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 19:42, 19 January 2007.

Diego Velázquez

Review commentary

Messages left at DanielNuyu, Bio and Spain. Sandy (Talk) 01:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC) Also Visual arts. Chick Bowen 02:37, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

My major problem is the lack of citations. Zero! Not even one!! Only some references with printed sources and sites, but no indication about the way they were used. Some further minor problems:

• The lead is a bit problematic. For example:"His two visits to Italy while part of the Spanish court are well documented." Is this a proper phrase for the lead? The phrase could say that "Velázquez visited twice the Italy in the X and the Y year", but the documentation of the visit is an issue of analysis for the main article and not the lead.
• "Selected works" is tagged, and this is an important issue for a FA. Personally, I believe that the section in question is incomplete.--Yannismarou 19:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment The headings don't conform to WP:MOS, but probably an easy fix. Jay32183 22:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Move to FARC - uncited. Sandy (Talk) 01:29, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are citations (1c), LEAD (2a), and comprehensiveness (1b). Marskell 07:37, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

• Remove, unless my concerns are addressed.--Yannismarou 18:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Remove—Seriously under-referenced and poorly written. 1a, 2a and 1c. Tony 08:46, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
• Remove per above. LuciferMorgan 10:11, 14 January 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 removed 22:24, 21 January 2007.

Cladistics

Review commentary

Promoted as "brilliant prose". Message left at Evolutionary biology. Gzkn 07:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC) Additional messages at Amphibians and Reptiles, Gastropods, Molecular and Cellular Biology, Aranae, Opabinia regalis, and Samsara. Sandy (Talk) 23:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I believe this article does not meet 1(c), 2(a), 2(c) and 4 sections of FA requirements.--Crzycheetah 06:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment To Make Things Easier, these are the specific points:

• 1(c) "Factually accurate" means that claims are verifiable against reliable sources and accurately present the related body of published knowledge. Claims are supported with specific evidence and external citations (see verifiability and reliable sources); this involves the provision of a "References" section in which sources are set out and, where appropriate, complemented by inline citations. See citing sources for information on when and how extensively references are provided and for suggestions on formatting references; for articles with footnotes or endnotes, the meta:cite format is recommended.
• 2(a) a concise lead section that summarizes the entire topic and prepares the reader for the higher level of detail in the subsequent sections;
• 2(c) a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents (see section help).
• 4 is of appropriate length, staying focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

--Cody.Pope 17:10, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. The article needs to be cited. With the effort of knowledgeable editors, this one should be salvageable. Sandy (Talk) 23:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

• Here are some suggestions to improve the article:

1. I think the distinction between cladistics and phenetics should be addressed a second time once plesiomorphic and apomorphic terms are introduced. Cladistics is interested in synapomorphies. Phenetics does not distinguish between the two. An example of how the two could come up with a different tree would also help.
2. I'm a bit unhappy with the discussion of what it means to be basal. I completely agree that usage of the term primarily refers to a taxon-poor clade that branches off early. I also think that the term gets used in reference to the ingroup, the taxon sampling, and the question being asked. For example, gibbons will commonly be said to be basal among the hominoids, yet there are 13 species of gibbons in four genera and only 7 species of great apes (also 4 genera). In this case, the research question usually being posed is really about a focus organism (us) and relationships among the gibbons is less important in that particular discussion. Bats and insectivorans are basal to the rest of the Laurasiatheria in spite of the fact that over 50% of described laurasiatherian species are bats and 20% are insectivorans. The research question is how are bats, insectivorans, carnivorans, pangolins, perissodactyls, and cetartiodactyls. From that perspective, bats and insectivorans to qualify as basal to the cetferungulates. Being "primitive" shouldn't qualify a group as basal (although it probably is used that way in some instances). Bats fly, echolocate, and look nothing like the ancestor of the Laurasiatheria.
3. The distinction between synapomorphy and autapomorphy should be clarified.
4. The second paragraph of the section titled "Cladistic methods" is confusing. Plesiomorphies were present in the last common ancestor of group discussed. Apomorphies arose subsequent to the last common ancestor of the group discussed. To say that an apomorphy was present in the last common ancestor of the ingroup is false. A synapomorphy was present in the last common ancestor of the clade it characterizes (and may have arisen anywhere along the branch leading to that clade). Autapomorphies are also a type of apomorphy and they weren't present in the last common ancestor of any two taxa in the analysis.
5. Eliminate the use of "we" in the 4th paragraph of the same section.
6. I think at least 50% of the field would consider maximum likelihood and Bayesian methods to be both Hennigian and cladistic. They are still constructed on the basis of synapomorphies, they just incorporate information about how characters evolve and attempt to incorporate the potential for additional evolution hidden in a final parsimony analysis. They are definitely not phenetic methods. I'm also amazed that there still isn't an article on maximum likelihood in phylogenetics.
7. The total evidence approach advocated in the 6th paragraph isn't universally accepted. I think it's safe to say that >50% of the field would agree, but there are those who argue that a little bit of quality data is better than a lot of noisy data or even a little bit of quality data + some noisy data. Most (but not all) do agree that data where homology is questionable should be excluded. That should be addressed in the paragraph as well and I'm not all that comfortable with the behavior example (without expansion and clarification) for that reason. That statement that molecular, morphological, etc. not are all equal is definitely an opinion and is definitely disputed. Homoplasy is more common in morphological data? Are we sure about that?
8. Paragraph 7. A small point, but cladistics does assume that evolution is bifurcating as opposed to hybridizing, reticulate, or having lateral transfer.
9. In my opinion, the "Cladistic classification" section can reasonably stay, but seesm to ramble on as if it was written by several editors who had differing opinions and tried to jump back and forth in such a way as to make it sum up to NPOV. I'm not happy with the notion that about half of the text of a featured article on cladistics is spent discussing the PhyloCode and Linnean hierarchy.
10. There is a subtle, but important philosophical difference between cladistics and parsimony. This article should address that clearly.
11. The "see also" is an odd list. It should have links to phenetics, parsimony, maximum likelihood (phylogenetics), maybe Bayesian (phylogenetics), as well as some of what's already there.

--Aranae 02:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

To address your last point only, all those terms are already linked in the body of the article, which is probably why they are not repeated. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:52, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Copied these suggestions to the talk page for easy reference. I hope someone besides me has an interest in working on this, because I know nothing about the morphological side of things. Opabinia regalis 03:24, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to see this article rescued, but the chances of me doing any substantive work on it before the holidays are approaching zero - I haven't had the time to gather sources together and won't have any relevant books with me while I'm out of town next week. I don't really deal with FAR much - if this review period can be extended until early January, that would be great; if not, maybe it'll get a new star eventually. Opabinia regalis 06:17, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Status: able to do any work now Opabinia? Marskell 07:40, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

See this thread - after waffling a bit on this, I've concluded that my efforts alone would not be enough. The article as it stands has serious oversimplification problems and is not comprehensive, and cladistics is far enough outside my field that I don't have the necessary familiarity with the relevant literature to write a balanced and up-to-date article. (Also, I admit I don't like the subject very much :) I did leave a message for User:Felsenst, who is an expert on the subject and has previously expressed an interest in the article, but any work that might be done may not be in time for this FAR. As I said on my talk page, I'll try to make this article not suck, but that's not the same as bring to FA standard. Opabinia regalis 03:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I have replied on User talk:Felsenst with a rant on what's wrong with the article. But what's right about the article is that, although quite muddled, it thus fairly reflects the field! My own views are highly controversial to most people who identify themselves as cladists, and are regarded as borderline-crackpot and dismissable. So I am not a good person to edit this article. Thanks for thinking of me, but ... Felsenst 13:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are factual accuracy (1a), citations (1c), LEAD (2a), TOC (2c), and focus (4). Marskell 09:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

• Remove, no improvement whatsoever. --Crzycheetah 19:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
• Remove Needs inline citations still. LuciferMorgan 12:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
• Remove. Per above.--Yannismarou 18:12, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
• Tim, factual accuracy is Criterion 1c, I think (could be beautifully written rubbish!) Remove as per previous reviewers; really needs an expert or two. Tony 23:45, 20 January 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 removed 14:50, 18 January 2007.

Octopus card

Review commentary

Messages left on related noticeboards of WP:CHINA, WP:HK and at Juntung -- Chez ^{( / Email)} 00:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC) Additional messages at Nurismatics. Sandy (Talk) 01:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC) and WT:HKWNB WP 11:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

This article was featured way back in Feb 2005. It has been almost two years now, and while I was going through it, I thought, it needs a review and significant improvements based on current standards. I'll list some of which I feel, may be needed.

• Individual paragraphs are very small. A decent copy editing will help.
• Inline external links be removed and cite.php be used.
• Although the article has a lot of valuable data and information, they have to be organised in a much better way.
• There are a lot of stuff unnecessarily in parenthesis, which needs to be cleaned up.

Please feel free to add more comments if you've got any, to improve the article. -- Chez ^{( / Email)} 00:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comments (Yikes, that's a long sig line). Inadequate citation, external jumps, sections headings don't conform to WP:MOS, mixed reference style, references are blue links which should be expanded, doesn't follow WP:LAYOUT, prose needs attention. Sandy (Talk) 01:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment, lacks of inline citations and sections are rather long. Suggest moving to FARC since I don't see much improvement. Terence Ong 08:49, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

• Move to FARC, unaddressed. Sandy (Talk) 01:28, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are stub paragraphs, organization, and focus (2), citation sufficiency and format (1c). Marskell 17:36, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

• Remove—Flabby writing. Here are a few examples from the top.
  • "widely-used"—No hyphens after 'ly words.
  • " not only for virtually all public transport in Hong Kong, but also for"—"not only ... but also" is such a tired expression, and an unnecessary marker here.
  • "In addition,"—Every sentence is in addition; remove.
  • "Some charities even accept Octopus cards to receive donations."—Replace "to receive" with "for".
  • "Making a payment involves placing the card in close proximity to an Octopus card reader and a tone from the reader will confirm the merchant has received funds." Clumsy: "and" is awkward as a joiner here; "will" is doubtful; "that" required before "the merchant".
  • "with approximate 14 million Octopus cards"—sloppy.
  • "and other transport providers in Hong Kong such as KCR, KMB, and Citybus." The "such as" means there are some you're not telling us about. Is that the case?
  • Seriously under-referenced.

Fast train to demotion. Tony 05:51, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

• Remove per long list of unaddressed problems. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

• Remove per above. LuciferMorgan 10:06, 14 January 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 removed 06:27, 29 January 2007.

LSD

Review commentary

LSD was a "brilliant prose" promotion - no original author. Message left at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Psychedelics, Dissociatives and Deliriants. Sandy (Talk) 20:51, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

LSD needs review for many reasons.

• It has a massive external link farm that needs pruning (see WP:EL and WP:NOT); See also needs pruning as well, with relevant entries incorporated into the text, and articles that are already in the text deleted from See also.
• Many of the References (Footnotes) are not properly formatted, some are missing completely, some are missing basic info, some are missing last access date, and journal-published articles should have PMIDs. There are numerous citation needed tags, and many more that could be added - the article has many facts which are not cited.
• The article is replete with uncited text and weasle words (example: Debate continues over the nature and causes of chronic flashbacks. Some say HPPD is a manifestation of post-traumatic stress disorder, not related to the direct action of LSD on brain chemistry, and vary according to the susceptibility of the individual to the disorder. Many emotionally intense experiences can lead to flashbacks when a person is reminded acutely of the original experience. However, not all published case reports of chronic flashbacks appear to describe an anxious hyper-vigilant state reminiscent of post-traumatic stress disorder.) Sandy (Talk) 20:49, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Agreed. Move to FARC. KazakhPol 18:28, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

    KazahkPol, we have at least a two-week review period before we move to FARC - hopefully problems will be addressed in that time. Then we have at least another two weeks in FARC, when people can vote to Keep or Remove, and improvements can still happen. Sandy (Talk) 18:50, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

• I was, coincidentally, about to nominate this very article for review. My main reason was that references are skimpy: many statements of fact are made without one. --Oldak Quill 12:07, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

• Move to FARC, many edits, little improvement since nom (diff). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns citations (1c), formatting (2), POV (1d). Marskell 11:44, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

• Remove per Sandy's concerns. LuciferMorgan 02:39, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
• Remove I cleaned up what I can in the article structure, but the article remains massively undercited and weasly, with no one apparently willing to work on it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:52, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
• Remove I did some checks of the references and it was hit and miss... the one for the other names LSD is known as didn't confirm many of the ones our article claims. Chunks of US government text are used but not attributed, that's possibly plagiarism. Also many paragraphs full of non-trivial claims are not cited at all. Article really isn't that bad but it needs some TLC to meet modern FA standards. --W.marsh 21:05, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
• Remove per Sandy. Pity—it's quite well written. Tony 14:16, 27 January 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 removed 20:34, 24 January 2007.

Central processing unit

Review commentary

Messages left at Wackymacs, Video games, Computing, Computer science, and Arcade games. Sandy (Talk) 23:28, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Fails criteria 1c. Practically nothing in this article is referenced; how are we to know that anything it claims is correct? The refs situation should be improved. -- mattb @ 2006-12-14T21:15Z

A very brief look at the article makes it seem that much of the article consists of summaries of the relevant articles. I don't think summary style requires the references be re-cited in the summary. -- SilverStar★ 23:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

There is no need to relist all the of the references, but any statement that would otherwise require an inline citation should still have one. Jay32183 01:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, the daughter articles aren't referenced either. Sandy (Talk) 06:00, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

It requires inline citations if it wants to keep its FA status. LuciferMorgan 01:51, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Unless someone here wants to take up that task, it won't happen. I wrote this article and have little intention of adding an inline reference to every third sentence. I feel that the current dogmatic interpretation of WP:V as far as FA standards are concerned is, frankly, ridiculous. I just wanted to nominate this for de-listing myself before someone else got around to it. -- mattb @ 2006-12-15T03:25Z

You probably could have taken it to WP:ARD. Those guys are pretty good at getting inline citations. Jay32183 03:28, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

• Needs more citations to support statements and facts throughout the article in all sections. At its current status, this article doesn't live up to current FA standards being met by many other featured articles. — Wackymacs 08:50, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concern is lack of citations (1c). Marskell 07:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

• Remove Insufficient citations. LuciferMorgan 02:28, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

• Problem with external links, see also, references, and referencing - is anyone working on this? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
  • See above. -- mattb @ 2007-01-23T23:16Z

Nobody is working on the article - the FAR nominator and original FA nominator are one and the same. LuciferMorgan 00:00, 24 January 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 removed 16:09, 15 January 2007.

Carlsbad Caverns National Park

Review commentary

"Brilliant prose" promotion. Messages left at Geography and Protected areas. Sandy (Talk) 22:15, 9 December 2006 (UTC) Message has also been left at Bevo. Sandy (Talk) 01:45, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Much of the "Geology" and "Bats" sections, and some of the "History" section, is copied off of [1], which is copyrighted. Needless to say, the referencing is poor and the "Rooms" section is not very comprehensive. --Schzmo 16:16, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Needs inline cites, and the copyvio info removed. Once left with the rest, there's a lot of work to be done in order to retain FA status. LuciferMorgan 22:23, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment How do you know this article is the copyvio violator and not the external site? Maybe both use the same PD work. --mav 00:57, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • The only indication of copyvio is an exact copy-paste from non-PD external site and the external site is not a fork from wikipedia. I'm not an author/editor of this article, so I ran google search test. There's not exactly copy-paste material, except from [2] for the Bats section. I'm going to run several tests again later. — Indon (reply) — 01:29, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
    • (Edit conflict) I checked the Internet Archive of http://www.carlsbad.caverns.national-park.com/info.htm and it looks like the Bats section was written way back in 1998 (the other sections were added a few years later). Did some digging around in the history of this WP article, and it looks like the earliest version of it was a direct copy/paste job from the outside page. Unfortunately, no one ever bothered to reword some of the text :(. Yikes. Not good. Gzkn 01:32, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
    • (Edit conflict too) Wait a minute... I checked again the site [3], and it turns out that there are some exact sentences from this site appear in this article. And I don't think that site is a fork from Wikipedia. Yes, it's not good. — Indon (reply) — 01:33, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

    Damn! I didn't read it carefully the nomination text that it has pointed the original site: http://www.carlsbad.caverns.national-park.com/info.htm. So no need to run google search, it's a copyvio. :"> — Indon (reply) — 01:38, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

    And some still wonder why we insist upon citing older FAs. Sandy (Talk) 01:40, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

    At the bottom of the page, there's this note: "The initial content for this article was provided by the National Park Service Carlsbad Caverns Information Page." Unfortunately, whoever wrote that erroneously thought that the Carlsbad Caverns Information Page was in any way affiliated with the NPS. Gzkn 01:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

    OK, I searched phrases from each section and I found out that the Geology section is not copyvio, as the text from that website was copied from this NPS web page, which is in the public domain. However, I could not find anything else for the other sections, so they may still be copyvio. --Schzmo 02:38, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

    Hmmm, well that's reassuring. Maybe http://www.carlsbad.caverns.national-park.com/info.htm got all of its information from the public domain...I'll do some more research... Gzkn 02:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

    This seems to suggest that the National Park Service website actually copied its information from there too, as the former appeared much earlier than the latter. Gzkn 03:25, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

    • Cough - There were many things published before the Internet came along. :) --mav

Heh, true. Perhaps the best way to resolve this is to contact the NPS or that guy who owns www.carlsbad.caverns.national-park.com and wrote it? Gzkn 03:05, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I had thought that some had not bothered reading anything until it appeared on a CRT screen: A tendency still present.

On the copyright/borrowed issue. At the least, public domain or not, the sections taken from another site must be cited. This is a separate issue than is that of the original source questions (something from the public domain can still be plagiarized--as can be something publicly reprinted with private approval of the original author).

Given the significant age of the original as well as sea-changes in our common sensitivity to, and sense of outrage about, the commercial destructive exploitation of public treasures (I'm thinking I heard something about protests against the continued in-cavern vendors and new evidence that this commercial presence was deteriorating the caves--but I have been wrong already several times today!) perhaps the best route would be to delete the offending parts and invite a "from scratch" contribution. Does this make sense to anyone? Roy 01:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I have to ask if there is any real reason to have a "Rooms" section in this article. Granted, some of the most important rooms should be described, but in articles on buildings we don't describe every room, so why should we describe them in a cave?

I would encourage keeping the rooms distinction. This flows from the historic categorization of caverns. That is, unlike rooms of a building, the different caverns are subjected to sometimes subtle differences which over time, result in strikingly different (or similar) appearances. While the trained geologist may inwardly snicker these caverns should be featured here because of their impact on, and influence of, the public. Poets have often invoked metaphors in an attempt to do justice to the unexpected beauty or drama.

Perhaps it would be best for us to retain both of these perspectives: The academic geologic and the popular rhapsodic? This is not to suggest that geologists are not so mechanical as to be immune from a gasp at an unexpected scene, or that the public is not fully interested in the geologic details. Perhaps both of these perspectives should be honored. Perhaps through some new or renewed structural mechanism in the article's organization?

Oh, and somewhere in the wikipedia entry covering the residence of the President might in fact mention "the White House", and even "the oval office" and "Lincoln's bedroom. . ." Roy 01:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

• • The geology sections should be broken off into an article along the lines of Geology of the Grand Canyon area.
  • The section on bats should be expanded to include other fauna (and may be even flora if there is any) in the cave.

Just a few suggestions of things I can see. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 17:57, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• • • Geology of the Grand Canyon area (which I wrote) was never split off from the Grand Canyon article. It is a full article about the geology. The geology section at Grand Canyon (which I also wrote) is a several paragraph summary that should really be a wee bit longer. The geology section in this article is starting to get a bit long, but not long enough yet to warrant splitting and summarizing since the summary left here would need to be well over half the size of the full separate daughter article. Thus little point would be served by a split at this time. --mav 05:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

• Move to FARC - unimproved. Sandy (Talk) 01:26, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are possible copyvio (1c) and comprehensiveness (1b). Marskell 15:46, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

• Remove, copyvio (even if it didn come for the Parks Service, cut and pastes from the PD are not FA material), referencing, tone, other comprehensiveness issues when compared with more recent US parks FAs (like Glacier National Park (US)). --Peta 02:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Remove, except for Gzkn's work on the copyvio, nobody's working on the article deficiencies, no one seems to care, no progress. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• Remove—1a and 1c.
  • "Carlsbad was first designated a National Monument on 25 October 1923. Congress upgraded the monument to a national park on 14 May 1930. Carlsbad Caverns was also designated a World Heritage Site on 6 December 1995." What's "also" doing here? Do a search and destroy for this word throughout. Oh, there it is in the very next sentence, too.
  • "Visitation" is something angels do.
  • "helping to ensure no future changes will be made to the habitat"—"Future"? Isn't it already in the future tense?
  • "The story of the creation of Carlsbad Cavern begins 250 million years ago with the creation of ..." Repetition.
  • "The exposed reef became part of the Guadalupe Mountains and the underground chambers became the wonder of Carlsbad Cavern." POV? Reference?
  • "Some of the more unusual formations to occur in Carlsbad Cavern are helictites, which grow seemingly without regard to gravity, their twisting shapes governed by crystal shapes"—"to occur" is redundant; shapes x 2.

I won't read further until major copy-editing has been done. Tony 05:59, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

• Remove due to lack of inline citations. LuciferMorgan 21:06, 9 January 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 removed 06:27, 29 January 2007.

History of Central Asia

Review commentary

Messages left at SimonP, Central Asia, and History. Sandy (Talk) 23:33, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

This is in need of a major update, as this does not appear to take into account the last seven years of Central Asian history, other than a brief mention of the color revolutions. Notable facts not mentioned in this article: Karimov is on the verge of launching Uzbekistan into a war with all his neighbors over land, Niyazov died, Kazakhstan is almost, and may already be, a majority Christian nation, the EITR terrorist organization is fighting for independence and the Islamicization of Turkestan, Kazakhstan has not done nuclear testing for years and no longer has nuclear weapons, the 2001 War in Afghanistan, India has gotten a military base - its first - in Tajikistan, construction of the BTC pipeline, discovery of petroleum fields in Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan, and the AIDS accident that led to Dosayev's dismissal and is still claiming victims. KazakhPol 01:56, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

You have to be careful about adding too many recent events to articles like this. This page has to cover several millenia of history, and already more than 10% is on just the last fifteen years. The ideal solution would be to create some sub-articles, such as has been done with most national history articles. A History of Central Asia since 1991 page would be able to cover the events you listed in proper detail. - SimonP 03:11, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

What an incredibly huge topic for a single article! However, regarding solely the reason for this proposed FAR, can't this information just be added in a section on the past 7 years? As it's an article about history, that it hasn't been updated with events of the past 7 years is only a current and remediable omission, not a failing of the entire article. Is there anything else wrong with the article, that should cause it to be reviewed as a FA? If this is not the case, how about a post, instead, on the WikiProject Central Asia board requesting this update, and on the talk page requesting this update? Or have you tried that? And ditto, SimonP's comments. The topic is just immense! The last 7 years are merely a blip. KP Botany 03:13, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with KazakhPol, the period since independence is the most densely packed with history of a regional and perhaps global scale since Chinggis Han, it's no longer a Soviet backwater or merely a pawn in the new Great Game, and deserves an update. Chris 03:27, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Fails 1c, largely uncited, mixed reference styles, footnotes that are provided aren't formatted correctly. Sandy (Talk) 10:31, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. "Since 1991" is tragic!!! It completely fails to grasp the current momentum of events! It generalizes and fails to give the appropriate infos. Terrible! What about the internal tensions in all these countries? The challenges these totalitarian regimes faced? The role of Russia and its antagonism with USA? The efforts of Russia to control the natural sources (petroleum and natural gas) in this area, which is the true essence of a hypogeous energy war? Anyway ... I think this article treats a very interesting topic. It actually looks like a challenge to try and save it. I might give it a shot but I promise nothing. First, I'll do some search to see what I can do with citing and then we'll see. In case I undertake the task to save this article, I definitely need somebody to copy-edit.--Yannismarou 18:29, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

• Would not pass 1a or 1c in the FAC room. Here are random examples of why this needs a thorough copye-edit throughout.
  • Opening: "The history of Central Asia has been determined primarily by the area's climate and geography. The aridity of the region makes agriculture difficult, and its distance from the sea cut it off from much trade." Great concepts, but clash of tenses ("has been determined" vs simple past "cut").
  • "Turkic expansion begain in the 6th century, and following the Göktürk emipre,..." Typo, and do you mean "following the fall of the G empire"? That would be more nutural.
  • Audit the whole thing for commas; one is definitely missing here: "One of those powers, the Parthian Empire was of Central Asian origin, but adopted Persian cultural traditions." And here: "With no cities and little wealth other than the herds they brought with them the nomads had nothing ...".
  • Overlinked. Why "16th century", "firearms", genetics, and "chariots"? Please don't distract the readers with unfocused links. (Yet "wheat" is quite focused as a link, unusually.) Needs to ration the blue speckling.
  • Seriously under-referenced. Tony 05:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
• Move to FARC, no edits since Tony's review. Yannis has done some work on the article, but refs are still incorrectly formatted, mixed referencing styles, and undercited. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• Move to FARC per SandyGeorgia. KazakhPol 02:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concern is non-up-to-date coverage. Marskell 11:42, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment and remove. I don't think I have the time to work from scratch on the article. I'm sorry, but as it is now it is under FA status. Maybe we'll be able to re-nominate it in FAc within the next months.--Yannismarou 21:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Remove KazakhPol 21:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Remove Insufficient citations. LuciferMorgan 02:38, 20 January 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.