Wikipedia:Featured article review/archive/June 2008

Contents

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 15:03, 30 June 2008 [1].

San Francisco, California

I do not believe this article meet the current Featured Article criteria. The prose is generally good but could use some polishing (eg. "The gay rights contributions and leadership the city has shown since the 1970s has resulted in the powerful presence gays and lesbians have in civic life."; explanation of what the NFL is and/or what sport the 49ers play). Much of the article is unreferenced (including almost all of the Transportation section). As far as style guidelines, I believe the lead should capture more of the article and the images should not be placed under level 2 headings--"Do not place left-aligned images directly below second-level (===) headings, as this disconnects the heading from the text it precedes. Instead, either right-align the image, remove it, or move it to another relevant location."--in addition, several could use better captions, and now that I'm looking at it, there is an image of a rainbow flag, but the significance of the flag is not mentioned in the article). Several references lack essential information, and consistent reference formatting is needed. GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:37, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

If you don't like that one sentence (I don't either) please fix it.
The NFL is linked. If you don't know what NFL is, following the link will tell you. If articles defined all potentially unfamiliar terms, they would be 3x as long, extremely tedious, and no one would read them.
On the contrary, very little of the article is unreferenced. It has 107 footnotes, cited 114 times. There are 7072 words in the article, for a ratio of one cite for every 62 words. The policy of WP:Verifiability states that attribution is required for direct quotes and for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged. Please be more specific about unreferenced statements in the article that are direct quotes or material which is likely to be challenged.
Please be more specific about references that "lack essential information" or which are inconsistently formatted.
The Rainbow Flag is linked. See my comment above about NFL.
Standards for featured article are:
1) well-written, comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral, stable. (CHECK)
2a) it has a concise lead summarizing the topic (CHECK)
2b) it has a structure of hierarchical headings (CHECK)
2c) it has consistent citations (CHECK) (please give specifics where you don't believe this is true)
3) it has images where appropriate with succinct captions (CHECK) (note use of "succinct")
4) it stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail (CHECK) (c.f. NFL and Rainbow Flag)
I think your concerns about the Featured Article status of San Francisco article, fall under the "if you can update or improve it, please do" policy rather than raising any substantive WP:FACR issues. --Paul (talk) 19:39, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be taking my comments as a personal attack, which is not how they were intended. I do believe, however, that the aricle does not meet the current standards for a Featured Article. In response to your comments:

  1. The sentence was given as an example of prose that could use some work. A Featured Article should be well-written, and a sentence like that indicates that copyediting may be necessary.
  2. As for the NFL, all that needs to be fixed is adding the full title: "...National Football League (NFL)..." Telling people to click on wikilinks if they want to understand the article is not Wikipedia policy, as articles should be clear to all readers.
    Fixed. --Sfmammamia (talk) 18:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  3. As for the references, the article simply isn't up to standards. Entire sections are unreferenced. The number of references isn't important; what matters is whether or not all of the information is backed up with a source. At present, it's not close.
  4. I'm not going to list all references that need more information or better formatting, but I recommend checking out Wikipedia:Citing sources for the {{cite web}} template. All web references need at least a title, publisher, url, and accessdate. If a date of publication or author name is available, this information should be included as well. Reference 32 is an example of a reference without a publisher. I urge you also to take a look at how the access dates are listed for references 36-38. 36 uses "Accessed on", 37 uses "Accessed", and 38 uses "Retrieved on". 36 also uses a formatted date (2006-12-03), while 37 uses a long form (September 5, 2006).
    Access dates have been made consistent. --Sfmammamia (talk) 18:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  5. I agree that "rainbow flag" is linked, but it doesn't illustrate anything from the article, as the article doesn not mention rainbow flags.
  6. Image captions are too "succinct" in some places. "Chinatown" is insufficient as a caption, as it says nothing about the image or why it is included. Likewise for "Baker Beach". The caption for Alcatraz is a good example of what a caption should look like: "Alcatraz receives 1.5 million visitors per year" says something about the image, in contrast to "A map from 1888", which doesn't even clarify what the image shows.
    The specific captions mentioned above have been fixed.--Sfmammamia (talk) 19:02, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  7. Not a reply to anything you said, but looking back, why is it important to mention that prospectors had "sourdough bread in tow"? This is not made clear in the article. I understand that you want to avoid unnecessary detail, but giving pieces of information with no indication of why they are relevant to the article makes for a lot of confusion.
Agreed. I deleted the phrase. --Sfmammamia (talk) 19:27, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Sourdough bread is an iconic San Francisco artifact. It has been a part of SF since 1849 and probably before. It's use in this sentence is to provide a link to sourdough bread and to document the historical connection between sourdough becoming a SF icon, and the 49er prospectors. I've added a reference tying the bread to the prospectors.--Paul (talk) 00:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
You do a great job of explaining the link here. It would help readers of the article if a phrase was inserted in that sentence like "which later became an iconic San Francisco artifact. GaryColemanFan (talk) 01:35, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Please don't take my comments personally. I would love to see this keep its Featured Article status. Please note that I waited 8 days to initiate this process after mentioning my concerns to the relevant WikiProjects. I feel, however, that substantial work needs to be done, and I hope that the relevant projects will help get this article back to FA quality. GaryColemanFan (talk) 20:28, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Response "The number of references isn't important; what matters is whether or not all of the information is backed up with a source. At present, it's not close." This isn't what the policy requires. Policy requires that "attribution is required for direct quotes and for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged." For example, do you think these sentences need a citation? "Public transit solely within the city of San Francisco is provided predominantly by the San Francisco Municipal Railway (Muni). The city-owned system operates both a combined light rail/subway system (the Muni Metro) and a bus network that includes trolleybuses, standard diesel motorcoaches and diesel hybrid buses."--Paul (talk) 00:17, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Comment I have over 1,000 edits on the San Francisco article. You have none. Unfortunately, I no longer have the time nor the interest to work on this article. The article has not changed substantially since its promotion in September 2006. If you think it needs some work, I think you should work on it.--Paul (talk) 23:22, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Reply I am aware that you have over 1,000 edits on this article. That is the reason that I notified you directly about the Featured Article review. Please note that Featured Article standards have changed substantially since 2006. Unfortunately, this article has not kept up with these changes and does not currently meet the standards. One of my current projects on Wikipedia is to ensure that Featured Articles meet the criteria. In cases like Wayne Gretzky, it is sometimes necessary to initiate a Featured Article review to get the changes made. I am not picking on you personally or on this article, as this is not the first review I have initiated (after giving the relevant projects ample time to start making the required changes), and it will not be the last. I am certainly willing to do some work toward fixing the article, but only if the relevant projects (those with knowledge of the subject matter and the guidelines of their projects) are willing to help. I can certainly understand that you might not have time or interest to work on the article, and I hope you don't take any of my comments to mean that I expect you (or any other specific editor) to help. With that said, the most important matter is improving the article. As this conversation is accomplishing nothing toward that goal, I will no longer engage in such a debate. I am quite willing to offer opinions and/or answer questions about the concerns I have identified, as it is my sincere hope that the outcome is to keep this as a Featured Article. Best wishes, GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:57, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Request 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 (roll amongst the roses) 20:23, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

My apologies. I notified them right away, but I wasn't aware that I had to list them here. I'll get that done right away. GaryColemanFan (talk) 20:28, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Done. GaryColemanFan (talk) 20:35, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comments Unfortunately, I concur with GaryColemanFan that this is not up to FA standards, at least as they exist today. As Paul suggested, minor fixes should just be make on the spot, but I think this article needs substantial work. Issues per FA criteria:
    • 1c (sources): There are many unsourced sections. Inline citations are needed to so we at least have a general idea what sources the material is based on.
    • 2a (lead): The lead is quite weak for a broad article of this depth. It does not accurately represent the article per WP:LEAD. Someone familiar with the subject matter needs to work on it.
    • 3 (images): The article is an image farm and, as GCF pointed out, the captions are weak. Someone needs to trim them up, fix the captions, and then visit MOS:IMAGES and get them arranged properly. There are all manner of placement problems. --Laser brain (talk) 04:15, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Regarding the images. I have moved several images from the left margin to the right margin to keep them from disturbing the text layout at the beginning of sections and subsections. However, I would like to point out that WP:FACR does not even mention MOS:IMAGES. It lists only three requirements:

3. Images. It has images and other media where they are appropriate, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status. Non-free images or media must satisfy the criteria for the inclusion of non-free content and be labeled accordingly.

Thus, any concern about the layout of images is more properly the subject of a TALK page discussion or a few minutes time of judicious editing, not a basis for an FAR.
As for the article being an "image farm," that is a bit of an exaggeration. The editors of this article have deleted scores of vanity images. All of the images left in the article appropriately illustrate accompanying text. However, there are two images added in the last year which might be argued border on excess: the night cityscape panorama, and the satellite image of the San Francisco peninsula.--Paul (talk) 00:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
I think it's safe to say that Manual of Style compliance is assumed to be part of the Featured Article criteria. GaryColemanFan (talk) 01:35, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Response I've moved pictures around at the beginning of sections. I have also reviewed MOS:IMAGES and don't see anything else that is out of compliance. If editors disagree with this assessment, please point out specific instances (like the very helpful one above about pictures and topic headings).--Paul (talk) 18:10, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
The images are vastly improved, thank you. --Laser brain (talk) 19:26, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
While more citations are preferable, it would be quite strange to say that mere descriptions of fact that are unchallenged will need citations, if I may point out the public transportation section as an example. Of course, some images are unneeded, and they will be weeded out momentarily. However, I do have two questions:
  1. First and foremost, can you elaborate on your concerns a bit? It's hard to improve an article, let alone trying to understand abstractions and guess what you are talking about.
  2. Why was this issue not taken up to the talk page first? Perhaps via informal channels this problem would have been solved, and we won't have to go through this process. It might catch people's eyes, but it's still quite rude to the main authors of this article for this to suddenly come up (which may partly explain Paul's response).
Until then, I will try to improve the article to the best of my ability. —Kurykh 05:25, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
About the rainbow flag, I think it's the Castro (which the rainbow flag is representing) that is being emphasized, and not the rainbow flag itself. —Kurykh 05:31, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure how to elaborate any more than I already have. The biggest problem is with the citations. The article is insufficiently referenced, and the citations are not properly formatted. Currently, much of the article appears to be original research. To verify that the information has come from a reliable source, citations are needed. If that could be fixed, the majority of the work would be complete. As for your question about the talk page, you are correct. That would have been a good idea. I wasn't trying to spring this out of nowhere, though, and I notified all of the relevant Wikiprojects (Cities, San Francisco Bay Area, and California) and then waited eight days before starting the review. I will make sure to mention it on the talk page as well next time, though. Thanks for the advice, GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:54, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Response Here's a suggestion on how you can "elaborate" further. WP:FAR states "Nominators typically assist in the process of improvement." If you would go through the article and tag facts that you thing need citing, that would be extremely helpful. As you pointed out, the number of citations does not matter (whether there are many or few for a given section). What matters is that statements of fact that could reasonably be challenged (that is the policy) are correctly cited. If concerned editors would add {{fact}} tags where they have concerns, other editors could fix those problems, or explain why it is not a problem. Thanks.--Paul (talk) 18:26, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Response to response Indeed, I'm sure nominators typically help. Your constant attacks do nothing to make me feel like helping, though. I have tried my best to remain civil. If my offer of help is going to be thrown back in my face, though, I'm much more inclined to let you do it yourself. GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:24, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Response to response to response I'm surprised you regard my note as a personal attack. It certainly wasn't intended that way. On line communication is so difficult some times. I only intended to point out how much better specific concerns and recommendations are, and was hoping for a little help. My apologies for any perceived slight.--Paul (talk) 00:00, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Likewise, I thought I did a pretty good job outlining issues. There are no quick fixes here to delineate. Also, I'm a little annoyed that someone following the established procedure to review an article to see if it still meets featured article criteria is called rude. --Laser brain (talk) 07:13, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I apologize if I inadvertently attacked anyone as rude (my intention was to highlight the perception of the action); however, I thought it was common knowledge that informal processes (talk page discussion) are often initiated before established procedures (this). —Kurykh 19:27, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Given that we need to rework the article a bit is it possible that we fix the article to conform to WP:USCITY guidelines, or is this article an exception because it became a featured article before the guideline was even drawn up? —Kurykh 19:38, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

The article already substantially follows the guidelines which can be seen by comparing the two index structures. Given that WP:USCITY states: The order of sections is also completely optional, and sections may be moved around to a different order based on the needs of their city.... While it is just a guideline and there are no requirements to follow it in editing.... I'd say it is not necessary to change the existing structure of the article. Also, WP:USCITY unfortunately "suggests" trivia sections for "Notable natives and residents" as well as "Sister cities" both of which were removed during the FAC process.--Paul (talk) 20:33, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I was a significant contributor to those guidelines but I think that individual city articles should tailor the layout and content according to each city's unique characteristics and sources. --maclean 01:50, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Work needed. I participated in the peer review, but wasn't around when this passed FAC; there is a bit of work needed. See WP:GTL, portals belong in See also. See WP:GTL regarding See also: really needs pruning. All of those links should be worked into the article so See also can be minimized. Citations need work: there are missing publishers and some dates are wikilinked, others not. This is the English Wiki; English doesn't need to be specified in citations. There are also incomplete citations: for example, this has an author and publication date which aren't listed. Some stubby sections (two sentences on bicyling warrant an entire section)? Review of WP:DASH and WP:HYPHEN needed, east to west is an endash: Major east-west thoroughfares ... Informal prose needs review: baking & pastry arts, and hospitality & restaurant management (should that be "and"). WP:WTA, claim: and claims more judges on the state bench than any other institution. Do we doubt that claim? WP:AWW, weasleness, believed by whom? The city is believed to have the highest number of homeless inhabitants ... Another WP:DASH issue, no unspaced emdashes please: ... installations — the Presidio, Treasure Island, and Hunters Point — a legacy ... Incorrect endashes: The municipal budget for fiscal year 2007-2008 ... Uncited assertions of fact: San Francisco is a consolidated city-county, a status it has had since 1856. It is the only such consolidation in California. More uncited assertions: San Francisco's economy has increasingly become tied to that of Silicon Valley to the south, sharing a need for highly educated workers with specialized skills. WP:NBSP attention needed. These matters are all fairly trivial, and the article is in much better shape than many geography articles that come through here; I don't see why it can't be kept after a bit of elbow grease to clean up these items and the others identified by the nominator. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Re: See also I've trimmed that down to four from twenty-six using the auto wiki browser diff. Everything that was removed is already present in the article in line, as a {{main}} link, or are part of the navigation boxes at the bottom. -Optigan13 (talk) 06:35, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Response I moved the SF portal to See Also (BTW WP:GTL does not mention portal placement). The citation called out for not having an author and publication date has been fixed. References have been added for consolidated city-county status and SF's reliance on the area tech sector and highly skilled labor. Thanks to Sandy for having specific examples that can be fixed.--Paul (talk) 17:59, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I removed two more links from the pagediff for the Archdiocese which was in text under schools and the famous San Franciscans which is in the {{San Francisco}} as a Notable People link. I was looking at possibly removing the two remaining links if possible, either through integration of the links into the text, or to templates, or outright removal of the see also section. Am I correct in thinking that See also sections have fallen out of favor as they can serve as cruft attractors like external links sections, which is why they are optional? -Optigan13 (talk) 06:31, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
  • The deletion of the portals info from WP:GTL was a recent, undiscussed edit; now sorted and restored. See also sections is different in articles under development and in FAs. See also serves as a repository for info that should later be worked into the article; FAs are supposed to be mostly complete, so that info should already be worked into the article. I struck a few, will be back to check more later. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:09, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I spent an hour or so cleaning up some basic MoS issue tonight (much more to do still); I'd rather not type it all up, and hope other editors will look at my edit summaries and complete the citation cleanup still needed.[2] I found WP:MOSNUM, WP:MOSDATE, MOS:CAPS#All caps, missing info on citations, inconsistent date linking and formatting in citations, publishers listed as authors in citations, inconsistent page numbers (note that different cite templates handle page numbers differently, including plurals), % vs. percent should be consistent, WP:HYPHEN errors, etc. The only section I got to read was Economy, where I added two inlines on clarification needed. (Also, we're later told that UCSF is the number two employer; who is number one?) I'll continue reading the article later, but citation work needs to be finished, particularly date formatting and linking. The article looks to be in pretty good shape, although elbow grease is still needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:42, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
  • "(Also, we're later told that UCSF is the number two employer; who is number one?)" The city & county is the largest employer, which makes UCSF the largest private employer. I've made the change to the text.--Paul (talk) 15:04, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Problem with that logic, UCSF is also a public, not a private, employer. I will work on clarifying this in the text. Most, if not all, of the citation formatting issues have been fixed, I think (I hope). --Sfmammamia (talk) 18:40, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
I will continue reading, checking for comprehensiveness and citations, and reviewing MoS issues over the next few days, but this looks to be on track for a Keep without FARC. Can someone ping GaryColeman and Laser brain to get updates from them, so we can stay on track? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:34, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
I find that several sections are still completely Original Research. The "Neighborhoods" section, for example, has no sources. Where is the information coming from? There has definitely been some improvement, but the citations just aren't there. I added some "citation needed" tags, but I didn't get through the whole article. I can try to finish later, but I was really surprised at the amount of Original Research. Some sections, like "Climate" are really well done. Others just aren't sourced at all. Don't get me wrong...I think the article is definitely close, but the lack of references really stands out to me. GaryColemanFan (talk) 19:25, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Response Thank you for the {{fact}} tags. They make verifiablitiy concerns concrete and make it much easier to respond. I've started to add a few of the requested references. However, I think some of the requests are a bit overboard. My understanding of the verifiability requirements are that citations are required for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged.
One example: the following statement was tagged:

Just southwest of Mission Bay is the Potrero Hill neighborhood featuring sweeping views of downtown San Francisco.[citation needed]

What is being questioned here? The fact that Potrero Hill is a neighborhood? That it lies southwest of Mission Bay? Or that it features sweeping views of downtown? All of these "facts" seem to be pretty trivial things and unlikely to be challenged as to their veracity. If the article on Mount Everest said that it's summit afforded sweeping views of the surrounding geography, should that be cited?
Another example:

City Hall rose once again in splendorous Beaux Arts style, and the city celebrated its rebirth at the Panama-Pacific International Exposition in 1915.[citation needed]

What's the issue here? That (the linked) City Hall was rebuilt? That it is in the Beaux Arts style? That the (linked) Panama-Pacific International Exposition was in 1915? Or, that the city hosted the exposition partially to celebrate the quick rebuilding of the city? What is the point of providing wiki-links, if everything that you may learn in the linked article also has to appear in a footnote in the linking article?
I don't think either of my examples need a citation. It's common sense that you get a view from a hill. The city was leveled by an earthquake in 1906; it's also common sense that city leaders and residents wanted to show off the rebuilding eight years later. This is called prose. The Wikipedia verifiability requirement exists to insure that living persons aren't libeled, and to guard against spreading mis-information. It's not there as a requirement that articles need to look like they were written by a blind Martian with a big library. If such were the case, articles would sport a forest of footnotes but there wouldn't be any brilliant prose. Nor could you find anyone to write an article. There should be balance.--Paul (talk) 21:30, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
I will go through these later (and may remove some fact tags). I am not one of the article's authors, but I know SF quite well, and didn't see a glaring need for citation when I went through a few days ago; there were not many facts that were surprising or challenging that were uncited (I did see a few). On the other hand, from the examples given above, I can see that a problem is not the facts rather the "adjectives" used (sweeping, splenderous), which introduce a tour-guide, POV quality to the article. I'm likely to remove some adjectives along with some fact tags. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:45, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
If you see any places in need of {{fact}} tags, please add them.--Paul (talk) 00:27, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, my concern was the tourist brochure-like adjectives in those cases. GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:06, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Analysis of {{fact}} tags:

  • Agree citation needed, not common knowledge. Silver discoveries, including the Comstock Lode in 1859, further drove rapid population growth.citation needed
    • Now cited.--Paul (talk) 16:00, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Adjectives are the issue here, and arts scene is not common knowledge. By the turn of the century, San Francisco was a major city known for its flamboyant style, stately hotels, ostentatious mansions on Nob Hill, and a thriving arts scene.citation needed
    • Now cited.--Paul (talk) 16:00, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Why does this need citation? The UN Charter creating the United Nations was drafted and signed in San Francisco in 1945 and, in 1951, the Treaty of San Francisco officially ended the war with Japan.citation needed
    • Then remove it. The consensus seems to be to err on the side of underciting rather than overciting. GaryColemanFan (talk) 01:03, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
      • This particular fact tag removed. --Sfmammamia (talk) 01:20, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
  • This is somewhat common knowledge, but it also includes some opinion, and shouldn't be hard to source. During the dot-com boom of the late 1990s, startup companies invigorated the economy. Large numbers of entrepreneurs and computer application developers moved into the city, followed by marketing and sales professionals that changed the social landscape as once poorer neighborhoods became gentrified. When the bubble burst in 2001, many of these companies folded and their employees left, although high technology and entrepreneurship continued to be mainstays of the San Francisco economy.citation needed
  • Common knowledge, don't think any of this needs to be cited, but wording could be beefed up and cited (aren't building codes in SF some of the strictest in the world?). The San Andreas and Hayward Faults are responsible for much earthquake activity, even though neither passes through the city itself. It was the San Andreas Fault which slipped and caused the earthquakes in 1906 and 1989. Minor earthquakes occur on a regular basis. The threat of major earthquakes plays a large role in the city's infrastructure development. New buildings must meet high structural standards, and older buildings and bridges must be retrofitted to comply with new building codes.citation needed
Looking but still not quite there. I've found "Although California's seismic safety practices for building and land use are among the best in the world,..."(Chronicle, 1995), "The San Francisco codebook is more strict than California's code because of quake precautions"(Chronicle, 2002), and "Although some corporations, such as PG&E, have brought their buildings up to the new seismic codes, many have not done the hugely expensive work. It's not required unless they apply for permits to do major renovations or additions, and the new code kicks in."(Chronicle, 1999) This was looking through the sfgate archives using "building code earthquake". If someone else wants to try flipping through the remaining searches or try using something along the lines of "unreinforced masonry buildings" it might work. -Optigan13 (talk) 06:21, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
    • I've modified the sentence to what is easily supported -- that San Francisco has repeatedly upgraded its building codes and requires retrofits, but that thousands of buildings still remain vulnerable. --Sfmammamia (talk) 07:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Hard data needs citation. Bayview-Hunter's Point in the southeast section of the city is one of the poorest neighborhoods and suffers from a high rate of crime, though the area has been the focus of plans for urban renewal. The other southern neighborhoods of the city are ethnically diverse and populated primarily with students and working-class San Franciscans.citation needed

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:28, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep without FARC if the one remaining citation tag can be cleared (I believe sources were identified above?). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:47, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep without FARC — Sounds fine to me. The tag has been dealt with, so I would support closing this FAR. GaryColemanFan (talk) 07:14, 30 June 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 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 12:12, 27 June 2008 [3].

Holkham Hall

This article, actually with FA status, is not worthy of have the brown star. I think this because the following motivations:

  • Bad referenced: a lon bibliography and some external links, but where are the notes? The second note needs a reference -_- ;
  • Bad article organization: there isn't a paragraph for the history, because all is mixed in the various paragraphs (example: in "Interior" there is some history);
  • There aren't the links to the dates and to the years.

This isn't a good example for new users that are searching an example for FA. Mojska all you want 10:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Notifications request Request 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 (roll amongst the roses) 12:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

  • "Bad referenced": what does "a lon bibliography" refer too? The article contains a reference section, listing 11 books.
  • "Bad article organization ": for my money, to follow the fates of the house—re-building, additions, etc— from the early 18th century up to today is the only reasonable structure for this type of subject, and makes for a vigorous, enjoyable reading experience. How else would you organize it?
  • "There aren't the links to the dates and to the years ": no, there aren't, and there aren't supposed to be. "Links to date elements that do not contain both a day number and a month are not required; for example, solitary months, solitary days of the week, solitary years, decades, centuries, and month and year combinations. Such links must not be used unless the reader needs to follow the link to understand the topic; see WP:CONTEXT."[4]
  • "This isn't a good example for new users that are searching an example for FA." Yes, it is. Bishonen | talk 14:17, 11 June 2008 (UTC).
  • Footnotes are fundamental for a FA, and this article has only 2 notes !! The article may be more tidy: History --> Architecture [subparagraphs] --> Modern history. What of these books do you get for say that "The cost of the construction of Holkham is thought to have been in the region of £90,000 (allowing for inflation, approximately £8m in 2006)" or "building was to continue for thirty years until in 1764 the great house was completed". I want to translate this article in Italian, but there aren't many references (for references I say footnotes). Can you save it? Thanks. Mojska all you want 17:03, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
As it happens, the main author (who you're asked to notify, please see Regents Park's post above) is himself Italian, User:Giano II, see the FAC nomination and discussion. I suggest you contact him at his user talk. That might be simpler than listing it on this board. (And perhaps more likely to meet with success than opening with telling him how bad you think it is.) Just a suggestion. Bishonen | talk 19:30, 11 June 2008 (UTC).
  • I agree that this article is not up to FA status. The criteria for wikipedia is verifiability and the way it is written, none of this can be verified. It doesn't have any in-line references, merely a list of sources. As there is no indication of what text comes from which sources it is impossible to tell who made the rather sweeping statements, and which of them (if any) are the personal interpretation of the contributor. For instance:

"Holkham Hall is one of England's finest examples of the Palladian revival style of architecture, the severity of the design being closer to Palladio's ideals than many of the other numerous Palladian style houses of the period." Who says so?

"It is thought he first met Burlington, the aristocratic architect at the forefront of the Palladian revival movement in England, and William Kent in Italy in 1715; it is possible that there in the original home of Palladianism, the idea of a new mansion at Holkham was conceived" It is thought by whom? These are just weasel words if they are not attributed to someone.

"The external appearance of Holkham can best be described as a huge Roman palace. However, as with most architectural designs, it is never quite that simple. Holkham is a Palladian house, and yet even by Palladian standards the external appearance of Holkham is austere and devoid of ornament (see illustration)." Who says it can be best described as a Roman Palace? The rest of it sounds very POV to me. "See Illustration" sounds like "it's obvious- just take a look"

"The Palladian style was beloved by Whigs such as Thomas Coke, who liked to identify themselves with the Romans of antiquity" Did they - who says so?

"Above the windows of the piano nobile, where on a true Palladian structure the windows of a mezzanine would be, there is nothing. The reason for this is the double height of the state rooms on the piano nobile; however, not even a blind window is permitted to alleviate the severity of the facade" Who says that's the reason?

"This vast cost nearly ruined the heirs of the 1st Earl, but had the result that they were financially unable to alter the house to suit the whims of taste. Thus, the house has remained almost untouched since its completion in 1764. Today, this perfect, if severe, example of Palladianism…………etc." These sort of assertions need to be verifiable and at the moment they aren't"

The section on "The estate, park & gardens" had developed into an awful mess until I tidied it up a week or so ago, so I do get the impression that nobody is really keeping an eye on the article to ensure it keeps its FA status. However, having said that, there do seem to be some wp:ownership issues here. Someone flagged up the problem with references with a "nofootnotes" tag and User:Giano II removed it and left the following comment in the edit summary " it is quite clear to me! If you hava a problem do some research." Well if he wrote the article then it would be clear to him wouldn't it? Richerman (talk) 11:55, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

    • Comment to Richerman: Yes, absolutely. The author is not watching out for his FA, and he has ownership issues with it. Only the evil Giano could manage that combination! We're fortunate that he seems to be phasing himself out[5] and discontinuing that pesty FA production. Bishonen | talk 17:36, 12 June 2008 (UTC).
    • Reply from the evil Richerman Ok, lets not get silly. Maybe I could have phrased it a little better, but what I was trying to say is that if you produce an article that's well-rated and you want it to stay that way, keep an eye on other additions and keep them in order. However it's no good having a fit of pique when somone puts on a tag flagging up a problem. The thing to do is sort out the problem and then remove the tag. This article was rated as FA some years ago and things have moved on since then as wikipedia has often been criticised for being unreliable. Because of that, good referencing has now become very important and an FA article is supposed to be an example of the best that wikipedia can produce. We all want to see this article improved rather than demoted but unfortunately, short of completely rewriting it, the only person that can fix the references is the one who wrote it in the first place as only he knows which bits came from which book. I've spent quite a lot of time tidying up some of the later additions to make them read better as it looked like a a section designed by a committee and yes, some of my edits weren't quite right and that's been fixed by someone else. That's fine, that's the way wikipedia is supposed to work. Were all here to try to improve articles, not to fall out with each other. If any of my comments were seen as insulting I apologise unreservedely. And what is that link to Giano II's contribution page supposed to tell me?Richerman (talk) 10:26, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
      • The contribs link? That's supposed to be an evil inline reference for the statement that he's phasing himself out. Bishonen | talk 11:56, 13 June 2008 (UTC).
        • Ah, I thought there was going to be something that said" I've had enough of this, I'm off." Maybe he's got the 'flu, fallen in love, drunk too much wine, taken a Grand Tour of Europe with time only for the occasional edit - who knows!! :-) Richerman (talk) 14:13, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Article is certainly FA standard except that it wholly lacks inline citations to the very comprehensive list of references. There will be no difficulty sourcing the statements above if those are available. I had to re-tidy a couple of Richerman's alterations above. I don't see any merit to the nominator's comments on the organisation. Johnbod (talk) 12:53, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Since I avoid working on articles with FA status, I hope that someone will notify me when this one is de-listed, so I can begin footnoting the obvious assertions and mainstream observations. --Wetman (talk) 00:33, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Why not just do it now and avoid delisting? Do you have access to the references? Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 17:50, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't want to delist the article, but I ask to the writer of add footnotes to the article. If you've got that books, you can say where you get that information. Mojska all you want 12:27, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
  • There is nothing in the page that is not academically accepted and perfectly obvious. I have no intention of referencing the obvious. Is the sky blue? If you don't think so then delist it - or remove all the information that disturbs you so. I'm sure that will improve Wikipedia considerably. Giano (talk) 19:47, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
To quote from wp:verifiability "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed." Richerman (talk) 22:15, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Then please just get on and remove the material you find so offensive, just stop bleating about it, failing that get hold of the references, read them, and add a thousand footnotes yourself. I have better things to do with my time than reference accepted facts. I have never read such rubbish as is written above in all my life. I suggest you remember it is better to be thought a fool than open one's mouth and prove it. Giano (talk) 22:22, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree with your last statement entirely - discussion ended. Richerman (talk) 22:30, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't quite see what this harping on the verifiability policy is all about. The article is verifiable - there is a full raft of references at the bottom. Indeed, the information contained in the article is verifiable for any reader who opens any of the reference books. There is no evidence whatsoever that WP:V has been breached. There are not, however, any inline citations. The original author of the article, Giano, does not feel there is anything sufficiently controversial as to require an inline cite. We're talking about a building, after all, not a living person. And yet, we have two editors concerned that the article is not verifiable. What is it that Richerman and Mojska feel is controversial enough to require an inline cite? There is no requirement in WP:WIAFA or Wikipedia:When to cite to include inline citations just for the sake of having inline citations. Nobody appears to be challenging statements in the article; therefore, Giano has nothing to respond to at this point.

It's a little concerning that, on an encyclopedic project that prides itself on its collaborative work, there is the expectation for the editor who brought the article to FA to go back and add inline cites into an article, years after the fact, without those initiating the FAR offering any assistance or accepting any responsibility for identifying areas of concern. (There are some FA reviewers who genuinely assist, and I exclude them from this paragraph.) It is also concerning that this article has only come to FAR because an editor wishes to translate it but doesn't want to do so without inline cites so expects the original author to do that work for him; and that the only comment on the quality of the article to date is its lack of (unspecified) inline citations, and its "bad organization" - the style of which is common to the majority of FA/GA architectural articles throughout (English) Wikipedia. Folks, without a specific concern about the article, or any identification of controversial claims, Holkham Hall still appears to meet featured article criteria. Risker (talk) 00:43, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Indeed - there is little benefit in a page ref to a book you don't have, and most of the works referenced would I imagine not have too many mentions of Holkham to make finding them with the index difficult, once the book is in your hand. Admittedly, one would not know which book has a particular point, although I imagine many are in several of them. Hussey '55 and Pevsner both devote over 10 pages to the house & no doubt the vast majority of the article could conveniently be verified from either, without going to the monographs. Johnbod (talk) 01:03, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia for the general reader, not a place for essays on specialist subjects such as Palladian architecture. I have challenged six statements above and still no-one has told me who made them, how can I make it any clearer that these are the statements that I am concerned about? If these assertions were preceeded with statements such as "according to Hussey" or "Pevsner says that" I would be a lot happier as I could check the relevant books. However, I do feel that some of the statements such as "Today, this perfect, if severe, example of Palladianism" are probably the personal opinion of the editor. As was pointed out above, it is only polite to give the major contributors the chance to fix the problems first, but when one of them tells me to "stop bleating" and that I'm a fool for not accepting what he says without question, I have no interest in collaborating with him. I don't profess to be any sort of expert on architecture, but I have already spent a fair bit of time editing one of the sections where I thought the style could be improved and I've made a number of other small edits, so you can hardly accuse me of complaining without making a contribution. If there is a general consensus that the way this article is referenced is acceptable for today's FA standards, that's fine by me. It will be mean I don't have to bother with all those citation templates in future. I'll just put a list of a dozen or so publications at the end, and if anyone challenges anything I'll tell them to go and read them all themselves, However, I've a sneaking suspicion that they wouldn't get through.

Can I also draw your attention to a sentence from Wikipedia:Citing sources?

"Articles can be supported with references in two ways: the provision of general references – books or other sources that support a significant amount of the material in the article – and inline citations, which are mandated by the featured article criteria and (to a lesser extent) the good article criteria"

It also says "Full citations for books typically include: the name of the author, the title of the book or article, the date of publication, and page numbers". Well quite a few of the book references in the article don't have page numbers either.

Sorry to "harp on" about this - I thought we were having a reasoned discussion, but it seems when someone disagrees with you you're harping on. Richerman (talk) 09:10, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

People keep saying to you, cite the obvious if you feel so inclined, delist the page, or just remove the commonplace facts you find so concerning. Only you seem greatly bothered enough to "harp on" - no one else is that interested or could care less what happens to the page. If you feel you are improving Wikipedia, get on with it. Giano (talk) 21:44, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
No, you keep saying those things. Firstly, I have every right to respond to the criticism made against me that I feel are unjustified. Secondly, I can't delist anything, this is the first stage of s discussion about whether the article should be delisted and the whole point of it is to flag up the problems and suggest remedies, both of which I've done. The delisting is done by the features articles editor if a consensus is reached. Thirdly, if I took out all the bits that caused me concern there wouldn't be a coherent article left. And finally, if you have no interest in the article then why do you keep coming back with comments? Richerman (talk) 22:29, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Because you want me to reference the obvious for you, and I'm not going to. So there! I have pointed out to you (as have others) which books the obvious facts that concern you are in, yet for some reason you don't seem to want to do it yourself. You come here demanding this and that, your comments above demonstrate you clearly know nothing of the subject, so here is your golden opportunity, get the books out of the library and improve your mind. You may even find some interesting facts I omitted. FAs are a very fleeting and vainglorious accolade, you say you want to see this referenced and not delisted, you have concerned yourself with it, so go on down to the library and get on with it, and do stop berating us here because I have no intention of adding one more cite to it. FA status or not. If you are too lazy to meet your own demands to reference the obvious then as you hint you are quite at liberty to remove the offensive facts from the page. Giano (talk) 22:50, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
You've got it completely wrong, I don't want you to do anything. You've already made it quite clear you're not going to add anything to the references - all you are going to do is to indulge in personal attacks on those who disagree with you and so I am not willing to discuss this with you any further. I assure you that any further comments I make on this page are not intended for you. Richerman (talk) 23:07, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Richerman, Giano hasn't been making personal attacks. Though he's made some snarky comments, labeling them as personal attacks is a complete fabrication. I suggest that you stop being so offended at what Giano is saying - he has a right to his opinion, and his opinion is that there's no need for inline cites. Though I disagree that the facts are obvious (well, they may be obvious among experts on architecture, but they're hardly likely to read Wikipedia, are they?), fruitless arguing over it will do no good. If I have time, I'll try to add inline references from the two online books I linked to, but unfortunately I can't find any others. I certainly don't think this article should be delisted either way, as Risker pointed out above. The prose and organization is excellent, and a lack of inline citations shouldn't be a huge hindrance. I do ask of you, though, Giano, to please help add at least a few - there are those who think that an article should be delisted on inline citations (or a lack of them) alone, I don't want that fate to befall this particular article, since it's one of the best I've read in a while. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 01:13, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Ah, the voice of reason at last. I absolutely agree that everyone has the right to their own opinion but they are also expected to put it across in a civil manner. maybe "personal attack" is too strong a phrase but he's certainly not being civil. Anyway, I'm certainly not going to go running to teacher to complain about it - I would just prefer to have an adult discussion on talk pages and not let it descend into schoolyard rhetoric. I agree entirely that this is well-written article and the referencing is the only problem - however, I do think that's a big problem for a featured article as they are supposed to be an example of the best wikepedia has to offer. Having said that, I'm certainly not being goaded into removing information from a featured article, or to make any other major changes, just to make a point, without first gaining consensus. Richerman (talk) 07:51, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
On referencing, the two books I could try to find the ones not on the internet at my library this weekend, but I'm not optimistic - it's quite a small library. Of course, I'd much rather reference the article than remove valuable information. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 20:19, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

It's a shame there are no pictures of the interior, though I appreciate these places don't usually allow photography. Perhaps one of the cross-sections from Brettingham's book [6]? BTW, there is a quote from Lees-Milne but Lees-Milne is not listed in the references. Someone may wish to add this in (or, given the discussion above, they may not wish to add it in). One other minor quibble: is the orangery still roofless and windowless? DrKiernan (talk) 16:46, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

  • It is inded a huge shame, hopefully , now phone cameras are more prevalent we shall se more interior shots. I suspect the orangery is still ruinous, as a search of Holkham's own site (which has a search facility) yields nothing of interest. Had the estate spent a fortune on restoration I feel there may have been a mention. There are cross section drawings on commmons which may enhance the page. Giano (talk) 21:27, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
I was there a couple of weeks ago and I'm afraid the orangery is still roofless and windowless. Richerman (talk) 23:07, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
I added a pic of the Green State bedroom, under FU. I suppose we are allowed one FU image. Ceoil sláinte 21:02, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

"on return Coke lived a feckless life, and preoccupied himself with drinking, gambling and hunting" This is getting ridiculous. maligning someone's memory without providing any evidence. I've put a fact tag on this as I don't want to revert it and get into an edit war but I don't suppose it will stay there long. Richerman (talk) 22:59, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

It was covered by Wilson in the next sentence, but I've added the same cite to 2 consecutive sentences just for you. "Maligning someone's memory"; please. Grow up. Ceoil (talk) 23:03, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I misunderstood, but it's a lot clearer now with the double reference. Richerman (talk) 23:14, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
No worries. Ceoil (talk) 23:19, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Ah, I see the effort has started without me. No need for me to go rushing off to the library, then? I'll try to correct any minor Manual of Style errors in the article. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 00:35, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Actually, this article is a wonder in terms of MOS - perfect. Some of the prose isn't quite brilliant, though, but all of it is quite good. I might make a few prose adjustments here and there. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 00:38, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment I'd like to see a third lead paragraph summarising the features of the building. Have a pathological fear of leads, so I wont attempt this myself. Ceoil sláinte 23:41, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Done. I might have made an error, though, so I would appreciated a double check. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 02:09, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Looks great! Ceoil sláinte 11:53, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks - I like to think of myself as good with prose. There'll be no need to bring this one to FARC, I hope? Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 16:53, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't think there is. I've asked Richerman to revisit; and well see how that goes. Ceoil sláinte 00:42, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
There are still some quite large chunks of text without cites in Interior, Exterior and Grounds but I'm sure that could be fixed with a few extra refs. Other than that I think it's looking great. I gave a longer reply to Ceoil about it on his talk page the other day but he may have missed it as it's a busy page. Richerman (talk) 00:53, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
I read it alright Richerman, but hadn't digested it properly! Read it again now - I don't think anything you mentioned is problematic, and guess its just a matter of mechanically going through each and fixing. Thanks for the quick reply; hopefully we can be done here soon. Ceoil sláinte 01:02, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Reading your reply on Ceoils's talk page, Richerman, I'll give the article another prose run-through. You're right - at FAC, there would be hordes of brilliant-prose advocates storming in and nitpicking every detail (I'm not ashamed to admit that I would be among those hordes). Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 01:08, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Ah, ok, and thanks for looking at the Heaton Park page too. Heaton hall could use some TLC from us as well as Manchester City Council. I pinched your idea for the fair use image too! Richerman (talk) 01:13, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
TLC from Manchester City Council is not actionable ;) Ceoil sláinte 01:17, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Well it may come 80 years late but with some help from the lottery they grudgingly give some. Mind you, they're going to hit us with a congestion charge to get they're own money back. Richerman (talk) 01:24, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Could this be archived now, then? It seems just to be taking up space now to me. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 17:47, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
I've added what refs I could from online libraries, etc; but I think this is enough. I don't think this needs FAR/C. Ceoil sláinte 19:17, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
I left a note with Marskell. [7] Nousernamesleft (talk) 00:06, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree, it's looking really good now. Richerman (talk) 14:01, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Close without FARC (unclear why centuries and years were linked, or why the inscription is in italics). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:29, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Dont have a problem with centuries; inscription is fixed now. Ceoil sláinte 16:18, 27 June 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 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 11:38, 27 June 2008 [8].

George Fox

Review commentary

Wikipedia:WikiProject Religious Society of Friends (Quakers) and User talk:69.108.205.8 notified

This was featured in 2004 and appears to be abandoned (original nominator and contributor are no longer active). Minor problems include an insufficient lead. But more importantly, old unreliable sources are used (19th century) in the Harvard references. As for citations, only primary sources (i.e., his autobiography and his journal) are cited which would tend to produce a biased result. This should be written based on scholarly secondary sources like Ingle, mentioned as a useful source, but does not appear to be used at all. I think I can help bring this up to standard (got to check out if I can get some books), but I hope others can help here. --RelHistBuff (talk) 15:25, 5 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. Thanks! --RegentsPark (talk) 15:45, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I notified the WikiProject. I could post to the nominator, Quadell, and contributor, AlexG, but I assume that would be as useful as notifying Emworth. The top 10 contributors are IP addresses. --RelHistBuff (talk) 15:51, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I see that. Perhaps a note on the IP address discussion pages for 86.158.6.105 would help (assuming that their edits were not trivial). Though I see that when you say 'abandoned' you mean it! (Perhaps adding an invitation to the article talk page - in addition to the notification - would also be useful.) --RegentsPark (talk) 16:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I did some cleaning up and in the process I should point out a correction. It turns out that his autobiography and journal are the same. It also appears that an early edition (Jones 1908) was used rather than the more reliable modern edition (Nickalls 1952). So basically the sources for this article are Fox's Journal (1694, Jones edition), Marsh (1847), and Schaff (1914, tertiary source). This means 1c is not satisfied in that it does not use "reliable sources and accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge." --RelHistBuff (talk) 08:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Here's one thing I'm not too clear on: "His education was based around the faith and practice of the Church of England, of which his parents were members; this parish was strongly puritan, in this case Presbyterian." What exactly is being said here? "He was brought up Anglican, but his neighbours were Presbyterian", or "He was brought up as a puritan within the broad umbrella of the Church of England"? DrKiernan (talk) 07:15, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Not clear at all. It sounds contradictory. I took a look in the Journal and Schaff-Herzog and there is nothing about his education being based around either the Church of England or a Presbyterian church. It probably came from a secondary source somewhere. A question before working too heavily on the article. Would you be able to get one of the secondary sources, i.e., Ingle or Wildes? If so, then I will try looking for one of those in the library and then we could try to get the article in shape jointly. If I try to do this by myself, I know that it will take me a few months which is too slow to save it from being FARCed. We could conceivably cover different sections of the article and work simultaneously. --RelHistBuff (talk) 15:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I have access to the Jones, Penney and Nickalls versions of the Journal, Ingle's ODNB article (which I've used extensively so far), and Hodgkin's much earlier biography from 1896. I don't have access to either Ingle's book or Wildes. I could get access to other George Fox-specific material as I'm within driving distance of Atherstone and Hinckley local studies libraries but to be blunt I don't want to put myself out! I think splitting the work is a good idea. We could try to use different sources. Again, to be blunt, I don't fancy reading more than one book. We could also try working on it at different times, say me this week, you next week, so we don't bump into each other's edits. Whatever you want really, this is much more your field than mine. DrKiernan (talk) 08:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
OK, I will hunt for the books on my next trip to the central library. This will take me a couple of weeks as I don't go into town very often. As I don't have access to the ODNB, you could go ahead. If I can get the books, I will add to what you've done. --RelHistBuff (talk) 09:27, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

This article is worth improvement. I thought I'd invest five minutes in the first section, and set off to edit it. I was surprised to see a number of hidden comments, variations on <!--Fox in Nickalls, p.3-->. I'd guess that this means "Fox on p.3 of Nickalls' edition" and I'd be inclined either to convert it into a note or to add it to the adjacent note. But I do neither and instead hit the browser's back button, , because I don't know what motives the person had who either wrote it as a comment or commented it out. What has been going on here? Morenoodles (talk) 09:46, 26 May 2008 (UTC) Struck out by Morenoodles (talk) 07:21, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I am still working on integrating references from Nickalls into the article. DrKiernan (talk) 17:17, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Good job! Morenoodles (talk) 07:21, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are LEAD (2a) and citations (1c). Marskell (talk) 16:51, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I see there's been some work. Keep us informed. Marskell (talk) 16:51, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

See above. DrKiernan (talk) 17:17, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I managed to get to the library yesterday and I am really sorry to say that the books are unavailable. They do not have Wildes. According to their catalogue, they have Ingle, but they cannot find the book (they have put a search for it). However, in my opinion, with the excellent work done by DrKiernan, this one should be a keep. Normally, it isn't ideal that Fox's autobiography is used as the main source, but I'd rather overlook this as it looks like in good shape right now and perhaps someone from the Quaker Wikiproject will finish the job afterwards. --RelHistBuff (talk) 15:37, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree that using an autobiography as a main source is not ideal, but we are using Fox's journal in an edited form and there are 20 references from a secondary 2004 source. I was also concerned that the sources all seem to be written by Quakers, but I'd rather not resort to using clearly bias works like the Catholic encyclopedia and the article seems neutral to me. I would be happy to keep this. DrKiernan (talk) 11:21, 17 June 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 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 11:38, 27 June 2008 [9].

League of Nations

Review commentary

Notified at User talk:Formeruser-81, User talk:UW, User talk:ALoan, User talk:Sam Korn, User talk:MisfitToys, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Human rights and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject International relations

An article on an important topic that has been a featured article for over 3 years and has not been reviewed formally in that time. It seems to be in pretty good shape, although there are few references and citations by modern FA standards (although there is a "Bibliography").

For instance, the lists of presidents and secretaries general are a bit distracting and would perhaps be better split off. -- Testing times (talk) 00:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Keep & Comment. Yet another fine, long-standing article on a topic of truly encyclopedic importance, about to be defeatured due to lack of notezorz. But that's ok, it will be replaced by ridiculously over-cited articles on game or Poke cruft. And that's ok because any topic can be featured so long as it is blandly written and chock full- o -inlines. For here in Wikiland, quality=verifiability=quantity of inlines. Surely there is someway out of this mediocracy madhouse, someway to grandfather in articles such as this one, which have been long featured and whose quality has not drastically declined. But I doubt the blind pedantics will find one.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 20:05, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I think you'll find people will be more inclined to read your arguments with an open mind if you use "Move to close" rather than "Keep". It's much the same as "Keep" but it doesn't garner the same sort of hostility. DrKiernan (talk) 09:11, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
That's the problem; most here don't have open minds...at least not anymore. They see a lack of inline notzorz and they knee-jerk vote remove. Just see the bureaucratic-sounding comments below. Which begs the questions-With articles such as this defeatured and great contributors such as Aloan leaving in frustration and disgust, what makes Wikipedia NOT suck?--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 09:58, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
There's certainly a lack of references. I've add a couple and plan to add some more over the next few days. The list of Presidents and Secretary Generals might be better split off especially if some commentary is added about their periods in office. --Kaly99 (talk) 12:50, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Lots of work needed. Fundamentally, the the basic lack of citations, but also MoS issues. Incorrect WP:DASHes everywhere, some of the section headings are very long (and those appear to be lists that could be moved out of the article), the WP:LEAD doesn't appear to be an adequate and compelling summary, WP:GTL (portals belong in See also), WP:MOS#Ellipses, WP:MOSBOLD, I stopped there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry - if you can translate this alphabet soup into plain English for me, I could begin to help some of this "lots of work". I can't work out what WP:DASHes or WP:MOS#Ellipses - or indeed WP:MOSBOLD - are saying is wrong with this article. Presumably a simple cut-and-paste could fix the "portals belong in See also" problem, no? -- Testing times (talk) 22:43, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

--U.S.A.... The United States never took part in the league of nations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexdow93 (talk • contribs) 23:13, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are referencing (1c) and formatting (2). Marskell (talk) 12:00, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Here's an update of work that I've done on the article:

  • Removed obvious dashes, I still need to check which of the other shouldn't be there
  • The longest section headings have been removed (along with the lists)
  • Cleaned up the See also and External links sections (including portal) and removed bolding from the main text.
  • Tried to sort out the quotes in the mandate section but I need to re-read the guide lines on these as I'm not sure I've formatted them correctly. Once I have I'll sort out the rest of the article's quotes.
  • Added references, but it's a slow process to verify and correct the text and there are still a lot that need adding.

I'm sure there are other MoS issues as I'm not an expert on the guide lines. If I manage to reference the rest of the article in time I plan to sort out the lead and carefully go through the MoS and check it against the article. --Kaly99 (talk) 11:49, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Kaly99 - that is the sort of thing I was suggesting above I could do, but I first wanted someone to explain clearly what would be necessary to resolve the various issues. I'm still prepared to help, if someone can tell me what is required. -- Testing times (talk) 21:47, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
The main problem is referencing as there's still a lot of the article that's missing references. Alternatively, you could have a look at the section of the Manual of Style (MoS) on quotations and format the quotes in the article to comply with it. Also you could check through the rest of the Manual of Style and make any changes to the article needed to comply with it. --Kaly99 (talk) 22:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Fixes still needed. The main issue is lack of citation, but I'll list the minor MoS issues again in case anyone wants to work on them. Incorrect use of WP:HYPHENs instead of endashes in citations, example: Glover Forster, The Esperanto Movement, pp. 171-176 Inconsistent date formatting and date linking in citations, see WP:MOSDATE, examples: Origins and history, International Labour organization, Retrieved on 25 April 2008 vs. "League of Nations Ends, Gives Way to New U.N.", Syracuse Herald-American, April 20, 1946, p12 (the dates need to be wikilinked). Incorrect use of named refs on repeat refs, see WP:FN, example, 47 and 48 are the same ref and should use a named ref: 47. ^ "League of Nations Ends, Gives Way to New U.N.", Syracuse Herald-American, April 20, 1946, p12 and 48. ^ "League of Nations Ends, Gives Way to New U.N.", Syracuse Herald-American, April 20, 1946, p12. Inconsistent page numbering convention in citations, some examples of p12, and some examples of p. 12. No consistent style. Incomplete references, example missing publisher at League of Nations chronology, Retrieved January 21, 2006.