk) 18:56, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Update: Most of "Foreign Policy" done now; will do the "France" section tonight. Should be all done by this time next week, other things being equal. qp10qp 16:39, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks qp, as ever. Marskell 18:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Update: I suppose it can be voted on now. I still have some ordering to do on "Legacy", need to rework the lead, sort the external links, and will then give the article a couple of prose brush-ups. But I feel I have addressed the original issues of citations and copyediting, so the relevant work is done, I hope. qp10qp (talk) 16:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• Strong keep DrKiernan (talk) 09:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - Doesn't even look like the same article now, its beautiful! Somebody give this man a barnstar for over 150 references added and tons of copyediting!! Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:03, 10 December 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 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 11:26, 8 December 2007.

---

Anne Frank

Review commentary

Notified WP:Biography, Wikipedia:WikiProject_Germany, Wikipedia:WikiProject_Netherlands, Wikipedia:WikiProject Jewish history

I believe this article needs to be seriously reviewed if it's to remain a featured article. The reason I believe it no longer meets this criteria (and in fact, never met the current criteria) is because of the lack of inline citations. I believe the article is adequately sourced, but not referenced from a fact to fact basis, rather the article as a whole, but that's not fitting with being completely referenced. This reason alone brings the validity of the article into question, as I (nor almost any other reader) would read every resource available to confirm the validity of the article's claims. --lincalinca 03:33, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I originally nominated this article, but I have to agree with you on this. Is there a way to refer back to the version of the article when it was promoted? (rather than wade back through 2+ years of edits). Do we keep a link to the version as promoted? I can't remember exactly, but I feel that there were more inline cites at one point - probably not enough but still better than now. The entire references section has been greatly changed since I nominated this - the "further reading" etc section was added later, and in the process (I think) a lot of the original referencing/citing was lost. I'm disappointed - I put a huge amount of time into this article back then, but I don't have the time to invest now. I agree with you though. Rossrs 07:03, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

• Would the nominator please notify relevant Wikiprojects and editors as per the FAR instructions? You may find recent editors who will help to bring the article up to standard. Please announce the notifications just below the subsection title. Thanks. --RelHistBuff 13:18, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Judging from article history (see the talk page header) the promoted article looked like this—this older version is not passable now, however. It's not just article deterioration but rising standards that bring things to FAR. Marskell 15:27, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

If somebody is willing to drop this into my sandbox with all the cite needed tags for what they feel is needed, I will gladly spend an hour or so a day working on it. This article is too important to lose its Featured status. By the way, the reference formatting needs a lot of work, too. Jeffpw 18:11, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I just notified Wikipedia:WikiProject Jewish history of this as it is obviously in their purview as well. Tvoz |talk 16:17, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are references (1c) and their formatting (2c). Marskell (talk) 13:26, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree - I have started to search out better references (I have already found several) and include them in "cite" format - also started converting good refs into cite format. For example - I'm working on replacing this weak source with original citations - I already have converted two out of the three refs to this web page. Tvoz |talk 20:10, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

That weak tertiary source now is gone, and replaced with the original citations. If there are other specific concerns about sourcing, please post them so that they can be addressed. I hate to see this article lose its FA status. Tvoz |talk 20:32, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I do hope this can be saved. Tony (talk) 05:02, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I concur that the article could be saved, but there's work involved in promoting it to become a Featured article according to the current criteria. My greatest gripe about it as it stands, in the citations of references overall. There are no citations used in the Lead, in the Early life section, the infobox uses only one, which is - rightly - in defence of the statement that she is dutch (as this is a point of some contention). There're no supporting citations of the "before going into hiding" section (which also needs a thorough copyedit, re-write of much of its prose, and probably retitling to an encyclopedic title like "prior to isolation" or something to that effect). The "Life in the Achterhuis" section only contains one citation in its entirety. "Arrest and concentration camps" contains three, but two fo these support one fact. There is a rather bold statement that "After the war, it was estimated that of the 110,000 Jews deported from the Netherlands during the Nazi occupation, only 5,000 survived." which I don't believe (a) that many were deported to the Netherlands or (b) that few survived, and to add to the possibility of inaccuracy here, it's been fact tagged since April this year, so after 7 months, it's not been either removed or confirmed. These sorts of issuescontinue through to the end of the article. I'm certain that with the resources used at the end of the article, many of the facts can be confirmed. I'm certain some are either incorrect or need clarification or improvement. One other thing is that statements like "See People associated with Anne Frank for the fates of the other occupants of the Achterhuis, their helpers, and other people connected to Anne Frank." should not be used, as we shouldn't be using "see this" in prose. This statement could be mentioned within a sentence such as "Other people associated with Anne Frank had varied futures, as some were killed prior to Frank, some later and some lived into old age" or something to that effect. That sentence is way too ambiguous and certainly not encyclopedic enough. --lincalinca 10:06, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree, except "prior to isolation" is not an improvement on "before going into hiding" - they were in hiding, they were not isolated, they were not completely "cut off" from the world or from people - but I'll see if I can think of something. I don't see anything substantially wrong with the way the section is worded, so in terms of copyediting - could you be more specific? and I will make whatever additions I can to the citations of references. One point though - the lead and infobox should each be a summary of points covered within the article. Per Wikipedia:Lead section, I would hope that redundancy of citations could be avoided - ie if it's eventually cited within the article, is it necessary to repeat the citation in the lead or infobox? If there are specific points you feel must be cited in either of those sections, even if they are cited within the article, could you please indicate them. thanks. Also, have cited the Dutch death figures. The Netherlands suffered a huge percentage loss of their Jewish population, but it was unacceptable to be stating figures without citing them. Rossrs (talk) 11:24, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Question: If Wikipedia should not be used as a link farm, should it also not be used as a catalogue for every work written on a subject? In point: "Further reading" - is this extensive (exhaustive?) list needed? Would anyone object if only works directly referenced were listed? Rossrs (talk) 14:13, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Also, as the reference list was starting to get messy, I've reworked it in line with Johannes Kepler as suggested at Wikipedia:Footnotes#Style recommendations. Rossrs (talk) 07:45, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Answer: Wikipedia should not be a link farm, however the main issue with this article is that it provides plenty of references, but not enough citations to them. The further reading items should be assessed for unique pieces of information and those selected should be converted into footnote citations only and not be listed in the way they are now. --lincalinca 10:46, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, and that's being addressed, so once it's fully cited (which can and should be done without having to refer to Amazon's complete Anne Frank catalogue) the list can go. Good. Rossrs (talk) 12:51, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

• Is this on track? Are people still working on it? I had the impression it was being worked on, but I just took a look, and was surprised. It seems that many different editors are adding citations maybe (?) and there is no consistent biblio style, with many formatting problems. Named refs aren't being used properly, dates aren't formatted, there's no consistent style, dashes are all over the place. There are other MOS issues throughout. I started cleanup, but there is more than I can do on my own, and I'm wondering what the status is. If the plan is to save this, some sustained work is going to be needed still. I also did a bit of reduction of WP:OVERLINKing, but there's more. I see there was discussion of removing the biblio farm; is that going to be done? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:04, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Most of the additions since this was nominated for review, until your recent edits, have been done by myself and User:Tvoz. I don't really understand formatting for cites etc, despite reading the relevant pages, and have done my best. Now that I see how you've fixed some of them, that gives me a guide on what to do. A lot of them are old cites that have been in their current state since they were first added. It would be great if other editors could also look at the article and make some edits, especially since there have been some who have made suggestions here, or have offered to help, but have not made edits to the article. As for the biblio farm, if there is no objection to removing it, could we just do it now? (Actually, I'll be bold. There has been no objection and it can easily be restored if necessary). None of the titles in the list have been used to extract information as far as I can see, and although there is still a lot of citing to be done, it can be done from elsewhere, I'm sure. Rossrs 01:04, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

If you all are still working on it, I will try to pitch in on the citation formatting, but you've got to pick one system and use it consistently. Do you all prefer to use cite templates or to do them manually? Yes, good time to lose the biblio farm; it's probably grown over time as book advertising. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:06, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Cite templates have grown on me - I find they make it easier to have a consistent look to the refs, and once you're used to them easier to remember to include the necessary fields. So if it were up to me I'd use them. Tvoz |talk 07:25, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

This is where my ignorance comes into play, so let me apologise in advance ;-) If we use cite templates, does that mean that for each reference to a particular book, we would need to have an individual complete citation to show the page number? Example : Bette Davis. If so, this is what I would like to use, and if all the many references that I've recently added need to be changed, that's fine. I'll be happy to change them. In the meantime, I'll keep adding sources because I guess finding the source is the primary aim, and when this is clarified for me, I'll start to go back and fix. And now for my next question - have I just agreed with Tvoz or disagreed? Rossrs 10:53, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Pros and cons :-) Cite templates chunk up the size, and it's fine to use them for websources while using a shortened notation for book page numbers. Bette Davis is *awful*; that is exactly what I wouldn't do. The method currently in use at Anne Frank is preferable. Except for the first couple of refs at the top, it's fine. I was referring to problems in the citations templates, which I've now corrected. Please don't do Bette Davis :-) List the book sources in the ref section, and add just the page notation in the footnotes section, as is now done for most of the citations. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

LOL. Noted. Rossrs 08:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Formatting looks good so far (thankfully, since Gettysburg Address will make me tear my hair out). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

It's mostly looking good, but you still need to reference lots of things throughout the lead, particularly. I can see that the article's citations are tremendously improving, so good work there, but the lead needs to have citations too. Much of its information is going to be easy to cite, so I'll leave it to those who have the books/hard references. --lincalinca 07:49, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree there is still a lot needing to be referenced throughout the article, but not the lead. Can you please clarify what you think needs to be cited in the lead? You're making the same point I've already specifically asked you to clarify. So again, as I mentioned above, Wikipedia:Lead section#Citations in the lead section discourages redundant cites. ie the lead is a summary of the article. Nothing should be in the lead that is not in the article (and I've removed points that existed only in the lead), and the article should be fully cited (working on it). Therefore anything cited in the lead comes under the heading of "redundant" in my opinion because it potentially duplicates cites that should exist in the body of the article. What are the "lots of things" that need to be cited in the lead? If you can give examples, then I may understand what you are looking for, but I don't see anything that is controversial or open to question that can't be sourced in the article itself. Thanks Rossrs 09:35, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

On second thought, there was one phrase that looked a bit too much like an uncited quote or opinion, so I've removed it. Rossrs 12:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Do remember on citation templates: what matters is what the reader sees, which should include the standard punctuation, italicization, and so on. Some editors find this easier to do by hand, and this does leave more flexibility in dealing with unusual sources; some prefer templates; but as long as the article displays right, don't sweat it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:11, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Seems well-written and to satisfy the other criteria. Tony (talk) 09:44, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - as I was one of the original nominators/editors getting this to FA status and as I've done a lot of the recent referencing etc, I'm obviously biased, but I sincerely feel it should be kept. I didn't feel this way when it was first nominated for review and I could see the article's deficiencies as well as anyone, but I think it's been improved to the current FA standard. Rossrs (talk) 10:46, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's keepable now. Good work all. Marskell (talk) 11:23, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

There are still some very minor glitches to be worked out; can we keep it open until they're fixed, only so the oldid listed in the articlehistory will be to a shiny clean version? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:08, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Can someone please fix all of the footnotes such as

• Frank, Anne, p. 242

There are *two* Frank, Anne's listed in the sources, so we don't know to which book these page numbers are attached. You can solve this by adding the year in parens after the author, so we know which source applies. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:25, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Now I also see Frank, Anne and Netherlands State Institute for War Documentation, p. 102, so I assume the others are to Frank and Massotty, if that's correct, would be better to clarify. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:28, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, minor tweaks, missing publishers, footnote placement per WP:FN, good to go now,[6] but please clarify the double Anne Frank biblio entries mentioned so the archived oldid will be squeaky clean. Nice work !! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:38, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Done. Really wasn't sure how to cite the "Critical Edition" of the diary because the section cited was not Anne Frank's writing but was commentary by the Netherlands State Institute for War Documentation, but yes, your assumption was correct. Have changed the others to "Frank and Massotty". Thank you for your input during this review. It was a major learning experience for me, and without all of your comments and edits, along with nice explicit summaries, I would never have known what to do. Rossrs (talk) 16:11, 8 December 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 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 07:35, 8 December 2007.

---

Swedish language

The article doesn't live up to the criteria as per statements of user:panda at Talk:Swedish language and user talk:panda#Fact tagging. It's full of original research, speculation and bogus claims about grammatical genders and verb endings that don't exist (as proven by panda). Please denominate it as soon as possible.

Peter ^Isotalo 02:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Many exaggerations by Peter, once again. The article needs references for verifiability and for disputed claims brought up in the talk page. It also contains incomplete references. –panda 03:15, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

• Recommend speedy close as bad-faith nomination disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. It is clear from the talk pages linked to above that Peter Isotalo considers the article to still be of FA quality. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 19:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

• I recommend we hold it in review; it won't hurt for other knowledgeable editors to review the citation issues raised, considering the article is an older promotion and citation standards have changed. It is easy to spot statements that look like opinion and would benefit from attribution, examples:

• In mass media it is no longer uncommon for journalists to speak with a distinct regional accent, but the most common pronunciation and the one perceived as the most formal is still Central Standard Swedish.
• This type of classification, however, is based on a somewhat romanticized nationalist view of ethnicity and language. The idea that only rural variants of Swedish should be considered "genuine" is not generally accepted by modern scholars.

Also, the text is replete with external jumps that need to be removed, and it's not hard to spot MOS breaches, example: From 1918-1930, when Estonia ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:40, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Please follow the nomination instructions at the top of FAR and notify involved editors and relevant WikiProjects with {{subst:FARMessage|Swedish language}}, and post a note back to here confirming notifications. Thank you, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:44, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

The following have been notified:

• Wikiprojects:

• WikiProject Sweden
• WikiProject Languages
• Wikiproject Finland

• Primary editors:

• Peter Isotalo (aka Karmosin) - primary editor and the original FAC nominator
• Fred J (aka User:Fred chessplayer)
• Alarm
• Steverapaport
• Bishonen

The next three editors with the most edit counts (Wiglaf, Ruhrjung, and Johan Magnus) were not notified since they have either left Wikipedia or have not edited since 2005/2006.

• Other:

• Swedish Wikipedians' notice board

–panda (talk) 03:41, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy close: See the talk page. The nomination illustrated bad faith. We are looking at one editor vs. about five. The one editor is extremely upset, has been unable to gain consensus at the talk page, and has made this movement. FAR will not benefit from grafting the anger and frustration of that talk page into its space. The same fights in multiple places does no one any good, and, if you look at the claims made in the nomination, they are strictly content arguments. Unless there are Swedish language speakers and scholars who have not weighed in there, there is no ability to gather more of them to weigh in here. This is an argument that is internal to the article and has nothing to do with FA standards. Essentially, panda says that the article is wrong, not that it fails FA. Geogre (talk) 11:40, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I didn't say the article was "wrong", I questioned the FA status of the article due to its limited references.[7] That User:Peter Isotalo then nominated it as a bad faith nomination doesn't change that the article needs more references and, as it now stands, could benefit from an FA review. –panda (talk) 14:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Why are you acting surprised, panda? You recommended this course of action twice at talk:Swedish language due to your disagreements with me over the article contents and its references. Peter ^Isotalo 15:11, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
      • Hmmm ... I'm wondering why Peter thinks I'm acting surprised. Please stop being disruptive and help work on the article's FA status instead of being angry at me. As stated previously, that you made the original nomination because you were angry doesn't change that it could benefit from an FA review. –panda (talk) 15:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
        • panda, considering the amount of horse carcass beating that you've engaged in over the past week or so, could you at least consider toning down your accusatory tone? Peter ^Isotalo 15:24, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
          • As I've already written many times to you, consider taking your comments and applying them to yourself. –panda (talk) 15:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: This nomination was largely done out of frustration with panda's behavior and belligerent approach to article improvement. While there are occasional hints of reason in some of the pointers, it is very difficult to sort out these nuggets of valid criticism out from the overwhelming amount of pure argumentativeness and bluster about breeching policy the moment it's cited. Peter ^Isotalo 12:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

• Re: External jumps. Peter has now reverted the removal of external jumps and questions why external jumps should be removed. –panda (talk) 15:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy close This is completely pointless since we're already at a "no, you're a towel"-level of argument as soon as any disagreement between myself and panda arises. This has to be worked out elsewhere before a FAR will be beneficial. Peter ^Isotalo 16:47, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

FAR is not dispute resolution. Closing. Marskell (talk) 07:34, 8 December 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 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 11:42, 6 December 2007.

---

Edward Teller