Wikipedia:Featured article review/archive/July 2008

1 Kept status
2 Removed status

Kept status

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

The article was kept by User:Marskell 07:31, 31 July 2008 [1].

Ronald Reagan

This article has problems on 1b and 1d (not neutral and comprehensive). Jimmuldrow (talk) 13:04, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

The main editor reverts any facts with references that aren't hero-worship. Some time after the article achieved featured article status, editors kept insisting on a historically wrong comparison of Reagan and Thomas Jefferson (Jefferson spent very little money as President on anything, including the military), which was eventually removed because of me. Other issues kept out at first or allowed only after several reverts include any mention of thousands of people denied Social Security Medical benefits by the Reagan administration, and Reagan's policy on drastically cutting EPA funding.Jimmuldrow (talk) 19:26, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Did you notify the main contributor(s)? And what criterion does this not meet? « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 19:33, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Close FAR, FAR is not dispute resolution, there is not a single post from the nominator at Talk:Ronald Reagan, there is nothing to see here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:40, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I only did this a minute ago. I'll notify the main contributors. I thought

it was clear that neutrality was my concern.Jimmuldrow (talk) 19:45, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

After seven FACs, it is doubtful that the neutrality concerns that you haven't raised anywhere on the talk page are sufficient for FAR; FAR is not dispute resolution. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:46, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Your recent revert indicates that you might not be unbiased. You're one of the editors

who wants no mention at all, however brief, of Reagan's well-known environmental policies.

And I did include a reference.Jimmuldrow (talk) 19:52, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

And your lack of use of the article talk page shows that you might not understand Wiki policies and procedures or the appropriate use of FAR. I suppose I was equally biased the two times that I advocated that Barack Obama FARs be closed? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:54, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you can explain whether you have a bias. You said that Reagan's EPA policies were

only "marginally related" to Reagan's Presidency, even though what you reverted (and the

reference for it) make it clear that more than half of the federal regulations targeted

for an early review by the Reagan administration's regulatory reform team were EPA

rules.Jimmuldrow (talk) 20:00, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Maybe a big arrow will help you find Talk:Ronald Reagan. (Are New Jersey taxpayers paying for your Wiki editing time, btw?) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:10, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the big arrow. I responded on the talk page for this one concern, but the FAR is for an ongoing series of the same kind of thing in what, in theory, is supposed to be a Featured Article. See above for details. Jimmuldrow (talk) 20:18, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

To recap a series of reverts that, over time, point to persistently biased editors:

Multiple editors kept reverting any attempt to correct a comparison of Reagan and Jefferson that was very wrong on the facts according to the book "Jefferson: American Sphinx", which was a History Book Club selection. Not that bad a reference. As to what the problem was, here's a hint: Jefferson and Reagan went opposite directions on the issue of deficit spending and military spending. That multiple editors of what is supposed to be a Featured Article wouldn't know this doesn't say much for the article.

Multiple reverts were made on any attempt to mention any details of Reagan's very well-known policy of deregulation, especially with regard to environmental protection (major) and also administration attempts to purge tens of thousands of people from Social Security Medical Disability roles (certainly not minor). There were good references for each. The reasons given were that they weren't relevant to the Presidency section of the Ronald Reagan article, which is very questionable.Jimmuldrow (talk) 20:38, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Close FAR By "main editor" I presume he means me. It's always me :) As I said on the talk page, Jim, there is no bias, discrediting of certain viewpoints, etc. This article adheres to WP:SS, with multiple sub-articles. The presidency section is a summary of what is covered elsewhere, namely Presidency of Ronald Reagan, Domestic policy of the Reagan administration, and Foreign policy of the Reagan administration. As I stated in my edit summary, the paragraph you inserted relating to the environmental policies is not completely NPOV and lacks necessary context. Without explaining Reagan's environmental policies, we immediately get how one aide resigned relating to the Superfunds. As I also said, please feel free to add information related to this in Domestic policy of the Reagan administration, where this can be covered in more depth. FYI, Reagan's stance on the environment is also covered in Political positions of Ronald Reagan. There is no cover up, or anything like that, and I think the FAR is, frankly, silly.

As for the Reagan-Jefferson thing, I have no idea what you are referring to. If I'm missing something, please let me know.

With all due respect, you are dead wrong on the Social Security mentions. I did not object to it being in the article at all. What I did was move it from the general "Presidency" section to the more specific "Reaganomics and the economy" section and placed it in proper context (see diff). Later, I realized that when I moved the phrase, I did not remove the first one, so I took that out (which was not controversial - see diff).

You also seem to be upset that work is reverted or undone in this article. Well, that is the process of editing. Not everything one editor enters is suitable for the article, and we have to adhere to guidelines (such as WP:SS, WP:RS, and WP:SIZE) to decide what to include and exclude. I've done some work over at John McCain, where they even have an FAQ at the talk page listing certain things that should be excluded and included for the good of the article. So if something is reverted, don't take it personally or jump to rash conclusions about bias and unfair portrayal; it just means that another editor disagreed with what you wrote for some reason. And usually, the issue is hammered out at the talk page. I try to always do that.

As I said above, I see no need for this FAR. The article is, IMHO, one of the most neutral on Wikipedia. Happyme22 (talk) 21:58, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Whether the FAR is closed should be decided by those who are not directly involved with the article. The main article should mention at least a short, concise summary of the important issues, although I'm sure they're mentioned in more depth elsewhere. Deregulation is certainly one of the things Reagan was most known for. If the article is about Reagan and not environmental deregulation then the Cold War shouldn't be mentioned because the Soviet Union and Gorbachev aren't Reagan, and so on.

And yes, every edit I mentioned above was reverted multiple times and no, it was not all about you, Happy. Other editors acted the same way. Hero worship would explain what otherwise doesn't add up, imo.

Jimmuldrow (talk) 02:31, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I never said that this article cannot mention anything about Reagan's deregulation. I said that if you want to add lengthy paragraphs, please do so in sub-articles because of WP:SS and WP:SIZE, among others. I don't mind mentioning environmental deregulation, Social Security, etc. but all mentions need to be fair and have balance (see WP:NPOV). As I also said, the eight years of Reagan's presidency are given more weight than some other periods of his life because they are so significant. The Cold War and Reagan's direct negotiations with Mikhail Gorbachev are indeed related to and about Ronald Reagan. I would be happy to discuss on the talk page with you how we can incorporate a mention of the environmental deregulation into this article. Happyme22 (talk) 02:55, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

The "lengthy" addition in question was three or four sentences, depending on which revert you're talking about. As for balance, if facts needed to be added you would have mentioned them by now.

Also, Reagan's EPA and Social Security appointees were specifically chosen because they shared Reagan's values with regard to deregulation. They were specifically chosen to implement Reagan's policies. Jimmuldrow (talk) 03:21, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Jimmuldrow, if "other editors acted the same way", that should tell you something about the quality of your edits. Once again, you have a content dispute over one paragraph which you never even attempted to resolve on the talk page or via consensus or via normal channels. FAR is not dispute resolution. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:15, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

The length was indeed four sentences, which can be perceived as long or short depending on where the sentences are and how much WP:WEIGHT you give the subject (these particular sentences were also placed in their own section). I have mentioned that a context is needed: Why did Reagan support deregulation? Because of his small-government and free market views. That should be mentioned, or else readers may wonder "why did Reagan deregulate?" His general attitude toward the environment would also need to be touched on, which is summed up at Political positions of Ronald Reagan#Environment. The Superfunds are mentioned in Domestic policy of the Reagan administration#Environment. Again, I would be happy to work something out with you on the article's talk page. Happyme22 (talk) 04:28, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

As to the quality of the edits, let some outside party judge. They were factual, had references, were as relevant to Reagan as the Cold War and, as mentioned before, several editors defended a completely wrong comparison of Reagan to Jefferson more than once. Let someone less directly involved also judge the quality of your responses.Jimmuldrow (talk) 11:25, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Didn't you see that this nomination was removed by Marskell? Why was this reinstated? Once again, remove nomination.--Yannismarou (talk) 15:41, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept by User:Marskell 07:31, 31 July 2008 [2].

Roman–Persian Wars

Notified Wikiprojects Greece, Iran, Classical, MilHist, and Middle Ages, and User:Yannismarou.

My own fault, really; this should have been a strong do not promote. If I had done more than glance at the points about which I was specifically consulted during the FA nomination, I would have objected then; but as it is, the second paragraph of the lead manages to violate 1a, b, c, d, and e. The present text (and I must say present, hence 1e) runs:

Occupation of enemy territory was usually local or brief and almost always reversed by force or negotiation. Durable cessions of territory in the border zone were made in Mesopotamia in 299 and 363 AD and in the Transcaucasus in 591 AD, but these were not the result of land being seized by force. Rather, each was the product of negotiations in which a ruler's negotiating position was severely weakened by his personal circumstances. The only lasting conquest by force was Septimius Severus' annexation of northern Mesopotamia in 195–198 AD. The last of these wars seemed to end the territorial inertia when Khosrau II's Sassanid forces occupied huge swathes of Roman territory for many years and brought the Roman Empire close to destruction. However, a counter-offensive led by Heraclius enabled the Romans to regain their lost territory in a final peace settlement.

1a: The last of these wars seemed to end the territorial inertia when. The last war mentioned is from 195 AD; the occasion now mentioned is from 591 AD. Bad writing; not that territorial inertia is a clear metaphor to begin with.

1b: This omits all Roman successes except Septimius, including Trajan's conquest of Mesopoptamia, which was voluntarily abandoned by Hadrian

1c: The final peace settlement here lasted eight years before the Sassanian empire ceased to exist; other settlements has lasted for a century.

1d: Iranian nationalism, root and branch; a WP:PEACOCK violation on Khosrau. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:36, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

It would be nice if this could be resolved - this edit by Yannismarou would be acceptable; but I have made lengthy efforts to do so, in vain. If we must have a bad article because of group pressure, can we at least keep it off the main page? But it would be preferable to fix it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:53, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

My first and final comment on this issue. Seeing this article being here just one week after its promotion is for me a bad joke. It is obviously another Sept's attempt to create wiki-drama, but I have no intention to follow his path. Therefore, I'll comment once and then I'll remain silent. Some things about the background of Sept's full of rage reaction:

On June 28, Sept commented "I deplore the frontier remained remarkably stable as a half-truth", (see here), and although he received a well-grounded and analytic response by both me and Zburh he temporarily kept his silence and decided to reinstate his arguments (without actually answering to me and Zburh) on July 8 (see here). After a brief response of mine, he added this draft, extending the lead, changing its structure, and inserting a series of historical inaccuracies, which were pointed out by both me and Zburh here. Zburh proposed a compromise version, insisting on territorial changes (this one close to the current version), and restoring historical accuracy Sept's draft had compromised. This is important because later Zburh faced the accusation of "Iranian nationalism". You can compare Sept's draft and argumentation, and then Zburh's draft and supporting argumentation, in order to make your own judgment. I want to emphasize on two things: 1) Sept stated during this discussion "Added a draft. If you disagree with the specifics, feel free to tweak again. If you dispute largely (he meant the particular word, which was thus in italics) we have a problem." This statement of his contradicts most of his arguments in the current FARC, which focus on "the specifics". 2) After Zburh introduced his compromise draft, Sept remained silent for twenty days! He did not respond to Zburh's arguments (maybe because he couldn't; see again here in fine), and did not comment on the draft. In the law school they told us that such a long silence entails acceptance, but this is no law school, and I'll let the reviewers again to make their own judgments here. One thing you should also check is Zburh's civility and politeness during all this time. This is important for the next episodes of our story!
Sept does not express any objection again about the lead; he waits; he does not say anything during FAC; he keeps silent, and suddenly on July 27 he introduces unilaterally and after no discussion this confusing and historical inaccurate change. On July 28 I revert him back, trying to be polite, and asking him to discuss the issue in the talk page (see my edit summary). And then we have the beginning of wrath! His "mature" response was to start tagging the article (the same version he hadn't tagged for 20 days, and although he had said that his main problem was "largely" and not "the specifics"), and to address threats towards all directions (I have gathered them at the end of this intervention). His vengiful tactic of tagging the article has been repeatedly criticized by third-party editors and subsequently reverted by third-party editors. The ensuing discussion is deploring but if you have the patience read it till the end. I do not have the appetite to repeat all the details here; the point is that Sept suddenly realized that now all the details are important to him, and if he is not satisfied:

He will ask for an RfC for the article.
He will initiate an RfC against particular users who do not agree with him.
He will report almost everybody to AIV.
He will initiate a FARC (oups! He already did it! He is a man of his word!)
He will keep tagging the article till the end of the world.
He will regard all of us as Iranian nationalists (although I kindly asked him to label me as Greek, therefore Byzantine nationalist, which I may deserve!).

I do not have much to say about the FA criteria. Just read the article and see for yourself! It is thoroughly researched, properly cited, copy-edited by Dank55, Ceoil, Casliber, and Finetooth (last copy-editing after Tony's comments in FAC). The only person who regards it as POV is Sept. The only person causing edit-wars is again Sept (and it is hillarious to use his own edit-wars for evoking violation of criterion 1e!) What else can I say?! Oh, yes, some brief answers to Sept's aforementioned arguments:

"The last of these wars seemed to end the territorial inertia when Khosrau II's Sassanid". If you think the prose is not perfect, tweak it (by the way, your prose skllls as presented in all the drafts you proposed are much inferior, and all your versions worse than the current one!), but how can you say that the reader may not understand that we speak about Heraclius' war, when there is the "when ... " part of the sentence, and since "the last of these wars" refers to the Roman-Persian Wars as a whole. The solution here, in case you want to introduce an improvement, is a minor tweak like a better paragraph-splitting I just did; not all this fuss you caused.
Really? And 591 or 195-198 were done by whom? Not the Romans?! And, after all, the paragraph speaks about "durable sessions". All the ones mentioned: two Romans (195-198 and 591) and two Persians (299 and 363) were "durable", and one of them, the one achieved in 195-198 was "permanent". Trajan's was neither durable nor permanent. As the article accurately says: "Trajan died in 117, before he was able to reorganize the effort to consolidate Roman control over the Parthian provinces." Now, where is the POV or the historical inaccuracy again? And, by the way, in your own edit of July 27 (the ideal one for you!), which I initially reverted, I see no Trajan. So, on July 27 Trajan's omission did not violate 1b, but on July 30 it does violate it!
"in a final peace settlement". As far as the Persian-Wars are concerned, it was permanent. We had no other! Yes, we could have had, if the Arab "tsunami" wouldn't occur. But the statement is not inaccurate. This was the last peace settlement in a series of wars lasting approximately 700 years. Nevertheless, if this is a problem, personally I have no problem to remove this particular thread, and leave the sentence like that: "However, a counter-offensive led by Heraclius enabled the Romans to regain their lost territory".
Ok, no comment! Howard-Johnston (among others) is PEACOCK and Iranian nationalist! The Empire was on the verge of destruction and this is a fact! By the way, I and Zburh could also accuse you of true Iranian nationalism, when you argued that Shapur "held" Roman East, which never happened! And whatever you say you are not convincing at all, arguing that Shapur's and Khosrau's threats were of the same or similar importance.

Maybe redundant, but in order to have a broader prespective of the whole issue and Sept's tactics, I thought I should collect and expose here all the threats he managed to articulate within some hours:

For a start, as far as the article itself is concerned, if we do not agree with his drafts FARC and dispure resolutions are the only solutions.
Concerning personal comments, Sept declares that some users are in general dishonest.
Zburh in particular is "semi-literate" and an "Iranian nationalist". I honestly believe and I have to voice my opinion loudly here, that this was the worst of all comments. The person who has worked that much in this article, has attempted to promote compromises, the person who never offended anybody, and was always civil, the person with the profoundest knowledge of the topic among all of us, this person to be called "semi-literate", and "Iranian nationalist"?
Here another "offending" editor is threatened by the (later temporarily banned for edit-warring) Sept with an RfC, because he removed one of the two repetitive threads Trajan was mentioned!
And here everybody not agreeing with him is reported to AIV for vandalism of course!

I close this long comment, apologizing for its lentgh and for obliging you to read it (whoever of you managed to do that deserves my humble admiration!), but I thought I had to give a comprehensive presentation of the events, at least in the way I see them. In order to be fair, I have also to say that all this story is not just Sept's fault; CreazySuit and Larno Man wanted honestly to help but sometimes they achieved the opposite result. But I also have to recognize that at the same time they were provoked by Sept's bitter comments (see above).

Oh, and something else: Obviously all the reviewers here are passing a test of Sept, in order to see whether FA is worth anything at all. So, be careful; if you don't agree with him FA is worth of nothing. Thank you again for your patience!--Yannismarou (talk) 08:40, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

This article was promoted nine days ago. Per WP:FAR instructions, Three to six months is regarded as the minimum time between promotion and nomination here, unless there are extenuating circumstances such as a radical change in article content.. FAR is not dispute resolution. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:09, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
- I know that I should have opposed this article during FAC - if I had seen the problem, I would have done so; I have been trying to fix it since, only to have been completely reverted by a couple of editors with severe ownership problems; they have even reverted Yannismarou's tag acknowledging that the article is in dispute. It should not have been promoted with this text; it should be demoted now. (Nor do I insist on my own text; I am perfectly happy with the edit by Yannismarou linked to here, and many other alternatives are possible. Merely not this confusing, biased, and inaccurate text.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:50, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
  - I've never inserted "a tag acknowledging that the article is in dispute".--Yannismarou (talk) 17:35, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Remove - Bad faith nomination made way too soon to be seriously considered. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:06, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Remove nom Per Judgesurreal. ( Ceoil ^sláinte 23:18, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept by User:Marskell 12:34, 23 July 2008 [3].

Shrine of Remembrance

Notified: Gsl, CJ, Figaro, Rebecca, MacGyverMagic, Fifelfoo, Chuq and WikiProject Australia

Featured article (promoted in 2004, hasn't been reviewed since) with a Template:morefootnotes is not a good sign. Looking at the article it is obvious that it doesn't fall under Featured article criteria - 1.(c) and 2.(c) as it has only one in-text citation and only two offline references.--Avala (talk) 21:52, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but unfortunately I have never seen the Melbourne Shrine of Remembrance, so I do not feel qualified to make a comment or assumption about the article's criteria as a Wikipedia featured article - either for or against. Figaro (talk) 04:12, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Bilby is working on this; see WP:AWNB#FAR - Shrine of Remembrance and the article's history. —Giggy 04:16, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

The article still has "citation needed" tags.--Avala (talk) 14:51, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi - we've been adding them as we go along, mostly to make it clear to us what parts have been properly sourced and what could still do with one. They should be gone in a day or so - mostly they refer to information which is inferred by the sources, but that seems insufficient for a featured article. Thus they'll either be properly sourced, reworded to match reliable sources, or the text will be removed. - Bilby (talk) 15:23, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

It looks a lot better now. Just one question, is there any photo to cover the section "Redevelopment: 2002–2003" of the new visitor centre?--Avala (talk) 13:22, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I still think it could do with some work, but I'm glad it is heading in the right direction. :) I've added a photo from commons which I believe shows one of the new entrances to the shrine post-redevelopment. That section needs to be expanded a bit, though. I have some good sources, as it was well covered in the media, but I'll have to track down a couple of missing references first. - Bilby (talk) 14:51, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I think we've taken care of the referencing problem now: all significant claims should be referenced with reliable sources. I've also rewritten the lead to meet current MoS, and we've restructured the article as a whole. There may well be other problems that need to be fixed as part of this review - just let me know and I'll do what I can. :) It was interesting to see how much requirements for featured articles have changed in the last four years, and it certainly was in desperate need of referencing. - Bilby (talk) 12:06, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
- Looks good. I see only one issue now - quite unimportant image for the article of Keith Murdoch takes too much space while the physical look of the opponent journalist doesn't tell us much about the shrine itself so I would remove it. Other than that it looks fine to me.--Avala (talk) 13:20, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
  - The image is in a subsection titled "Oppostion and response". The key figure of the opposition was Murdoch and the key figure of the response was Monash, so I think that pictures of these two main protaganists is apt for this section. Melburnian (talk) 00:11, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
    - Given that both figures were certainly important (they get a fair bit of coverage in all the histories I've dug up, much more than any other individuals), I've tried resizing the two photos and putting them together - sort of a "for" and "against" shot. I'm not sure that it helps, but it was worth a try. :) - Bilby (talk) 02:05, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
      - I think that's a nice solution in terms of juxtaposition and sizing. Melburnian (talk) 02:11, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
        
        Yes that certainly looks very good. Thanks for the effort, I think the article is now deservedly featured.--Avala (talk) 14:04, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
        
        Cool. :) And thanks for raising it here - it certainly needed the work, and I think it is much better for being proposed for review. - Bilby (talk) 14:11, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

There was no MoS review; post-closing cleanup and comments on talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:38, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept by User:Marskell 17:28, 22 July 2008 [4].

Structural history of the Roman military

Review commentary

Notified Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history

It fails 1(c), the section on the Manipular legion is innacurate — there were at least two reforms during this period, and two different ypes of legions with varying tactics and equipment, the refs don't seem to be reliable in that respect. The Non-citizen recruitment (49 BC – 27 BC) section could be expanded too, and it should really be a subsection of the Marian legion, and also, rather than being reffered to as "Manipular legion", "Imperial legion" etc, thy are normally named after somebody, like the Marian legion — the manipular legion was orignially a Camillan legion, but after some reforms became the Polybian legion, and the Imperial legion should be the Augustan legion.

{{Cite book}} and similar templates aren't used at all in the article, instead the refs are handmade, and the lead section lacks references (Okay, it is just a summary of the article but it should have the same refs as in the section is summarises, shouldn't it?)--Serviam (talk) 13:08, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Without getting into the accuracy issue—I'm not really qualified to comment on that—neither citation templates nor citation in the lead section are required by any policy or guideline, and, with an article this heavily cited, simply collecting citations for the lead by gathering those from the relevant sections would make it unreadable in any case. Kirill ^(prof) 13:21, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Just sorta echoing Kirill here: footnotes in the lead section are a mistake rather than a requirement, last time I checked (which has been awhile). And there's really no need to use {{Cite book}} ever. But this particular article does use a weird {{bibliobox}} template, which is an odd and ungainly innovation that has no precedent in the published world, as far as I know. This is the only article that uses it—and the creator no longer edits Wikipedia—so anyone should feel free to reformat the "Bibliography" section to one of the standard Wikipedia formats. Having a separate "footnotes" and "citations" section is another unneeded oddity, but not unheard of on Wikipedia. Combining the two would be an easy improvement.

As for the inaccuracies, it might have been more productive to raise those issues on the talk page of the article first, rather than here, unless the nominator feels the article is too inaccurate to easily salvage. Reviewers here typically won't know enough about a given topic to judge if the nominator is more knowledgeable than those who wrote the featured article. —Kevin Myers 14:34, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Please complete the nomination by following the instructions at the top of WP:FAR to notify significant contributors and relevant WikiProjects, and post the notifications back to the top of this FAR. Thank you. --Regents Park (moult with my mallards) 16:08, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Well the guy who did most of the work on it, and most Roman articles, stopped editing sometime last year (PocklingtonDan). I'll put a not eon the military history project talk page then. It may be possible to salvage it, though it would take a good bit of work, and I'm not prepared to do it at the moment, though someone else might.--Serviam (talk) 17:00, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the Template:Bibliobox from the references. May I say that I don't think has any citation issues of any form. It seems to be one of the most well-cited articles I have seen. From an accuracy standpoint, it follows the sources; if you question those sources then you need to provide your own that contradict them.

If I am reading your concerns correctly, you think the Manipular region section should be renamed? I disagree, that section header adequately explains the content of the section, and as such it does its job. To add it to the "Marian legion (107 BC – 49 BC)" section would destroy the chronology. Woody (talk) 17:28, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say to add it there, I meant that it should be split it into two sections; Camillan legion and Polybian legion, that's the main innacuracy, because half way through that section there was a large military reform which has been completely ommited, so I suppose it's more 1(b) than 1(c). It also doesn't mention Leves, light javelin armed infantry, predessesors of the velites, which don't seem to have received any coverage on wikipedia at all...--Serviam (talk) 17:44, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, the "Non-citizen recruitment (49 BC – 27 BC)" section should really be a subsection of "Marian legion (107 BC – 49 BC)", which actually lasted untill 27 BC, when Augustus came to power. "Introduction of vexillationes (76 AD – 117 AD)" should be a subsection of "Imperial legions and reformation of the auxilia (27 BC – 75 AD)", which should really be called "Augustan legion", and lasted up untill 117 AD, a bit of 2(b) there . The seperate citations and footnotes sections are also a little strange--Serviam (talk) 17:49, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

As for my sources, [5], [6], [7], [8], [9] are all reliable, particularly the second link, that gives an in-depth history of the roman legions.--Serviam (talk) 17:54, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

It is not that strange to have separate footnotes and citations, it is becoming more and more common on FACs as it is clearer to the reader. With regards to the subsections, I can't really comment yet as I haven't looked into it enough. Regards. Woody (talk) 18:08, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay thanks for your comments anyway.--Serviam (talk) 18:41, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

How are those sources reliable. They all look like they come from fairly unreliable websites, except maybe the second link which is an excerpt from a book from 1875 - not exactly the newest research. Surely the multiple book sources used now are more reliable? --Peter Andersen (talk) 11:34, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

They are reliable in that they seem to agree with the stuff I know about the Romans, so I assume they are reliable. and regardless of refs, there is a good bit of stuff left out. Those books that are already in the article mention it, probably the author of the wikipedia article didn't think them significant (As they still faught in maniples, but had different equipment and weapons and some kinds of troops had disappeared)--Serviam (talk) 19:33, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

See WP:RS regarding sources. Web sources must be written either by a noted historian or noted organisation or clearly and transparently demonstrate their sources. Otherwise anyone could have written them without any academic legitimacy. These sources do not (at least at first glance) fulfill either of these requirements and as the person suggesting them, the onus is on you to prove their reliability. I think this issue is one that would be better raised on the talk page rather than here. To add, citations should not be used in the lead, the lead is an introduction and anything mentioned there should be cited elsewhere in the article.--Jackyd101 (talk) 13:37, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Read what I said, please, the books used in the article do mention this, but they have been left out in the article for some strange reason.--Serviam (talk) 13:53, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

So use the books not the websites. Requesting expansion doesn't require new sources if the old ones have the info needed. Jay32183 (talk) 18:47, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I was asked for other sources, and I found them...--Serviam (talk) 21:21, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I think there is some confusion here. Basically, if the books contain the information required then you (or someone else with the books) should use the information in them to deal with the comprehensiveness issues you raise and use the books to source this expansion. The websites you provided cannot be used to source an FA because (per WP:RS) they have no obvious indication that what they state has any academic legitimacy.--Jackyd101 (talk) 22:33, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

My first and second links can be used, they meet WP:RS, the last three I just got off google. As I explained above, I'm not prepared to add in the additional information, though someone else might want to.--Serviam (talk) 20:37, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Is there any particular reason that the footnotes are alpha, delta, beta, lambda, eta, xi? I'd have expected alpha, beta, gamma, delta, epsilon, zeta. It's a minor concern, but since we're here, I'd thought I'd ask. Jay32183 (talk) 20:50, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Fixes needed. Incorrect use of WP:ITALICS throughout on direct quotes. Some clauses are double and triple cited; there seems to be some overciting, but a content expert would need to evaluate. I found missing named refs and there are like more (I can put them in a spreadsheet later to check unless someone else gets to it first). Wikilinking is going to need attention (I linked one word, and noticed Bronze Age unlinked, as samples). That's all I had time for, but maybe someone will get to some of this before I do. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:36, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

On second thoughts I've got through my other article work suprisingly fast, and at thsi rate I can start fixing the small factual errors early next week. Unless anyone else thinks it shouldn;t be, I say just leave it featured.--Serviam (talk) 23:06, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

We can leave it featured after you fixed the errors. (That has a priority over fixing triarii) Wandalstouring (talk) 07:33, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are references and their formatting (1c and 2c). Marskell (talk) 20:04, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment: The article's referencing level looks to me fine (although I do not have the time to proof-read them, I admit). And it is a great article! Which should keep its star. The prose is good, but I cannot say if it deserves to be called "professional". I think we'll need Tony's or Ceoil's opinion on that. As far as I am concerned, I'll work on the formatting of the citations, and on the MoS issues my eye will catch.--Yannismarou (talk) 12:49, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Keep. Density of citations is not a problem AFAICS. Well written, and overall grand. ( Ceoil ^sláinte 20:26, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I was hoping for more comments, but I think this is in keep territory and will move it out now. Marskell (talk) 17:13, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept by User:Marskell 17:40, 19 July 2008 [10].

Caesar cipher

Review commentary

This remains a well written, stable and (likely) accurate article, however it lacks a good lead, is too short and has a critical lack of citations, both inline and not.

The nominating user Matt Crypto, WP version 0.5 and Wikiproject Cryptography have each been notified of this discussion. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 17:23, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the citations are not up to modern standards, but I would quibble with your assertion that it's too short. According to the FA criteria, a featured article merely needs to be comprehensive, that is, "it neglects no major facts or details". You might know of some gaps, but the topic of the Caesar cipher is not a large one, and I would argue that it is covered comprehensively here. Also, what problems do you see with the lead section -- it appears to be roughly the right size for an article of this length, if that's what you meant, as per the guidelines of Wikipedia:LEAD#Length. — Matt Crypto 18:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Yea, I'll withdraw the remark about length and the lead. It needs to have its references flushed out and it should be fine. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 06:08, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I've added five more inline citations, I can find a few more if you give me a few days. The external links section could do with cleanup - we only need one online implementation, not eleven. Hut 8.5 20:49, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Now has 14 inline citations. Hut 8.5 20:36, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Good work, Hut. Do you feel that it is fully referenced (i.e., that each ref covers everything behind it until the preceeding ref)? And no, there is no length criterion; the question is whether it is comprehensive, regardless of length. Is Cumulus still around? Perhaps we can close this without FARC. Marskell (talk) 15:16, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Apart from the paragraph at the end concerning multiple decryptions, yes. Hut 8.5 16:45, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments:

How do we know: "..other substitution ciphers are known to have been used earlier", if Caesar's was the first recorded?
Placing "used earlier" alongside Augustus could mislead a naive reader into thinking Augustus used the cipher before Caesar.
Is "it is likely to have been reasonably secure, etc." all from Singh?
Please expand on the Mezuzah use. I wanted to know why it's used there and when the practice started.
In the paragraph summarising use of the Vigenère cipher I would add that "Complete Victory" was used by the Confederacy, to place it in an historical context (and mention anyone else who used it).
Are there any more historical uses of the cipher which could be used to illustrate the article? DrKiernan (talk) 16:10, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply, I forgot to watchlist this page.

Caesar's is the first recorded use of a substitution cipher which is a simple shift of the alphabet. Other types of substitution cipher were used earlier (there are examples from Ancient Greece, the Old Testament, the Kama Sutra and even some Ancient Egyptian tombs).
Changed.
No, only "Assuming that an attacker could read the message" etc was. I've added another reference for the first part.
I've added a mention of the Confederacy, though a list of everyone who has used the Vigenère cipher would be very long for a brief summary - better just to link to the article.
I've expanded it a little.
I don't know of any more examples. After the Dark Ages anyone who did use the cipher would have to be completely ignorant of cryptography as it's so insecure. Hut 8.5 16:45, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns is referencing (1c). Marskell (talk) 14:03, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Keep My comments are addressed [11]. DrKiernan (talk) 09:42, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree. It remains a tidy little article. Great work from Hut. Marskell (talk) 17:05, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept by User:Marskell 13:59, 18 July 2008 [12].

Surtsey

Review commentary

Husond and Roadrunnerz45 have been notified as have the Iceland and the Volcanoes WikiProject

I have found that this seems to neglect 1.(c), 2.(c), and 4. It is quite short, and is not of comparable length to current FA's. It is very under-referenced, and some of them aren't in the ~~{{cite web}}~~ proper format at all, just in <ref> tags, with no other relevant information like publisher info. I do not believe that this fits the FA criteria any longer. Dreamafter (talk) 21:14, 20 May 2008 (UTC) *Support demotion. This article once fulfilled the FA criteria, but just not anymore. Hús ö nd 21:23, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment The level of referencing in the first half of the article is substandard. However, articles are judged on comprehensiveness, not length, and it is comparable to other short FAs, such as John Day (printer). Are there major topics that the article fails to address? Also, while some of the citations are not properly formatted, there is no requirement that citation templates be used. Use of solely <ref> tags is perfectly acceptable as long as the references are properly formatted. BuddingJournalist 21:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Reply I just mean on that note, there is no publisher information, so no idea as to weather they are still or ever reliable. Dreamafter (talk) 21:28, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but I was addressing your comment that "some of them aren't in the {{cite web}} form at all, just in <ref> tags". BuddingJournalist 21:33, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I have fixed my wording. Dreamafter (talk) 22:43, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Please complete the nomination by following the instructions at the top of WP:FAR to notify significant contributors and relevant WikiProjects, and post the notifications back to the top of this FAR. I see that you've notified two users, but please also notify relevant projects. Thank you. --Regents Park (Feed my swans) 21:57, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Done Dreamafter (talk) 22:43, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are references and their formatting (1c and 2c) and focus (4). Marskell (talk) 09:58, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

There are now plenty of well formatted references. I see no elaboration on how the article is either not comprehensive, or lacks focus, and so I do not see how criterion 4 is relevant here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.70.34.175 (talk) 20:02, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Spelling should be made consistent with either American or British spelling. Examples include: meter/metre, colonise/colonize, criticise/criticize, ization/isation. DrKiernan (talk) 16:58, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Remove unless a lot happens soon. Missing conversions, WP:NBSPs, inconsistent date formatting throughout, uncited hard data throughout (see Birds and Marine life), See also needs pruning, inconsistent formatting of citations. Lots of work is this is to be kept. If MoS issues are cleaned up, I suspect wikilinking will need attention, but haven't looked closely. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:11, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Which hard data is not cited, exactly? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.70.34.175 (talk) 09:03, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

In "Early days" what is the uncited trivia about journalists staying 15 minutes?

"Birds", three years, eight species, uncited; also, gulls since 1986 and puffins

"Marine life", 70 seals, grey seals common, uncited

Unformatted citations still, and incorrectly formatted dates in the citations. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:07, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Had another look, issues not addressed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:26, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

~~Comments~~

The article on Territorial waters (yes, not reliable I know!) says that Iceland's limit was 2 nautical miles (3.7 km) but in this article Iceland claims that Surtsey was within territorial waters even though it is 140 km from the main island. Please check or explain or re-phrase.
~~Ferdinandea needs to be tied into the text more smoothly, at present it looks like it's been stuck on as an afterthought. DrKiernan (talk) 16:56, 4 July 2008 (UTC)~~
Keep I've addressed my own comments myself and formatted the citations. Some of the citations are a little dodgy but I'm inclined to be generous. DrKiernan (talk) 10:07, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Comment. ^{citation needed} tags should be addressed.--Yannismarou (talk) 13:28, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

- I don't see any missing conversions.
- I can't see where the nbsp need to be.
- The dates in the text are day-first, those in the refs are xxxx-xx-xx format. I consider this consistent.
- I think "See also" is OK.
- Citations are consistently formatted.
- The journalists' visit is cited.
- Gulls since 1986 is in Friðriksson & Magnússon, but I have changed this to 1984 based on the new reference added: Petersen, which also details the three years and puffins.
- The seals data can be found in the paper by Erlingur Hauksson of the Icelandic Fisheries Laboratory, Reykjavik, which is now added to the article. DrKiernan (talk) 12:29, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I do hope this can be saved: it's fascinating. Yannismarou appears to have done a lot since Sandy's comments, although I haven't looked closely enough to determine whether all have been addressed. TONY (talk) 12:06, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Clarification: DrKiernan has done a lot here! Me, I have done some things in two other FARCs, Structural History of Roman Military and 1896 Olympic Games.--Yannismarou (talk) 12:33, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I was going to say that date formatting is inconsistent but I notice that it uses the rare Template:Citation. This produces formatting different than Cite web. I can't hold our templature against and I think it's keepable otherwise. Marskell (talk) 13:58, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept by User:Marskell 13:34, 18 July 2008 [13].

Bill Russell

Review commentary

I've notified WikiProject National Basketball Association, Myasuda, Onomatopoeia, Quadzilla99, Zodiiak, Chensiyuan, and Warhol13. Zagalejo^^^ 06:51, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

This article was promoted in 2007, and I was one of the people who voted in support. Admittedly, I hadn't read the entire article very closely, and I believe it falls short of satisfying 1a and 1d.

My concerns:

Some phrases are taken almost verbatim from the sources. In the "personal life" section, we have two sentences which are very similar to those in this article. ("His would-be neighbors filed a petition trying to block the move, and when that failed, other neighbors banded together to try to purchase the home that Russell wanted to buy. . . Furthermore, once in Marion, Indiana, he had been given the key to the city only to be refused service that evening in his hotel's dining room. Russell went to the mayor's home, woke him up, and returned the key.") User:Xeriphas1994 pointed this out on the talk page in November 2007. Unfotunately, I hadn't noticed that message until now (and I guess no one else did, either.) It might be wise to check everything in the article, to make sure it's free of plagiarism.
- I've reworded the two sentences above, but I'm still worried that there may be similar problems elsewhere in the article. Zagalejo^^^ 17:16, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
The article often sounds more like a sportswriter's column than an encylopedia article. It has a lot of sports jargon ("This was the first time in seven years that he failed to average 23 boards"), and the language is not always neutral ("Russell grabbed an incredible 40 rebounds in Game 2"; "They finished with a lackluster 48–34 record"; "Russell completed another fine year"; "Russell himself put up decent numbers of 9.9 points per game", etc.)
The "Accomplishments and legacy" section is a real chore to read, especially the second paragraph, which is just a flood of statistical information, with repetitive transitions ("Russell also... Russell also...") That information might be better in list form.

I don't mean to be persnickety, but I think it's fair to ask that we make this the best article it can be. I'm committed to helping out with what I can, but I can't do it myself. Zagalejo^^^ 06:41, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

You're not being persnickety. Plagarism is as serious an issue as we can face. I'm going to do a full source check for you, and will post if I find any hint of copying text. I don't have any of the books, so you're out of luck there. Giants2008 (talk) 20:41, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I've gone through the first 10 references, and I have a couple questions. Nothing major, but I might as well mention them now.

Article: "which was later called an important bonding experience for the group." Ref 3: "The result is what we might refer to today as a "bonding" experience." No plagarism, but should "bonding" be placed in quotation marks in the article?
Ref 7: Alex Hannum being the only coach to beat the Celtics in the playoffs during their dynasty is not referenced by this. At least I can't find it. This also appears tacked on, and not very relevant to Russell.

I haven't found anything to match the plagarism examples given, but have been making changes to items that are close to the source text.

If it's close, why take chances? Feel free to revert if you don't like the adjustments, and I'll be back for more tomorrow. Giants2008 (talk) 23:46, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your hard work. I'll look through a batch of references later tonight. Zagalejo^^^ 23:55, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I've covered everything up to "1956-59". I haven't found any other whole sentences that have been copied from the sources, but I changed a few phrases that I thought were a little too close for comfort. People can look through the edit history to see. I also did a little bit of general copyediting, but nothing too extensive. I'll check more of the sources later. Zagalejo^^^ 04:48, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

With Zagalejo's help, I've made it through 35 sources so far. My worst discovery so far was a factual error, stating that Russell had a 30-point, 40-rebound performance in Game 7 of the 1963 NBA Finals, when he actually did so in 1962. The game also went one overtime, not two as the article previously said. This is now fixed. Let me throw out my one concern so far.

Article: "In one particular instance, Russell's father was denied service at a gasoline station until the staff had taken care of all the white customers. When his father attempted to leave and find a different station, the attendant stuck a shotgun in his face, threatening to kill him unless he stayed and waited his turn. In another instance, Russell's mother was walking down the street in a fancy dress when the local sheriff accosted her."
Ref 1 (The Current): "In one instance, his father was denied service at a gasoline station until all the other white customers were taken care of. To add insult to injury, when his father calmly drove away toward another station, the attendant shoved a shotgun in his face and threatened to kill him unless he came back and waited.

In another instance, Bill's mother was walking down the street wearing a beautiful dress when the sheriff stopped her...". Is this too close to the source text? I didn't think so yesterday when I checked it, but it's starting to bother me now. If anyone wants to comment on this, please do. Giants2008 (talk) 18:36, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I tried to reword those a little bit more. I'm not sure if I'm satistfied. Zagalejo^^^ 21:56, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I've made it to ref 46, (Counter Punch) and I have bad news. There are several other statements sourced to this site that look almost identical in the article. The whole paragraph probably needs to be re-written. Giants2008 (talk) 20:50, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm done with my source check, and refs 47 (ZMag) and 51 (Foundation for Sarcoidosis Research) are also repeated closely in the article. The Personal life section seems to be where the real problem is. Giants2008 (talk) 21:05, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks so much for doing that. That personal life section is problematic for other reasons. I remember reading that few NBA teams ever approached a sellout in the 1960s, so it may not be wise to use the attendance figures as an example of racism toward Russell. I'm just going to pull those sentences out for the time being. Hopefully, some of the main article writers will drop by sometime to chime in. Zagalejo^^^ 21:25, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm now attempting to weed out the many POV statements in the article. There are quite a few of them, and I notice them most when talking about Russell's season performances and "famous" moments in the NBA. Describing what happened is enough for me. I won't guarantee that I got everything, but it is better now. I removed the first instance of his streak of averaging 23 rebounds a game from when it started, because I didn't think it flowed well there. I also worked on some other things, but feel free to change them back if you want. I'm through 1964–65 as I call it a night, and I will finish this tomorrow. Giants2008 (talk) 04:17, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your continued hard work. Zagalejo^^^ 06:38, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I just finished my POV run-through. I don't claim perfection, but I do claim improvement. Giants2008 (talk) 22:57, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it defintely looks better, as far as POV language is concerned.

OK, I think my first two comments above have been addressed, thanks to the work of Giants2008. I'd still like to do something with that "Accomplishments and legacy" section, though. Also, I noticed that many paragraphs throughout the article begin with the phrase "In the [year] season...," like "In the 1967-68 NBA season..." Should that be "During the 1967-68 season"? Zagalejo^^^ 01:46, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

My idea for Accomplishments and Legacy is to move the single-game feats into the season recaps. This will reduce some of the clutter, and the games would fit better in their respective seasons. After this is done, the rest of the second paragraph can be moved into a list. What do you think? Giants2008 (talk) 01:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that sounds like it would work. Zagalejo^^^ 03:09, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment As a main contributor to the original FA version, I applaud all of the improvements. After my long wikibreak, I will be infusing info from books and magazines, moving the article away from listing pure stats and giving a more holistic view, both in professional and personal sense. Any help (esp. copyedit) is appreciated. —Onomatopoeia (talk) 12:50, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Great! Leave a note when you think you're done, and I'll comb through the prose. Zagalejo^^^ 06:12, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll look at the writing as well. The Accomplishments and legacy section still needs work, since I got a little lazy with this. Also take a look at the pictures, especially the infobox photo; I'm concerned about fair-use with a living person. Giants2008 (talk) 15:09, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I am finished now with the new input, page is now 80k instead of 60k. Copyediting is appreciated: My eyes are not fresh anymore, I could not see errors even if I wanted to... —Onomatopoeia (talk) 21:18, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

New comments I'll add to this list as I work my way through the article.

However, Russell frequently battled with racism and was notorious for his contempt of fans and journalists.

I'm a little uneasy about the word "notorious" here. I think the sentence should make it clearer that Russell's attitude towards fans and the media was largely the result of his experiences with racism.

Copy that. But also mention that he took out his resentment on the people who actually made him big, namely the fans and also the staff (see his hit-and-run retirement) of the Celtics.—Onomatopoeia (talk) 21:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

As a sophomore at McClymonds High School, he was a teammate of future Baseball Hall-of-Famer Frank Robinson, but Russell would have been almost cut again.

I'm not sure what Frank Robinson has to do with Russell almost being cut. Zagalejo^^^ 02:20, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that is awkward. —Onomatopoeia (talk) 21:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

In his USF years, Russell used his relative lack of bulk to develop an uncanny style of defense: instead of purely guarding the opposing center, he used his quickness and speed to play help defense against opposing forwards and aggressively challenge their shots.

A couple of comments: 1)"uncanny" is POV; 2)Do we have an article that discusses the concept of help defense? Zagalejo^^^ 02:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, the book says that Russell pretty much invented the concept of a mobile defensive center who played help D. Maybe "unique"? Help defense IMHO is uncovered by WP. —Onomatopoeia (talk) 21:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I think unique would be better. Zagalejo^^^ 21:48, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Russell's first Celtics game came on December 22, 1956 against the St. Louis Hawks, led by star forward Bob Pettit, who held several all-time scoring records.

Did Pettit hold those records in 1956? Zagalejo^^^ 02:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Pettit at least held the record of 1,849 points in a season (25.7 ppg), which he set in that 1955-56 season. Of course, he peaked at 29.2 ppg years later. —Onomatopoeia (talk) 16:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah, Okay.Zagalejo^^^ 18:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the third paragraph of "1956-59" needs some restructuring. At one point, we say, "With his teammates, Russell had a cordial relationship, with the notable exception of fellow rookie and old rival Tom Heinsohn." At the end of the paragraph, however, we learn that Heinsohn was not the only exception, since Russell was also cold towards Cousy. Zagalejo^^^ 03:21, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I worded it badly. Russell-Heinsohn was tense, Russell-Cousy was actually quite ok, it was more like politely-minding-each-others-business. Russell and Cousy simply did not have any common interests, but they did not dislike each other. —Onomatopoeia (talk) 16:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

The discussion about racism in the sixth paragraph of "1956-59" seems like it's just shoehorned into the text. It doesn't really fit within the flow of the prose. Is that really the best place to put it? Zagalejo^^^ 03:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

The "Negro" quote is based on Russell's experience with racist Southern hotel owners in Dallas, when the NBA All-Stars toured the U.S. in the postseason of --indeed-- 1958. IIRC the Go Up For Glory book and the citation appeared 1980. Suggestions? —Onomatopoeia (talk) 16:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think that section could still use some reorganization. It's weird to go from "This attitude contributed to his legendary bad rapport with fans and journalists." to "The Celtics won 49 games and easily made the first berth in the 1958 NBA Playoffs, and made the 1958 NBA Finals against their familiar rivals, the St. Louis Hawks." We at least need a transition of some sort between those two sentences. Zagalejo^^^ 18:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

'Russell had the daunting task of defending against Baylor with little frontline help, as the latter had already fouled out the three best Celtics forwards: Loscutoff, Heinsohn and Tom Sanders.

Is "fouled out" usually used as a transitive verb? Zagalejo^^^ 18:50, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

His time as a coach was lackluster; although he led the struggling SuperSonics into the playoffs for the first time in franchise history, Russell’s defensive, team-oriented Celtics mindset did not mesh well with the team.

Some more details would be useful here (eg, his record with the Sonics). It's not clear why he was so "lackluster". Zagalejo^^^ 04:04, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

More attracted to his mother Katie than to his father...

I'd use a different word than "attracted". Makes it sound like he had an Oedipal complex. :P Zagalejo^^^ 04:09, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Russell's thinking became increasingly militant, so far that he was quoted in a 1963 Sports Illustrated interview with the words: "I dislike most white people because they are people... I like most blacks because I am black", expressing that "human" was a negative trait and "black" was a positive trait which were mutually exclusive.

This needs some work. I'm unsure about the colon usage, and I don't even understand what all of it means. How is "human" a negative trait? Zagalejo^^^ 04:23, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Source concerns - I have a few questions about whether sources are reliable. I'm concerned about refs 12 (HickokSports.com), 13 {a school website) and 61 (nndb.com). Ref 45 has a formatting error as well. Also, please don't forget my note above Zagalejo's round of comments. Giants2008 (talk) 02:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Status. Do people want to keep this up in the FAR section as work goes on? I was going to move it down to FARC. Marskell (talk) 17:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Since a lot of work has occured recently, I don't see any harm in giving it another day or two. Giants2008 (talk) 17:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I guess a couple of days wouldn't hurt anyone, but the more I look at the article, the more problems I see. In addition to the things I listed above, there are lots of subtle problems with the prose that are hard for me to explain, and hard for me to fix myself without having access to all the sources. Zagalejo^^^ 18:50, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I just weeded out the wacky refs and corrected several errors. Still, I also think that the prose could do better. —Onomatopoeia (talk) 22:44, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are sources (1c) and content. Joelito (talk) 18:20, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment 1c (the most pressing FAR need) should be satisfied by now, I incorporated many parts of the IMHO most comprehensive WP:RS-worthy book on Bill Russell available ("The Rivalry: Bill Russell, Wilt Chamberlain and The Golden Age of Basketball" by John Taylor) and we weeded out several unreliable refs. —Onomatopoeia (talk) 09:51, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. I think now, the main problems are 1a problems. The prose and organization of certain sections still need some tinkering. Zagalejo^^^ 18:05, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Remove for now. Still a lot of prose issues that need to be worked out. Zagalejo^^^ 04:03, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment I think that the prose still has some steps to go, but a delist would be pretty harsh. IMHO there are FAs with worse prose. But I feel that I am too personally invested in this article to make an objective statement. —Onomatopoeia (talk) 21:02, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the prose is fine. DrKiernan (talk) 09:21, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I still see some problems. Some unresolved issues I mentioned above:

'Russell had the daunting task of defending against Baylor with little frontline help, as the latter had already fouled out the three best Celtics forwards: Loscutoff, Heinsohn and Tom Sanders.

Is "fouled out" usually used as a transitive verb? Zagalejo^^^ 18:50, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

His time as a coach was lackluster; although he led the struggling SuperSonics into the playoffs for the first time in franchise history, Russell’s defensive, team-oriented Celtics mindset did not mesh well with the team.

Some more details would be useful here (eg, his record with the Sonics). It's not clear why he was so "lackluster". Zagalejo^^^ 04:04, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Russell's thinking became increasingly militant, so far that he was quoted in a 1963 Sports Illustrated interview with the words: "I dislike most white people because they are people... I like most blacks because I am black", expressing that "human" was a negative trait and "black" was a positive trait which were mutually exclusive.

This needs some work. I'm unsure about the colon usage, and I don't even understand what all of it means. How is "human" a negative trait? Zagalejo^^^ 04:23, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

And I'd still like to see some changes with the second paragraph of "Accomplishments and legacy". That sort of information is easier to digest as a list than as a paragraph. Zagalejo^^^ 19:09, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Besides prose concerns, I'm still finding a few statements that are factually iffy. Take this:

After spending several years living as a recluse on Mercer Island in Seattle,[52] Russell rose to prominence again in January 2006, when he convinced Miami Heat superstar center Shaquille O'Neal to bury the hatchet with fellow NBA superstar and former Los Angeles Lakers teammate Kobe Bryant, with whom O'Neal had a bitter public feud.'

I'm not sure if "recluse" is the right word. A Google search will find plenty of interviews with Russell from the late 1990s or early 2000s, so it's not like he was in hiding before 2006. Zagalejo^^^ 22:49, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Also: It came as so surprising that even Red Auerbach was blindsided, and as a consequence, he made the "mistake" of drafting guard Jo Jo White instead of a center.[48] Although White became a standout Celtics player, the Celtics lacked a center, went just 34–48 in the next season and failed to make the playoffs for the first time since 1950.

There really weren't any high-profile centers available at the Celtics' draft position (see 1969 NBA Draft), so it's unfair to associate the Jo Jo White pick with the Celtics' fall from grace. (And the Celtics did have a center [14] - several in fact. What you really mean is that they didn't have an All-Star caliber center.) Zagalejo^^^ 23:18, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

*Fixes needed You need to sort out the main image. The small one from the Library of Congress is fine, as it is "in the public domain per the instrument of gift"[15], as are these from the look of them [16][17]