Wikipedia:Featured article review/archive/February 2007

1 Removed status
2 Kept status

Removed status

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed 09:37, 19 February 2007.

Flag of South Africa

Review commentary

Messages left at Heraldry and vexillology, PZFUN Jeffpw 22:27, 21 January 2007 (UTC) Additional messages at Africa notice board and South Africa. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

This article is pretty well written, but lacks any inline citations. The "proper display" section is overloaded with subsections, and some of the images may not truly be free. McMillin24 _contribs^talk 22:16, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed the Everest photo, since it is not free and lacks a source. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 23:09, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I made the flags smaller, trying to get rid of that little open space in the paragraph that seems unseemly. It didn't work, however. Anyway to fix that?--Thomas.macmillan 18:59, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Move to FARC, issues unaddressed during review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:16, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are lack of citations (1c), images (3), subsections (2). Marskell 12:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

What images is it lacking and what should be dealt with the sub sections? User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 16:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Remove Fails 1c. LuciferMorgan 23:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Remove per Lucifer. Trebor 22:57, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Remove User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 02:20, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Remove; fails 1c and maybe 1a; little attempt has been made. — Deckill er 04:28, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

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

The article was removed 20:23, 7 February 2007.

Evolution

Review commentary

Messages left at Raul654 and Evolutionary biology. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Evolution offers a "take your pick" menu of deficiencies in WP:WIAFA. It was nominated by Raul654 (talk · contribs) several years ago, but has no main author (which is apparent in the Table of Contents). It has an External link farm, and a See also farm (see WP:EL and WP:NOT). Many of the references/footnotes are not correctly formatted. The article size is 104KB overall, with 60KB of prose, suggesting the need for better use of summary style. The article has broad swatches of uncited text. It has external jumps to terms that should be wikified (example, Another mechanism causing gene duplication is intergenic recombination, particularly 'exon shuffling', ... ) It needs a complete re-evaluation, reorganization, and rewrite. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

My opinion, which I have mentioned several times before, is that the article could stand some improving. Here are my suggestions, most of which are not new:

remove the history of evolutionary thought sections and leave at most a paragraph with a link to the longer main articles on this
remove the objections to evolution section and replace it with a short summary paragraph with a link to another article describing this (which might for time being be the controversy article, but eventually could be a separate article on this; I am working on a draft that might either go into the controversy article or be a separate article summarizing the objections). The evolution article should be on the science and little else. Other articles can address the history or the controversy with creationism/ID/creation science etc.
the links could be moved to a separate article listing and organizing links on the topic, and then only a few links included in the article itself
the introductory paragraphs, or at least introductory sentences, of all sections should be accessible to the average reader.
After many attempts I am glad to see the lead is becoming accessible and less technical
I am glad that there is an accessible introduction to evoltion, which I lobbied for
excessive bits on the philosophy of science in various places should be removed (removing the objections section would probably get rid of most of them)--Filll 17:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I might also mention that in the past, efforts to improve it were met with severe resistance. I am glad to see that it seems to be moving ahead now, finally. Iam not sure what happened to the authors that fought so desperately to avoid any changes.--Filll 17:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your idea to create a separate article with links, pls see WP:EL and WP:NOT - that seems to be the equivalent of creating a webpage, which is not encyclopedic. Just get rid of them - isn't there a DMOZ category which summarizes them? I'll go look. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I have seen articles which provide links, with annotations to them. They are very useful. They also divide the links in categories. For a reader who wants to know where to go and what to look for this, this can be invaluable. Why not something here? I know it might violate some rule or other if not done properly. But it would be helpful in several was, and others have done it.--Filll 17:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Other articles may also be in violation of WP:EL and WP:NOT. It's not our job; this is an encyclopedia.

Evolution at the Open Directory Project

There you go - one place that does it for you. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

No offense, but that really is not as useful as what I have seen here in Wikipedia. Organized by subject. Uniform articles. Annotated links. etc.--Filll 18:05, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

No offense taken - but being a web directory is *still* Not Our Job, and External links should be used sparingly. This will eventually be a Remove vote from me if ELs aren't cleaned up. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

The most egregious problem with this article is found right at the top - For a non-technical introduction to the topic, please see Introduction to evolution. It has been decided in the past that even technical articles should be - at least partially - accessible to layman. (And, to be frank - evolution is not nearly as technical as the math articles that inspired the previous discussion.) Raul654 17:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

- Writing as the person that lobbied for the introductory article and also helped to write it, I think I must respond. Yes the main article or at least the introductory paragraphs of each section and the lead should be accessible. The existence of an introduction to evolution article does not get one off the hook. However the argument has been made repeatedly that the editors can not be as technically precise as they want and use the jargon they want if it has to be dumbed down for the public. So it is not unreasonable to have a suite of articles, like the Simple Wikipedia Simple:evolution article, and the Introduction to evolution article and the evolution article, to address all levels as much as possible. After all, Encyclopedia Britannica has at least 6 different levels in their products.
- Also, it is true that evolution is not as complicated as quantum mechanics or special relativity. But people still have problems even with stupid old evolution, obviously. And we have had people write to us to thank us for writing the introduction article so they could get up to speed. After they understand the terms a bit, they feel more comfortable about tackling the main articles.--Filll 18:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
  - the argument has been made repeatedly that the editors can not be as technically precise as they want and use the jargon they want if it has to be dumbed down for the public - for (at least) the introduction, that is exactly what they are required to do by the FA criteria. For the rest of the article, it's perfectly acceptable to use a technical term, and link to the article on it. Raul654 18:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Of course, there is no problem with them being technical in the body of the article as long as they make the lead accessible and the introductory paragraphs or sentences. Which is what I have been fighting for with only minimal success for months and months.--Filll 18:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

A major problem is a group of editors who keep reverting the lead to versions from months ago, allowing only attempts to simplify it that fit in with that original structure, and often reverting even that. The best I've managed to push through is a major structural change in the order of the article, and certain cleanings-up of the introduction.

For instance, this is a version from October: [1] As of time of writing, the opening reads: [2] However, here's a version from 26 December: [3]

This was a version come up with over a month by numerous editors, it has been reverted to an old, WP:LEAD violating version. Frankly, losing FA and having to edit it to get it back may be the only way to make real progress on the lead. Vanished user ^talk 19:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I had not noticed what happened to the new lead. It makes me sick. It was gorgeous. I have had similar problems with editors who are in love with what existed 5 months ago, or 1 year ago or 3 years ago. I had an awful time trying to battle them and withdrew for the moment when I did not seem to have any support. I think the only way forward is as Adam suggests: Slam them and slam them hard. Take away FA status. Downgrade the status even further as you see fit. And maybe even have some sort of voting/comment session on the status and future direction needed for the article. These editors need to be confronted with the truth of 20 or 30 or 50 or 100 other editors telling them they are damaging the article, which I believe would be done. I will not battle these characters alone. For example, just because an editor started the article almost 6 years ago, does not give this editor any rights to keep it the same way it was years ago (recalling a very nasty fight I had a few weeks ago). The article is, as pointed out above repeatedly, a mess. So they need their faces rubbed in it and they need to know that their efforts at slowly progress are definitely unappreciated. A new consensus needs to emerge.--Filll 19:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I've reverted it back to the last version I could find - if there was a better, later one, use that. Also shrunk History of evolutionary thought - still needs some work, but in one shot gets the article into length requirements, as far as I can tell. Frankly, though, I do think it might be beneficial, and remove some of the stagnation, to put the article through the wringer of public comment again, by which I mean no offense to all the other - and there are quite a lot - good editors out there. The whole thing could use a simplification in language, and if losing FA helps get past certain overly-conservative elements, it's probably more beneficial in the long run than not. I don't think the article is that bad - it needs a lot of copyediting and glossing of terms more than a complete rewrite. Perhaps we can take bits from Introduction to evolution for this purpose. Vanished user ^talk 19:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

And I've reverted youir reversion of the into Adam. It was reading very well before you reverted and you gave no reasons for your changes in talk. Candy 21:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

This is exactly why I am reluctant to do much to try to help with the current horrific mess of the article. People are not really convinced if it needs to be improved, or how it should be done.--Filll 21:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it might be sensible to have an "FA Review On Hold" status - whereby a month or so is given for the article to be worked into shape before FAR is reopened. It might not be regularly useful, but it would be a good, less disruptive way to encourage people to help fix an FA that had fallen somewhat below FA quality. Vanished user ^talk 20:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

We are always willing to extend time in review, as long as progress is evident and ongoing; it may be premature to request an extension since today is the article's first day in review. There is much work to be done to clean up, shorten and bring the article to FA standards; if some editors are determined to resist all efforts, extra time may not be useful. A month is enough time to rework the article, if all editors will work together. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. If all editors work together. I will believe it when I see it. Not only do editors have to waste a lot of time combatting creationists, but then they fight amongst themselves. Some want it more technical. Some less. Some longer than it even is right now. Some shorter. Some would see no problem with it being two or three times as long as it is at present I bet. The battles can be so pitched it is ludicrous. So...I just make suggestions over and over and watch them be ignored.--Filll 00:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Having had my restoration and expansion (to define mutation as well) of the introduction reverted, I'm kind of inclined to agree that this is an uphill battle. Vanished user ^talk 04:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

One can do a tremendous amount of work, try to build consensus, wait for weeks, hammer out text. And then ask if it can be installed. Have everyone agree. Install it, and get it immediately reverted. And the editor who reverts it refuses to even give a reason why. And if you push them, have them attack you and threaten you with administrative consquences. I hate the idea of an edit war. But people who have been here a long time know lots of people and know all the rules and they can be impossible to buck to improve the article. I saw random replicator who is a biology teacher try several times. She/He did a great job on the introduction article with me, and tried very hard on the evolution article several times to fix a paragraph or two. Only to have them blown away, after working on them for weeks and building consensus. Something is badly badly broken here. And I do not know what to do. --Filll 04:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict with Filll) Having looked over the talk page, and considering the resistance to needed improvements in the first day, it doesn't look promising; but, it's only been a day, and you've got a month. Just a note (based on talk page comments); yes, some topics need to be longer than others, but 60KB of prose is over the line. Articles with 40KB of prose are considered long - that would be a goal for a *long* article, which still means cutting a third of this article. (You can read how to calculate readable prose at WP:LENGTH - the fact that See also and External links also need to be pruned is separate from readable prose.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

25 problems to resolve, for starters:

The third paragraph of the lead section goes into too much detail about the circumstances surrounding The Origin of Species. That level of detail might be appropriate in the "History" section, but no more than a few words should be devoted to it in the lead section.
The armadillo image has an excessively long caption, bloated by trivia. It is also poorly-placed; having two lengthy vertical blocks of text and image at the top of the article makes the page look clumsy and cluttered. The armadillo thing should probably be either shortened and transplanted to another part of the article, or removed altogether.
~~Section titles should not be capitalized. "Basic Processes" and "Mechanisms of Evolution" are thus incorrect.~~
~~It is incorrect to italicize "e.g." and "i.e.".~~ (There is also some excessive and inconsistent use of the latter.)
~~It is incorrect to italicize quoted text.~~
Some languages crosses the line from being simple and user-friendly to being overcasual. Academic, encyclopedic tone should be maintained, and we should avoid treating our readers like infants with phrases like "phenotypic variation (e.g., what makes you appear different from your neighbor)".
Although the article does a good job of explaining most terms, some new terms are still unexplained, and a surprising number are unlinked, like gene, genotype, genetic variation, and many more.
There is an overuse of parentheses in this article. These can be replaced by em-dashes, commas, etc. in some cases, to avoid making the text seem fragmented.
~~Avoid external links in the article text, like the Tetrahymena link.~~
There are various minor grammatical errors that are not significant enough to mention here; a thorough copyedit should fix them.
"Selection and adaptation" seems to be a little too long and a little too listy, relative to the other, more compact sections. Cutting down on all the subtypes listed could probably cut this section's length almost in half; that level of detail is more appropriate for the daughter articles anyway. This section also needs references, badly—especially for its paragraph on evolutionary teleology.
~~Bolding should not be use to emphasize a random word in a prose paragraph.~~
There are several redlinks: ~~J.L. (from a formating error in the references)~~, sampling variance, ~~Hill-Robertson effect~~, Colin Norman.
~~There is some inconsistency in reference style in sections like "Cooperation".~~
There is poor illustrative balance in the "Evidence of evolution" section. All three images deal with aquatic animals, suggesting to uninformed readers that there isn't any evidence for evolution from other species; this impression should obviously not be implied, so at least one of the images should be removed, and other images should be added. The "nasal drift" image seems like the least useful one at the moment; although it's very pretty, the sequencing and similarity is least obvious.
Considering how drastically the rest of this article has been shortened, you may want to consider shortening the "Evidence of evolution" section too, to avoid imbalance. This can be easily done by cutting down on examples and trivial details.
~~"History of the modern synthesis of evolutionary thought" should clearly be a subsection of "Study of evolution", and should be shortened to a simpler title, like "History of evolutionary thought".~~
The "History" section is currently far too short. Important information that was removed should be re-added to make it at least 50% bigger ("Academic disciplines", below, is a good example of a nice-sized section). To give an idea of how much compression is appropriate, 3-5 fair-sized paragraphs (about 4 sentences in length each) should be the goal. Anything much shorter or longer than that is not appropriate.
The "Misunderstandings" section is too short, and some very important information (e.g. about the fact-theory distinction) has recently been removed from the article, making it much less informationally valuable to readers. Of course, whether a "Misunderstandings" section (or its new daughter article) is appropriate here at all should be discussed; there is little precedent for such a move, and it seems to fly in the face of academic and NPOV conventions, as well as to be a very useless categorizational method--a misunderstanding about the nature of mutations, for example, would be very useful if put under "Mutations", but useless if put under the generic heading of "Misunderstandings". Ideally, thus, a "Misunderstandings" section should simply be split up into sections dealing with the specific topics involved in each misunderstanding. From an NPOV perspective, it is particularly troubling to see statements to the effect that the creationist movement was caused by misunderstandings of evolution; it is perfectly fair to say that creationists regularly misunderstand evolution, but to make inferences and judgments from that is not NPOV; at the very least, such statements should be replaced with attributed ones, so it is not Wikipedia itself that is making them.
This article needs to have a "social effects" section. The effects of the study of evolutionary biology on society and culture over the last few hundred years is immense, and highly noteworthy. This would be a more appropriate and useful place to (briefly) discuss creationism than a POVed "misunderstandings" section, obviously.
The "See Also" section is too large. Ideally, there should be no "See Also" section at all for a time-level article like this; any highly important articles should be mentioned in the article text and/or series templates, and any less important ones should not be mentioned in this article, but rather in daughter articles. Some of the articles listed here are not even real articles, like Animal evolution.
~~Why is there an empty "Notes" section?~~
A number of the references are broken or inconsistent. It will take an in-depth review and copyedit to make them all consistent.
The external links should be cut down a little. 10-15 is ideal for an FA; there are currently 20. One good method to shorten the list without removing important information is to simply use some of the links in the "References" section; this gives them the added value of having relevance to specific parts of the article, as opposed to just being "add-ons".
Is there any particular reason that Evolution, rather than Modern evolutionary synthesis, is under Category:Theories?

-Silence 19:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the excellent review, Silence. I disagree on the notion of there being an ideal number of External links for any article; 10 - 15 may be high, depending on the topic - the fewer the better. Each one needs to have a reason for being there, per WP:EL and WP:NOT. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

You may disagree, and I may disagree as well, but I've seen dozens of articles fail their FAs for having any more than 15 links (Jesus, for example, used to have around 20, and got failed partly because of having too many), so clearly a large number of Wikipedians see anything over 15 as unreasonable. And I can see their point; we should be reliant on external links as little as possible, and the ones we do rely on should, as much as possible, be ones we specifically cite within the text. Anything much beyond that is at best a necessary evil. I do agree that there should be some "wiggle room" for different articles, but I'm unconvinced that this article needs that wiggle room, so just to be safe I'd recommend cutting down the external linkage a little bit. I do agree, certainly, that we should analyze them on a case-by-case basis. -Silence 02:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I think we're saying the same thing - there are way too many - I just find 10-15 far too many in most cases, as well (depending on the article). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

These all sound pretty reasonable. The only think I would like to plead for is to farm out any culled material to other articles. I am more partial to short articles, with other more specific articles on special topics linked to the main ones.--Filll 22:49, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I certainly agree. I think too much information has been lost already, in sections like "History". We have countless daughter articles to store this stuff on. Also, FAs are judged partly on the quality of their daughter articles (that's one of the reasons Charles Darwin's had trouble getting to FA, for example), so there are immediate practical reasons for improving them. -Silence 02:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Please read the comment on your userpage Silence. The History section contained tautology (that it much of it was already in the existing article). Candy 02:43, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I fixed a lot of the problems I listed above myself. There are now 15 left of the original 25 in the list. However, new problems come up all the time; I noticed a "fact" template in the text, for example. A lot of work still to go on this article! -Silence 20:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I think Silence is doing a great job and we are lucky to have him on the case.--Filll 21:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

The article is now a more manageable 40KB prose - still long, but doable - and the TOC is now reasonable, but the references will need a lot of cleanup once the text is settled. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:01, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Status? Much improvement, but still a long list - can involved editors give us an update? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I am only indirectly involved, but Silence has made very impressive progress on evolution and many of the related articles and subarticles, with the assistance of some others. I believe that this is a HUGE task, so it would not be surprising if there were still a ways to go on this task.--Filll 01:17, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I lack the biological expertise to fix some of this article's largest problems: the opaqueness of some of the more technical sections, lacking even an attempt to provide readers with context in many cases, rnders large portions of this article essentially useless as a general reference tool. What we need is some more work on clarifying concepts by people who are both very familiar with the processes and mechanisms involved, and able to explain them in sufficiently clear, engaging language. We need a Dawkins! :( -Silence 06:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are format and sufficiency of refs (1c), length and focus (4).

Comment: Not clear from above that people were happy with this, so moving it down. Marskell 07:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep Minor problems do exist, but they are not fatal to FA status. Overall, this is an excellent article.UberCryxic 23:19, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Remove Insufficient citations.LuciferMorgan 01:24, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Status? Can we have some feedback from editors working on the article? I see that Silence's list isn't all attended to yet, prose size is a manageable (albeit longish) 40 KB, See also is better (can't any of those be worked into the text?), References need work on formatting (example, what is - Created from PDB 1D65 - and - enmicro.pdf - and - ^ [4] - these are not correctly formatted refs), inconsistent ref style and use of PMIDs and ISBNs, missing publishers (Evolutionary Theory by Peter Gogarten, Ph.D. ). There are external jumps, and entire sections remain unreferenced. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:33, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- Remove strangely, it seems that work stopped, no feedback. External jumps, incorrectly formatted refs, external link farm, entire sections unreferenced, Silence's list above - no change, no feedback. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:41, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
  - Comment That's gotten better.--Rmky87 21:13, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Comment I am not sure what has happened to Silence and his efforts. He seems to have paused in his efforts. I am not sure of his plans in this regard.--Filll 03:18, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Guess who's back.--Rmky87 04:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Keep Encouraging editors to contribute to a Featured Article, as with any article, is a cornerstone of Wikipedia. Yet not keeping a FA in check after such contributions does not necessarily justify removing its FA status. A lack of a main editor could be for a number of reasons. Many of the complaints above- including length- have been rectified, and the article looks very good. Minor polishing is needed for the article now. --MPD ^{T / C} 05:58, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Remove unless dramatic improvements ensue. I can only do so much; the incredibly confusing mess of various parts of the "processes" and "mechanisms" sections will require a substantial rewrite by knowledgeable folk in order to be of any use to readers; there's nothing wrong with using complex concepts and important technical terms, but the article's frequent failure to keep its readership in mind and coherently explain these things, as well as poor writing quality in a number of paragraphs and inconsistency in references, makes the current article unfit to be an FA. Hopefully, if efforts aren't rallied beforehand, they will become more focused as a result of the demanding pressures of the FAC and peer-review process. -Silence 06:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
I'll give it a quick copyedit to help out if you guys need it. — Deckill er 09:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm thinking a ce is not all that's needed here. Barring some extraordinary intervention, I'm going to remove this later. Marskell 14:46, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Much too far from ready to benefit from a ce, Deckiller. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:50, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Closing notes. Some notes to be clear on closing as remove with the keep comments:

Given that Silence was one of the people looked to to save this, I take his remove as relatively decisive.
Large uncited sections are not good, particularly on a current, often controversial, and complex subject.
FAR is the place to fix minor problems and enough minor problems are a major problem.
Another FAC won't hurt this article at all, and I'm sure editors can get it back there. Marskell 20:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

The article was removed 09:25, 7 February 2007.

Gold standard

Review commentary

Messages left at Piotrus, B&E and Nurismatics. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Primary issue is that the article has literally no inline citations. There is a large references section but it's not tied to the rest of the article.

Additionally the article has many small issues:

It has statement of dubious veracity such as commenting on gold's unique "acoustic properties", something not mentioned at gold; and "A return to a gold standard is not generally thought feasible in mainstream economics", which has already been complained about on the talk page.
Lead section has some unnecessary specifics and some missing summarizations. Also too few links in my opinion.
An immense lack of images, especially in the lead. I'm certain their are some images which could correspond to the text, but at the very least the intro could have an image of gold.

Added a few images, gold bars, coins, extraction. Joe I 04:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Article is very long, long enough to disagree with Wikipedia:Article_size#Readability_issues. It seems like the history section would be ideal to split off into a seperate article.
Has many minor issues that would be ignored if not for the fact this this is supposed to be Wikipedia's best, for example the first letter of one section is inexplicably bolded, and one subsection is empty. Vicarious 09:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Agree. It was up to FA standard few years back. It is not now.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 02:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are lack of citations and factual accuracy (1c), length (4), LEAD (2a), images (3). Marskell 20:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Remove per 1c. LuciferMorgan 13:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Remove per Lucifer. Tony 11:12, 28 January 2007 (UTC) PS And it's poorly written, with lots of questionable statements (1a and 1c). For example: "In modern mainstream economic thought, a gold standard is considered undesirable because it is associated with the collapse of the world economy in the late 1920's, and that aggregate supply and demand is a far better means of regulating interest rates, money supply and monetary basis." Both "modern" and "mainstream"? One would do. Logical problem: I do not think that the association with the 1920s is the reason that it's thought undesirable nowadays. There are technical reasons. "Far better means of regulating monetary basis"—Um .... Tony 11:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

The article was removed 09:37, 19 February 2007.

Oakland Cemetery

Review commentary

Article nominator was also its creator. Jeffpw 10:26, 20 January 2007 (UTC) Additional messages left at Geography. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Lacks references, based mostly on oral history and tradition from groundskeepers. -- mattb @ 2007-01-19T17:57Z

Comment In addition, the existing sources aren't used for inline citations so individual statements cannot be verified. Jay32183 01:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
- Indeed, I'm probably deceiving you all! :) -- mattb @ 2007-01-21T03:50Z

Comment external jumps and 1a problems - sample sentence: The Confederate section of Oakland is home to an estimated 6,900 burials, of which about 3,000 are unknown. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- The term "unknown burial" is common in the cemetery world, even if the grammar doesn't seem to jive. Anyway, it hardly matters. -- mattb @ 2007-02-02T04:06Z

I've done what I can in terms of WP:MOS, WP:EL, etc., but the entire section "Notable burials" does not conform to WP:MOS on n and m-dashes. The article is uncited. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. The MOS has changed significantly since I wrote that article. I scanned over the dashes section and I don't see how the section doesn't comply. The MOS recommends using en dashes for date ranges, which that section does. As for the citation situation, Franklin Miller Garrett's book is a great general reference, and I obviously don't intend to clutter up the article with a hundred inline citations. Besides, even if I did add a plethora of inline citations to page numbers in Garrett's book, few people could verify them, and even fewer would. You won't find a better source of information on the internet regarding Oakland Cemetery than this article (as I alluded to, the article was written from the oral history I received from generations of groundskeepers). -- mattb @ 2007-02-03T04:35Z

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are referencing (1c), and MOS concerns (2). Marskell 05:33, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Remove per criterion 1c. LuciferMorgan 21:19, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Remove per Lucifer. Trebor 22:53, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Remove per above. — Deckill er 04:23, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Remove concerns have not been address. Jay32183 18:08, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

The article was removed 11:59, 17 February 2007.

British East India Company

Review commentary

Messages left at Singapore, India, Chancemill, Henry Flower, Jengod. Jeffpw 09:53, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

This article is very lacking, and when it is cited, has a mixture of citation styles. A large portion is uncited, while others have been called "POV" and some cited for not viewing it from a world standpoint. Dark jedi requiem 05:45, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Comments - what a mess! Full of POV, neutrality, disputed, etc. tags by an anon editor: [4], but no messages left in the talk page. I removed the "In Popular Culture" section, because it is totally unsourced and not directly related with the subject (PS2 games, etc.). I moved also 2 flags into Flags section. As a glance,

The lead is too short to summarize the article,
Footholds in India section is disputed. Somebody with Indian background should take a look to give balance views.
Opium trade section is also tagged with neutrality and accuracy. Now this is for somebody with China history.
Stubby and listy "Ships" section and poor "East India Company Records" section. These two sections were added after the article was featured.
Too many see also items. Should be merged into the main text.
Lack of inline citations, there are some citations needed tags and I found some statements/facts are unsourced. Yes, there are some ext. links in the main article, but some ext. links have been there since the article was featured: [5], how come?

I'll try to help, but can't promise of getting sources. — Indon (reply) — 17:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are POV (1d), insufficient citations (1c), stub sections and LEAD (2). Marskell 07:49, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Remove Insufficient citations. LuciferMorgan 22:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Remove, article hasn't progressed since FAR nomination. --Peta 00:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Remove, I would say that a lot of works should be done for this article to gain FA status. A major concern is its neutrality, so it will need a total rehaul of the sourcing and rewriting. Bringing it back to FAC would be a good idea. — Indon (reply) — 08:41, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Remove per above — little work done, and it requires a lot of work. — Deckill er 02:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

The article was removed 16:09, 1 February 2007.

Illmatic

Review commentary

Messages left at Chubdub and Albums. Sandy (Talk) 22:53, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Ridiculously high volume of quotations, both inline and blocked off—in terms of word count, about 50% of the article is made up of quotations. A related problem is the poor writing quality. Liberal use of unfree images—I see 15 out of 18 that should be removed. Lead contains unique information regarding record sales. Punctured Bicycle 23:51, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Wow. I have some problems with the linkages in this article. It's a black and blue mess. "guest appearance" is linked to List of hip hop collaborations, "masterpiece" to Magnum opus (not usable for debut album--it has to be part of a body of work!, "influential" to Seminal work for a 1994 album for a music genre that had almost a few decades on it (maybe East Coast hip hop, but all of hip hop?), "underground circuit" to Alternative hip hop (call it that if that's what it is). "RIAA" should not be abbreviated the first time. Repeat "producer" in this line "The origins of Illmatic lie in Nas' ties with Large Professor," since he's rather awkwardly introduced as the producer in the introduction. The quotes are poorly used and, rather than adding information for the reader, serve mostly to disrupt the flow of the text. This is not an article on an obscure topic, which might require simply quoting from one of the limited few texts available. It's really got to be redone. KP Botany 03:26, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
I am also seriously concerned about a copyright violation from Wikipedia with so much material taken directly from a single source. KP Botany 03:29, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment Too many quotes (see WP:QUOTE for guidelines), footnotes aren't correctly formatted. Sandy (Talk) 10:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment Abuse of fair use images (fair use reduce: Image:NasIllmatic.jpg, Image:Illmaticbackcover.jpg; No fair use rationale: Image:Illmaticbackcover.jpg, Image:Nas making illmatic.jpg, Image:Illmaticcdpic.jpg, Image:Nas2.jpg, Image:Intv.jpg, Image:114000952m.jpg, Image:4908.jpg, Image:Nas worldisyo 101b.jpg, Image:COLUX64712.jpg, Image:Nashalftime.jpg, Image:Nasitainthardtotell.jpg, Image:Onelove.jpg, Image:Nastheworldisyours1.jpg, Image:Nastheworldisyours2.jpg, Image:Pic small 170.jpg; to be deleted: Image:090104.jpg). Extensive quotes from a single source, it can be considered a problem per the text section of our Fair use guideline. Lyrics sites are usually discouraged, as they break copyright. The Music videos and Singles can have their images removed, as they are used as decoration (8th point of our Fair use criteria). -- ReyBrujo 03:36, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment. Just to be clear, extensive quoting is not only problematic for copyright reasons, but it also makes the writing less compelling. "The overuse of quotations can drown out your voice and leave the reader wondering what happened to you—the writer."[6] Overuse of block quotes is especially discouraged because readers will get bored and simply skip over them. Punctured Bicycle 09:38, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment I deleted 4 of the 6! quotes of large section of text from one short journal article, as almost entire article was directly quotes. Properly attributed, but unlikely within fair use for article not in the Public Domain. I deleted the single cover images from the article. Nobody working on the article has commented, which is a shame, because someone did some serious work, initially, to put together a good article. KP Botany 20:57, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment I just removed the quotes section, I'll try to help to keep it's FA status but Chubdub is a better expert on the subject. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 05:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Move to FARC, external jumps, accolades uncited (probably more cite needs in text, haven't checked). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep I'll cite the accolades Chubdub 10:54, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are writing quality (1a) and images (3). Marskell 11:38, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment. Some work has been but no consensus to close early. Marskell 11:38, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Remove per Sandy's concerns. LuciferMorgan 02:36, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Remove. External jumps throughout the text, ratings and other info still uncited, incorrectly formatted footnotes; still very quote heavy with little content. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

The article was removed 09:37, 19 February 2007.

Marilyn Manson (band)

Review commentary

Messages left at Rock music, Biography, Keepsleeping (the last after having to wade through a redirect to Goatse.cx). Jeffpw 21:59, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I've nominated this article is it needs inline citations, especially concerning Manson's influences on each album etc. LuciferMorgan 20:16, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Comments Problematic references: Reported on November 7, 1997 is not a reference, and Usenet is not a reliable source. Last access dates are missing, all biblio info is not provided for all sources, links are not expanded, references need attention throughout. Extensive copyedit issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment The November 7 reference is definitely not a reliable source, as it's just an archived fan discussion. There were formally published reports into the Senator hearings, so these could be used. To be honest I think there's too much work that needs doing for it to escape FARC. If anyone wants to work on it though I'll chip in - I own Manson's autobiography so could find specific page numbers, and a book concerning Manson's influences which could help as concerns the comments made about each album. LuciferMorgan 03:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment Curiously the heading on the archived FAC nom was pointing to Marilyn Manson the singer, rather than the band. There is obvously a citation issue, in paticular in the "Composition and songwriting" section, which makes a series of bold unsupported statments, eg "sharp, and occasionally inventive wordplay" (the insertion of 'occasionally' here is nicely wry). That said, most are (imo) correct, and there are a tonne of web sources out there if someone was willing to put in the work. There are some structural issues, the "Celebritarian rising" section is comprised mainly of one and two sentence paragraphs. Holding the samples in a dedicated section undermines the stated fair use rationall that the article "specifically discusses the song from which this sample was taken". The prose aren't bad, I think the article could be saved with a little effort. + Ceoil 20:53, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment. Issues in prose from the start:
"Marilyn Manson is a shock rock band based in Los Angeles, California, in the United States.Frequently termed "shock rock", the group's sound... - shock rock twice in two sentences (and both wikilinked).
The name of each band member was originally created - "originally" is redundant.
He has been careless enough to behave in such a fashion that his wife (see Dita Von Teese) has divorced him - careless enough, really? Trebor 23:17, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Mmm, 'careless' is indeed a very stange way of putting it. From what I know, probably 'stoned' would be a better word. But I take your point, tidying up needed here on prose. + Ceoil 23:32, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I suspect it was added somewhat tongue-in-cheek; it made me smile when I first saw it. Trebor 23:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Manson himself is a very amusing and dry character; I'd have no problem retaining this kind of subtle humour. + Ceoil 00:01, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I personally prefer sticking to whatever facts are available. Also, I don't see what relevance Manson's divorce has in the article - this article is on the band Marilyn Manson. The person Marilyn Manson, aka. Brian Warner, has an article of his own. LuciferMorgan 20:31, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Move to FARC, issues unaddressed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:15, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are comprehensiveness (1b), and citations (1c). Marskell 12:07, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Remove Fails 1c. LuciferMorgan 23:22, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Remove 1c + Ceoil 20:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Remove, fails 1c, 1a. Trebor 22:55, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Remove per 1c and 1a. — Deckill er 04:25, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

The article was removed 18:24, 14 February 2007.

Igor Stravinsky

Review commentary

Messages left at Composers, Russia, Lupin, and Stephen Burnett. Jeffpw 11:45, 17 January 2007 (UTC) Additional messages at Marlowe and Bio. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:53, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm nominating this for FAR due to;

Insufficient inline citations. LuciferMorgan 16:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Agree. Also the language is problematic in too many places. Eusebeus 11:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

- 2a: Funny to go straight into the specific matter of his early fame through the three ballets before providing an overview of this greatest of the 20th-century composers. The five paragraphs in the lead would be better in reverse order. Is "symphony" a form, like "fugue"? Verdi was one of the three major composers who influenced him? Seems unlikely. The serial procedures in the 1950s were an aberration, yet they're treated as rather more central than that. His stylistic evolution needs to be summarised succinctly in technical terms in the lead; "clarity of utterance" will not do. I'd hardly give oxygen to his prose ("He was a writer").
1c: Seriously under-referenced. Factual vagueness ("He switched to composition later.") Misleading statements—"The next phase of Stravinsky's compositional style,.. is marked by two works: Pulcinella 1920 and the Octet (1923)". Well no, these were the first works of a long stretch of neoclassicism.

1a: The prose could do with a massage—"Classic music". Tony 11:36, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment The above is a more thorough examination, and one which I agree with upon closer inspection of the article. LuciferMorgan 12:43, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I certainly agree regarding the order of introduction; to go from the specific to the general feels as if it's the wrong way round. I'm currently working on the biography section, which was something of a muddle, and is still quite thin on the years he spent in the US, in comparison to the first half of his career. The biggest problem to my mind though is section 3, which seems in urgent need of a rewrite. For example, "L'Oiseau de feu, is notable for its unusual introduction (triplets in the low basses) and sweeping orchestration" doesn't really tell you a lot; it focuses on a detail which is probably one of the less remarkable features of the work, while the fact that the score calls for large percussion section including glock, xylophone and celesta, and requires three harps and a piano seems worth mentioning. As for "Petrushka ... is ... the first of Stravinsky's ballets to draw on folk mythology", this is just plain wrong: what is Firebird, if not a folk tale? --Stephen Burnett 21:08, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I just want to chime in and comment that I was quite shocked when I read this article to see that it was a FA. The last time it was on the main page a couple months ago, the prose was horrible, sections were half in and half out of chronological order, there was a lot of redundancy, and far too few references. I hope this nomination improves it a LOT.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 01:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are citations (1c), LEAD (2a), and prose (1a). Marskell 06:22, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Remove per my nomination concerns and Tony's concerns. LuciferMorgan 03:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Remove Bold statments such as "Stravinsky's work embraced multiple compositional styles, revolutionized orchestration, spanned several genres, practically reinvented ballet form and incorporated multiple cultures, languages and literatures" remain unsupported. Evidence of original research: "Stravinsky was nevertheless photogenic, as many pictures show". It's a shame to see it demoted however, we only have six FAs on composers. + Ceoil 20:33, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Remove per my comments above. Tony 23:48, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

The article was removed 14:34, 26 February 2007.

The Temptations

Review commentary

Messages left at TUF-KAT, R&B and Soul Music, Bio and Musicians. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Informative article, but woefully lacking in refs, there are only 9 and their format is severely lacking. Left notice at Wikipedia:WikiProject R&B and Soul Music. Rlevse 20:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment Besides the above concerns, weasly words are also rampant. LuciferMorgan 22:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
The referencing (that is, the verifiability) is fine. When the article was first promoted, inline citations for every sentence were not required (in actual encyclopedias, these are not used. General references are). This article is based upon a sturdy and lengthy reference from one of the subjects in question, which I happen to own and have right by my desk. I can and will add a citation to the exact page of Otis Williams' Temptations autobiography for each place where it is deemed necessary. Just add {{fact}} tags, and I will take care of the rest. And there is no need to leave messages at R&B and Soul Music, since that project has been more or less inactive for years. --FuriousFreddy 07:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
- The referencing is not fine. Several older FAs have been FARC'd for not meeting modern standards. Footnotes come after punctuation with no space. The refs' format need work, see Gerald Ford for samples. Entire sections do not have a ref. A good rule of thumb is any paragraph over 1-2 sentences should have a ref. And as LuciferMorgan points out, the weasel words need cleaned up.Rlevse 11:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
  - As I said, just add {{fact}} tags, and I will take care of the rest. And, like I said, the verifiability is fine; the article just lacks the (usually unhelpful and non-professional) glut of citations commonly expected out of Wiki articles nowadays. All of the citations are going to be from the references already listed. Please give examples of "weasel words" in the article. --FuriousFreddy 21:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Comments. Here is a list of weasle words to watch out for. Also, the section headings don't conform with WP:MSH, WP:MOS, particularly the use of "the" and capitalization. I corrected the footnotes per WP:FN, so take care with footnote placement as you continue to cite the article. It would be helpful if you would cite as much as possible, and then request reviewers have another look for anything missing. There are external jumps in the text which could be converted to references. Whether you agree or not, by today's standards this article is way under referenced. For example, History subsections 1-9 are totally devoid of refs.Rlevse 22:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
This :
- Williams, Otis and Romanowski, Patricia (1988, updated 2002). Temptations. Pg. 170 - 171
- Williams, Otis and Romanowski, Patricia (1988, updated 2002). Temptations. Pg. 172
- Williams, Otis and Romanowski, Patricia (1988, updated 2002). Temptations. Pg. 249, 259
- Williams, Otis and Romanowski, Patricia (1988, updated 2002). Temptations. Pg. 177
- Williams, Otis and Romanowski, Patricia (1988, updated 2002). Temptations. Pg. 183
can be abbreviated to:
- Williams and Romanowski (1988), pp. 170-171.
- Williams and Romanowski (1988), p. 172.
- Williams and Romanowski (1988), pp. 249, 259.
- Williams and Romanowski (1988), p. 177.
- Williams and Romanowski (1988), p. 183.

- Sections 1 through 9 are devoid of refs because I just started adding them, and I work during the week. I will finish the rest. --FuriousFreddy 19:51, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:07, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

CommentsTwo refs still have the URL displayed and this is not wiki style. The URL should be embedded underneath the title so you see and read the title but when you click it goes to the url. See Wikipedia:Citing sources. If you use the cite templates it does all the work for you, you just fill in the blanks. A 59K article should have way more than 19 refs. Reused refs should appear on same line, not as two separate footnotes, see WP:CITE. External jumps need to be removed from the Notes section.Rlevse 22:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- When I first wrote this article, there was no "Wiki style" for citations, so I used APA style. I will go back and reformat everything. There are currently no reused refs (when citing print work, you are required to list the exact pages used). --FuriousFreddy 19:52, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
  - There remains no "wiki style" for citations. APA is 100% fine. Nor is it the case that reused refs need to appear on the same line; while this is permitted by the cite.php technology, there is no requirement to use that format -- indeed, quite a good case could be made for avoiding it, since when you print a version of an article that uses multiple refs, the citations are not comprehensible. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
    - I've never encountered that problem; can you explain? Perhaps it's printer-dependent? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:29, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
- ~~I have decided I will not be continuing this process. Please de-list this article from featured status. --FuriousFreddy 01:48, 28 January 2007 (UTC)~~
  - At great expense to my available time, I will try to do my best to add citation tags to this article. If someone could please first tag the article with "citation needed" templates, that would be greatly appreciated, as I apparently no longer have an innate understand of just how many in-line citations are now wanted in these articles. --FuriousFreddy 01:46, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
    - Glad you're back - would you like for me to shorten those book references for you, as in the example above? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
      - Would you like me to add these templates Freddy? If someone objects per 1c after my cite requests have been filled per 1c, then the person is mad - I get on Wikipedians nerves when it comes to cites. :) LuciferMorgan 09:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
        
        Any help would be much appreciated, thank you. --FuriousFreddy 03:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- THere are also numerable instances of the same wiki article being linked more than once, you only need to link the fist instance. As for what to cite, you should have an inline cite per every section at an absolute minimum, preferably every paragraph. You can reuse cites if need be.Rlevse 11:03, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concern is insufficient references (1c).

Comment: This was left a couple of days extra in review because there was work going on. Keeping it moving now. Marskell 09:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

There's still work going on. I'm sorry, but my job comes before this. --FuriousFreddy 04:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment I've placed a few cite tags on statements I feel need citation, and will place more once they've been filled. LuciferMorgan 12:22, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Comment; looks like a lot of potential for keep here. — Deckill er 04:31, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Comment Agreed Tyler, with a bit of ref work and prose work. Largely hangs on Freddy really, but it sounds as though he's busy. Shame really. LuciferMorgan 12:10, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
- Once Freddy gets a chance to work on it, it should proceed fairly smoothly thanks to the lessons learned with Sly and the Family Stone. — Deckill er 12:14, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
CommentImprovement has occurred, but there are still several sections about many paras without refs, so I put cite needed tags in.Rlevse 12:25, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Remove per 1c (unfortunately). LuciferMorgan 23:02, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Remove per 1c; unfortunately, work will be unable to be accomplished in time. — Deckill er 14:32, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Comment If anyone is planning to finish this, pls let us know if a time extension is needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:03, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

- Freddy has disappeared? :( Marskell 18:54, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

The article was removed 13:37, 11 February 2007.

Rainbow

Review commentary

Message left at Meteorology. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:05, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

This poor article seems to attract the image equivalent of an External link farm because of its subject matter. (It has an External link farm as well.) The images are spectacular, but the article seems to engage WP:NOT. And, rain as a See also ? It was a "brilliant prose" promotion (with 3 supports and 3 opposes) and has been reviewed before. It uses three referencing styles, is mostly uncited, and has external jumps. Really needs a tuneup. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh no, not again :( Can someone help me this time, please. -- ALoan (Talk) 18:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
- I plan to help, ALoan (feel badly for the poor article): I can clean up and convert refs and external jumps, check external links, proofread and light ce, although ce isn't my strong point. I don't understand Fair Use, and the hard thing is to decide which images to lose - they all seem to offer something. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:31, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  - Thanks. I cleaned up some of the refs, but feel free to sort out any that I have missed. I have commented out a few images - I think those that are left are justifiable. It would be nice to have a bit more text though, particularly in "Art and Photography" and "Literature". My German was not up to it, but the corresponding sections in de:Regenbogen look quite good. -- ALoan (Talk) 13:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
    - I'll get on it next week - we should find someone who speaks German. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:20, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

While you're working on that, I have a couple of requests.
- The lead section needs a lot of beefing up to summarize the whole article.
- Does "Remembering the sequence of colours" really need a whole section in this article? It doesn't have a lot to do with rainbows that isn't better explained at Visible spectrum or even just Color; and ROYGBIV is its own article.
- For comprehensiveness, the "See also" section could be expanded into a section on comparisons with similar phenomena. Melchoir 00:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment Does this article really need a whole section on culture? I mean, it's a rainbow. I'm sure you could dig up a ton of literature that mentions rainbows somewhere - it's like adding a "popular culture" section to Earth; we all live on it, a good 90% of novels and poems and other literature takes place on Earth. I'd be in favor of junking the entire section altogether. Hbdragon88 02:05, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

If several of us are going to try to work on this, should we move discussion to the article talk page? SandyGeorgia (