Wikipedia:Featured article review/archive/March 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 14:17, 30 March 2008.

Constitution of Belarus

Review commentary

Notified: User:Stephenb, User:LonelyMarble,‎ User:Pharaoh of the Wizards, User:Prodego, Wikipedia:WikiProject Europe, Wikipedia:WikiProject Belarus, Wikipedia:WikiProject Eastern Europe, Wikipedia:WikiProject Law, User:Ascidian‎, User:Keilana‎, User:Diligent Terrier, User:JimDunning‎, User:Zscout370, User:Lacrimosus


This article fails several FA criteria (1a, 1b, 1c, 1d, 2b, 3). Given the large number of issues it is probably not even deserving of GA status at present. It was chosen as an FA with just four (five, if the nominee is included) votes to two.

It reads as a summary of the contents of the Belarusian constitution and uses phrasing such as "approved by the Belarusian populace" to describe the referendums of 1996 and 2004, which were not up to international standards (in the article, this phrase wikilinks only to Referendum), and were widely held to have been falsified by President Alexander Lukashenko. The article headings are all capitalized, and no indication is given as to whether these headings are, in fact, titles. Strike-through text The background on the constitution and its evolution from Belarus's Soviet-era legal framework is rather thin, and it states that the country's 1990 independence declaration occurred "when Belarus became independent from the Soviet Union in 1991". The competing referendums of 1996 (first called by the parliament, then a rival referendum called by the president) are not described at all, nor are the allegations of fraud surrounding Lukashenko's referendum, and the fact that its end result was largely to do away with the constitution altogether. The article rather drolly states "In this amendment voted by referendum a number of significant changes were made to the Constitution, usually in order to strengthen the grip on power of the president"; in fact, this was seen by the opposition as a constitutional coup that eliminated the influence of parliament altogether, replacing it with a bicameral rubber-stamp assembly answerable only to the president. Other articles, such as Elections in Belarus, do a better job of mentioning the irregularities (including state-sponsored assassinations) that hinder political opposition.

We learn that both "referendums" extended Lukashenko's "term in office": "The voter turnout for the referendum was nearly 90%, with 77.3% of the voters agreeing to the amendment.[25] The changes were implemented on 2004-10-17.[31] Two years later, Lukashenko ran in the 2006 election and won with 83% of the vote during the first ballot.[32] With no term limits, Lukashenko states that, depending on his health, he will not retire from politics and might run for reelection in 2011.[33]" That's an interesting way of putting things, but it's not WP:NPOV. The only indication that this might not be perfectly democratic is the final paragraph: "Both referendums were severely criticized by the political opposition inside Belarus as well as by international observers, such as the OSCE. They state that both referendums were non-transparent, and that the real results were not published. Observers were not allowed to see the process of counting ballots.[34]"

There has already been concern expressed about the FA status on the article's talk page. This article needs a lot of work just to address the issue of WP:NPOV and addressing all aspects of its subject.

ProhibitOnions (T) 10:18, 29 February 2008 (UTC) *Delist as nom. ProhibitOnions (T) 10:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The reason why that section is thin because me and everyone else on that FAC cannot find anything in either English, Russian or Belarusian. Keep in mind a lot of sources cannot be found about Belarus, since not many people write about certain aspects of the country. From what I notice here, most wanted more information about the referendums that modified the Constitution. We have articles about those said referendums, so we can add relevant information there. Trying to keep a balance on just describing this document, without making it a general bashing of just Belarus or Lukashenko, is pretty hard. That sentence pointed out by ProhibitOnions, that was a quote by Lukashenko himself to a Belarusian newspaper on his future plans. He did mention about his health as a factor for running for office in 2011. I'm going to look over this, and maybe try to fix POV issues, but I wasn't intentionally trying to put any. But just keep in mind of the undue weight I mentioned earlier and keep in mind of what I said about Belarus in general. PO, please work with me. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 20:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to, and I don't mean anything against you for posting this (I'll be the first to commend you for putting a lot of work into the article). However, at present I can't agree with it being a FA, and I can't see it being easy to fix it enough to remain one. You agree there is a lack of sources (or at least online ones), and the article leaves out the important issue of the opposition movement and the (credible accusations of) manipulation of the constitution and referendums to end whatever democracy there had been in Belarus and to eliminate any challenge to Lukashenka's absolute rule (even though he'd probably have won an election if it were free and fair). FWIW, I was in Belarus very often at the time of the 1996 referendum and I kept a clip file from the newspapers, I've been looking all over for it, with no success so far! Regards, ProhibitOnions (T) 21:26, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
And keep in mind that I am a US citizen since birth, so whatever knowledge you have about Belarus in general is going to be more than what I can ever dig up. That is what hurt me at the FAC, but it still passed anyways. Hmm...I'll see if I can add a section about the opposition to the Constitution, but I don't want that to dominate the article about the document. I also added links to the articles about the specific referendums, so any specific information and quotes about the irregularities can be placed there. The articles about the elections are supposed to be summaries anyways. Just give me some time PO, it will be made back to FA standard. I have a copyedit request going on now, so many of the issues discussed on the talk page about prose is going to be fixed when someone gets around to it. The headers have been toyed around with before, but I am not sure on how to make it shorter. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 21:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I added a section about issues with the document, so I hope that helps. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 21:01, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

About the headings, I just had them as Article 1, Article 2, etc; but when it was on the Main Page recently, users have asked if the headings can have titles. From the book I own at my house, each sections do have a title and are translated into English at the website of President Lukashenko. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 21:04, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
So, what now? Anything else needs to be done? Anything specific that needs to be fixed? User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 20:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

This article contains Politics of Belarus Template, which references Constitutional Court of Belarus article. The last article is very short, so the reader isn't able to find basic data about Judicial interpretation in Belarus. I believe that a FA should include links to needed articles. An article lacking its context cannot be FA, because a reader isn't able to understand it, even if the article is correctly written. Xx236 (talk) 14:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Constitution_of_Belarus#Section_Four:_The_President.2C_Parliament.2C_Government.2C_the_Courts contains a link to the Constitutional Court and some stats about interpretation about laws and the constitutionality of them. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 19:45, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Constitutional Court reviewed 101 laws and decrees; they were deemed to be constitutional. Wow!Xx236 (talk) 09:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

  • That is the latest stats I found when I wrote that line. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 09:18, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Plus, it has an image, so how can I fail WIAFA 3? It is an official booklet published by the Belarusian Government. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 04:15, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comments: I wouldn't say the problems here are anywhere near the depth posited by ProhibitOnions, but there are some significant issues. Mainly 1a. I used United States Constitution as a frame of reference in judging 1b, and I don't note any major "missing" items considering the sources available. I have attempted to call out examples as I think a dedicated copyeditor could fix up the article within the scope of this FAR. In examples where information is missing, some research may be required. I can help with copyediting but probably not with researching.
    • General prose concern: The article is written almost exclusively in the passive voice, which does not make for smooth prose. I recommend taking a look at each sentence - when the subject is known and when the subject is the focus of the sentence, rewrite in active voice. Example: "The first Constitution of Belarus was signed on March 15, 1994 by the Speaker of the Supreme Soviet and Head of State Myechyslaw Hryb..."
    • Some uses of the passive voice actually eliminate the subject of the sentence when it should be stated. Example: "Three drafts of the proposed constitution were submitted to the Supreme Soviet deputies before it was adopted into law on March 28, 1994." This use omits who submitted the drafts, and therefore we don't know who wrote them. In fact, I can't readily find this information anywhere in the article.
    • "nine sections (including eight chapters)" Does this mean each of nine sections has eight chapters? It's unclear.
    • "The structure and substance of the Constitution were heavily influenced by constitutions of Western powers and by the nation's..." I would name Belarus again instead of saying "the nation".
    • "The use of this constitution continued..." Why not: "Belarus continued to use this constitution until..."
    • That same sentence has some hyphens with non-breaking spaces. Please see WP:DASH. You want either unspaced em dashes or spaced en dashes. Check the whole article for these.
    • "After the implementation of the Constitution of the Soviet Union, Belarus, now the Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, adopted a constitution in 1927." Unclear.. what constitution did Belarus adopt at this time? Not the Soviet one, you seem to be saying, and not the one that is the subject of this article.
    • Is "Zvezda" a newspaper? If so, should be italicized.
    • "The delay occurred due to debates among members of the Supreme Soviet, who were also trying to stave off the opposition and democratic forces who wanted to close the Supreme Soviet down for good." Maybe it's outside the scope of this article, but I'm not clear why the Supreme Soviet still had a say in things after the Soviet Union was dissolved.
    • "When drafting the Belarus Constitution, its authors..." Again, who?
I'll have to pick this up again later when I have time to review the actual content sections. --Laser brain (talk) 18:11, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I am fixing some of the grammar issues, but I have asked for a Copyedit about a month ago; the same time the article was on the Main Page. As for the Supreme Soviet; each Soviet Republic had their own legislature, just like each American state or Canadian province has one. Each of the SSR's assemblies were called the Supreme Soviet. From 1991 until 1996, the Supreme Soviet of Belarus was the only legislature. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 03:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, maybe we can tag-team this one. Can you work on finding a source for who the authors were? I can do some copyedits here and there over the next few days. --Laser brain (talk) 03:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Fine by me. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 03:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I think my point in listing this has been made. The sources available are weak and one-sided; the Constitution of the United States is a false comparison, as the Belarusian constitution is barely in effect; as the article hints at only in the last section, has been largely swept aside in favor of a personal dictatorship for life of the previously constitutionally elected officeholder (this included credible accusations of murder and imprisonment of political opponents, ballot-stuffing, and the heavy skewing of parliamentary voting rights to favor the president's rural strongholds and exclude the larger cities). The controversy regarding the referendums is not mentioned. Neutral-sounding language is used where this is not appropriate, giving an impression of impartiality ("approved by the populace") to actions of one side, where there was a national dispute (which is not mentioned). Furthermore, the related articles linked to in the Belarus politics infobox are themselves weak and often incoherent and one-sided, and fail to provide adequate context. None of these is an issue that can be quickly fixed by some tag-team editing (and I'll be glad to help improve it when I have time). The article is a good start. But it's not an FA - not even close. ProhibitOnions (T) 10:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
ProhibitOnions, I didn't mean to suggest that the article could be "quickly fixed" or indeed, to impugn your comments at all. I simply disagree with them. I used the US Constitution article as comparison because ultimately, I think this article needs to be primarily about the document; the volumes of political strife surrounding it might be better covered in another article such as Politics of Belarus or even History of the Constitution of Belarus. I'm sure there were nefarious deeds surrounding the US Constitution as well but those would be outside the scope of the article about the document. Make sense? --Laser brain (talk) 14:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The status of other articles should not, and will not, affect the status of this article. The same issues with all referendums are hinted at in the last section on purpose; the article is supposed to be about the document itself, not around meta issues. Specific information about problems with the votes should be placed on the articles about the elections. As Laser brain said, and as I said before, this article should focus about the document itself. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 18:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Again, the phony referendums are not "meta issues". They heavily amended the constitution, allowing it to be set aside and used as an occasional figleaf for Lukashenka's policies; in effect, the constitution was totally changed in 1996 to allow absolute rule. This belongs in the article, and offloading it to a link that doesn't provide any information on the controversy, only two lists of questions, means that something is missing from this article. It's not FA quality, sorry. ProhibitOnions (T) 21:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
So PO, is this what you are looking for or not? User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 21:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I also expanded a bit about the 2004 vote. Honestly, I personally think with the information I am adding, more emphasis is seeming to be placed on just one or two sections of this article. I believe I am getting close providing undue weight. I am thinking of just putting more information, which can go more in depth about he votes, at Amendments to the Belarusian Constitution and link that to this article. Does this sound fair? User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 21:52, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the article is written well, comprehensive and neutral - to a reasonable extent; there are a few odd stumbling blocks like the "approved by the Belarusian populace" (we should make it clear that's the government claim) - but overall it is much better than most of possible FARCs. It was also recently promoted, and is quite up to our modern standards. I suggest reviewing in two years or such, there are other more important cases ATM :) PS. Changes like this are definitely a step in the right direction.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 05:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I've been away for a few days and had another look at the article. I'd say that a lot of the substantial issues have now been addressed. Good work, folks. ProhibitOnions (T) 09:08, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

To be comprehensive this article should cite works by legal scholars who have analyzed Constitutions of Belarus, without such references this article looks amateurish too. --Doopdoop (talk) 18:31, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I am looking for works by legal scholars about the document, no such luck. I have found so far documents saying legal scholars have said x or y, but not a true analysis that you seek. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 19:33, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - I have completed a "once-over" of the article to correct prose issues but I will go over it again to pick up things I might have missed. --Laser brain (talk) 04:49, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
I've withdrawn my delist comment, as it seemed there was little participation in this review by outside editors. The article is now significantly improved, but, especially in the section regarding the referendums, it does lean heavily on Belarusian government websites -- ie, one of the parties in the dispute -- and is still rather one-sided (it omits the parliamentary referendum proposal of 1996, and brushes over the changes Lukashenko made in 1995 that allowed him to dissolve parliament on "corruption" charges). Issues such as the adoption of the Soviet-era flag in 1995 are also constitutional changes. ProhibitOnions (T) 07:45, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
I wanted to focus on the document itself, but I understand what you mean about the flag and emblem are constitutional changes. Article 19 stipulates the national symbols of the nation and each article on the symbols are also Featured. I mentioned the 1995 vote, but when I look at sources, they mostly focus on the flag and emblem changes. Can you link me to the 1996 parliamentary referendum proposal so I can look at it sometime this weekend? But as for editor participation, you could have asked on the talk page and I would have helped you about this. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 07:58, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are prose (1a), comprehensiveness (1b), referencing (1c), POV (1d), and images (3). Marskell (talk) 19:14, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment: This has seen a good deal of article. Moving to get comments on status. Marskell (talk) 19:14, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep, the nominator has withdrawn his major objections. The prose needs another good copyedit to meet 1a, but that should be easy to accomplish. I was never sure how the article didn't meet criterion 3. The existing image has a correct copyright status and I'm not sure what other images could improve the article. --Laser brain (talk) 19:24, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
    • I tried to ask about the images but I didn't get a response about them. The image displayed now is of a photo of a booklet printed by the Belarusian Government that I own. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 03:33, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove, per 1c (only one ref citing works by legal scholars).--Doopdoop (talk) 23:39, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Doopdoop, this is not a realistic expectation for this article. A serious scholarly work on this document, if it exists at all, would almost certainly be in Russian and probably inaccessible. --Laser brain (talk) 02:48, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
      • There are hundreds of millions of Russian speaking people in the world... --Doopdoop (talk) 22:34, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
        • If a Russian user wants to add legal commentary by scholars, then sure, he or she is welcome too. But I keep on looking for English sources and I have not found much yet. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 23:09, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep as main author. Doopdoop mentions that there is lack of legal scholars dealing with sourcing. I am going to look for more sources now, but I cannot promise to have everything cited by legal scholars. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 00:18, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep I acknowledge that the article is not as critical of Lukashenko as it could or should be, however, I'm not sure it's fair to oppose on the grounds that the article is too neutral. I have no problem with the other criteria. On a very minor (almost negligible) MoS point, the dates in the references are not uniformally formatted. DrKiernan (talk) 17:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
As for the dates, I used this as a way to format the citations. Some sources I have full dates on, and others I don't. If I find to happen more information about the dates, they will be fixed. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 17:45, 28 March 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 12:24, 27 March 2008.

Matthew Brettingham

Notified Wikipedia:WikiProject Architecture, User:Giano and User:Danny.

It's not in compliance with WP:LEAD, it's has poor citations, and there are certain other MOS issues. I realize that this has been nominated for FAR(C) twice before, and kept rather strongly, but standards change, and the last nomination was two years ago. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 00:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

My initial impression is that the article is a strong one. I intend to go through the article more carefully, and will try to address the issues raised above. DrKiernan (talk) 10:14, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Do people like this image or not:

The North Front of Kedleston Hall "has been described as 'the grandest Palladian façade in Britain, and with few rivals anywhere in the world'".1

Unfortunately, there's scaffolding up at the moment so it's not the best. Also, the lighting's bad but there's not a great deal I can do about that when photographing a north front in winter. DrKiernan (talk) 17:16, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Consider asking one of the experts at Featured Images to see if they can improve the photo; otherwise, I don't think this photo will be helpful in bringing the article in line for featured status. Risker (talk) 18:58, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Good idea. I've uploaded a modified version. DrKiernan (talk) 08:44, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

What do you find poor about the citations? I don't quite follow. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:03, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I've added eight extra references since that original comment was made. DrKiernan (talk) 10:05, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I see, good work. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:31, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow DrK, you went above and beyond in actually going and out taking a pic for a FAR! I agree the lighting isn't great, but it's good enough for article space, IMO, and I think should be included.

Are people ready to keep this in general? Marskell (talk) 19:35, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Yes, it should be kept. The lead, like the article, is short but succinct. It could be broken into 2 paras if that will make people happier, or added to, although it seems to include all major points. The citations, now improved, look sufficient to me. More pics are needed, and the Dr's excellent effort should certainly go in, improved or not. Country houses in the north of England don't spend much of their time basking in sunshine, and there is no harm in a photo showing a more typical situation. Johnbod (talk) 15:31, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes, I'd be happy to close this too. I agree that the lead, though short, contains the relevant points. I've moved up the older picture of Kedleston to the lead, as the caption encapsulates the essence of the article, and moved the picture of Holkham to the "Architect" section. DrKiernan (talk) 09:17, 25 March 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 19:21, 15 March 2008.

Book of Kells

Notified Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland, Wikipedia:WikiProject Middle Ages,‎ Wikipedia:WikiProject Anglicanism‎, Wikipedia:WikiProject Religious texts‎, Wikipedia:WikiProject Visual arts, User:Dsmdgold

This is an outstanding well-written article. However, it has only a handful of inline citations. This was not much of an issue when it was approved as a featured article in 2005, but as I understand, it's absolutely essential today. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 02:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I was the primary author of this article. (Thank you for your characterization of it, by the way.) I've been half expecting this for over a year. When this article was nominated, the inline citation feature was very poorly implemented. I no longer have easy access to the materials needed to provide inline citation for this article, as I borrowed all of them via inter-library loan. Nor will I be able to work on this in this next few weeks. If someone has access to a university library, the most important sources were, in order,: Henry, Francoise. The Book of Kells, Henderson, George. From Durrow to Kells: the Insular Gospel-books, 650–800, and Calkins, Robert G. Illuminated Books of the Middle Ages. Dsmdgold (talk) 03:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I do not have access to the above sources, but may be of some help. -- SECisek (talk) 09:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I can get these and would be happy to help. Kafka Liz (talk) 12:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I have Calkins, and other relevant books (see my user page). I will see what I can do, but I expect Henry is needed really. Johnbod (talk) 12:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I've got the Henry, but not Henderson. I picked some other stuff up too while I was at it, but I don't think I can put much time into it until this evening at the earliest. Kafka Liz (talk) 16:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
You'd better go first with Henry - Calkins tends to ref back to her. Johnbod (talk) 18:03, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Will do, then. Kafka Liz (talk) 18:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The lead could do with some work if anybody feels like tackling it. Ceoil (talk) 21:55, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I can take a crack at it after I've put in the Henry refs. Kafka Liz (talk) 13:19, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Whoa, yeah. That's the very first thing I noticed. Helltopay27 (talk) 03:38, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Update: I've reworked the lead now and would welcome any feedback. I've tried to make it more concise without eliminating any of the essential information. Please let me know what you think. Kafka Liz (talk) 03:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
It needs to be a good deal longer (and I'm a lead minimalist). See WP:LEAD - this is a long article, so the lead should be close to the 4 para recommended max here I think. Johnbod (talk) 03:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback. :) This is the first article of length that I've put any substantial work into, and I wasn't sure how long it should be. I'll get to work on expanding it. Thanks again, Kafka Liz (talk) 10:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for doing the donkey work! Btw, if you saw the "citations" para of WP:LEAD, I would personally think this is a case where no citations may be necessary in the lead, so long as everything is cited when it is expanded lower down, unless anyone disagrees. Johnbod (talk) 13:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Oh, I'm enjoying working on this a lot - I wish I had more time for it! :) I agree that the lead doesn't need citations; I think that the references below should cover things pretty well. My plans are 1) expand the lead; 2) do some overall light copyediting; 3) finish standardising the notes and references; and 4) do a final check for citations. Thanks again for your help and feedback. Kafka Liz (talk) 16:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Sounds good to me. Johnbod (talk) 19:02, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Citations

Update: I've begun adding citations. Does anyone have access to In Search of Ancient Ireland: The Origins of the Irish from Neolithic Times to the Coming of the English? The reference is missing a page number. I should be able to find it on Monday, but if anyone has the information now, that would be great. In the meantime, I'll keep plugging away. Kafka Liz (talk) 22:09, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, no. Page numbers for Henry would be better too. She is in the References section, so just "Henry:99" or whatever. Johnbod (talk) 22:37, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
The page number(s) are there, just before the ISBN. I can shorten the reference so they are more prominent, if you think that would be preferable. Kafka Liz (talk) 22:52, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Everything is on page 150? Since the full details (less ISBN link etc) are in the sources, they aren't needed in Notes also. Johnbod (talk) 01:48, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I know it looks wierd, it really all is on 150. I'll shorten the citation as you suggest. Kafka Liz (talk) 12:08, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

You guys have been doing a great job here, thanks. For the contents section, if I remember correctly, Calkins has a complete list of contents in an appendix. Dsmdgold (talk) 23:53, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

That's right. I can do that. Johnbod (talk) 00:23, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Update: I've been plugging away at adding Henry references, but I'm at a point now -- the Decoration section -- where Calkins may be the better source. I'll keep working on it, but perhaps Johnbod may want to take a look at it? Thanks, Kafka Liz (talk) 12:06, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok - will do. Johnbod (talk) 12:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I think I've got everything out of Calkins & Nordenfalk now - some bits like on the pigments and the details are similar in calkins, but have extra info he doesn't. Johnbod (talk) 18:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I'll check through Henry again this evening then. I'll straighten out the references formatting for the notes and sources so we don't have unneccessary duplication. I can work on the lead and do some general copyediting as well, if no one objects. Kafka Liz (talk) 19:11, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment There has been a huge amount of work here in the last two weeks; I'm a keep in lieu of an more substantial lead. Ceoil (talk) 16:35, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Hi, Ceoil. I'm working on expanding the lead should have something ready to post in an hour or two. :) Kafka Liz (talk) 19:35, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I think we are very nearly there, but perhaps need more art-critical stuff on why the book is so famous as art. I have added a bit to the lead and below, but we could use more. The usual WP puritanical attitude to any subjective etc appreciation may have held people back, but it is easy enough to reference. I'd be incline to move the lead sentence beginning "The lettering..." on the pigments etc down below, or shorten it in the lead. Nordenfalk says the scribes and the artists of at least the small text page decorations were the same people. If Henry agrees, this should go in. Johnbod (talk) 00:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I've been trying to pull together a short paragraph for the lead that summarizes the manuscript's importance without either being overly repetitive or requiring substantial additions to the main body of the text. There's so much that can be written about the Book that it's hard to reduce it to a few short sentences. Regarding the sentence on lettering and pigments, it may be best for now to shorten it in the lead and move the details to the main article. I had planned on adding a paragraph describing them, but until that happens, we should probably move it. I'll check on the scribes and artists; I also have more recent sources who have identified a fourth scribe, and this information should be added too. I haven't had a lot of time this weekend, but I should be able to add more tomorrow. Kafka Liz (talk) 01:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Great - I think we also need a brief mention of the importance of the book as an Irish national symbol, and (surely) Ireland's best known national treasure etc. Johnbod (talk) 02:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I think I've done all I can with the lead, unless you have any specific points that I've overlooked. Just let me know. I moved the bit on the pigments (as you saw) and made the lead more general. Regarding the scribes and artists, Henry implies they may be the same in some places, i.e. she discusses the lettering and the figures as though they were done by the same hand, she seems hesitant to commit to their being the same people. Other sources I've looked at so far seem to be generally ambivalent on the matter. Kafka Liz (talk) 15:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I can't think of anything else to do -except we might have room for a new pic next to the TOC, with the longer lead; there's always one more thing! Better leave the artist/scribe issue. Well done! Johnbod (talk) 16:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks, and thanks for the feedback along the way! Kafka Liz (talk) 09:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep issues addressed; now 54 citations (I make it), a far better lead & various other improvements. Johnbod (talk) 02:36, 15 March 2008 (UTC)*
  • Keep I concur with Johnbod. The issues initially raised have been addressed. Kafka Liz (talk) 09:43, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep The quality of the prose alone is something to be proud of. There is always more to be done, no article is perfect, but please don't demote this one.--GrahamColmTalk 10:02, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Great work, everyone! Closing. Marskell (talk) 19:13, 15 March 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 14:46, 15 March 2008.

Music of Athens, Georgia

Review commentary

Notified User:TUF-KAT, Wikipedia:WikiProject Regional and national music, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Georgia (U.S. state).

Doesn't satisfy 1a: This article is in need of copyediting. Also, 1c is not satisfied: there are several unsourced statements. I question 1d neutrality as well. 2a: lead is not concise. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 00:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

  • I've made some edits, fixing a few things, partially reverting a chunk of it to the version originally featured. There's still some things to do (e.g. update referencing to use the citation templates), which I'll get to in the next couple days. I may also be able to expand the article a bit. What specifically do you not like about the lead? At two rather brief paragraphs, it's definitely concise. Tuf-Kat (talk) 07:07, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I wasn't really thinking when I wrote that last part. (Hey, it was pretty late when I wrote that, and I was tired!) The section marked still needs some copyediting, though. The previous section also has some formatting issues. If those are finished, then I'll support it being an FA. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 03:39, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I've done some major copyediting on that section, and have boldly removed the "needs editing" template - feel free to reinstate it if you still aren't satisfied, I just like to get those sorts of things off featured articles unless someone actively wants them there. I've made various changes to the section before that, not sure if that fixes the formatting issues you mention or not. I've started fixing up the references to modern wiki standard, but I've gotta go now, so I'll finish up later. There's at least two dead links which I'll fix one way or another. Tuf-Kat (talk) 21:47, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I've fixed the references and all other issues I'm aware of. I'll do another copyedit tomorrow to see if there's anything else I missed, but I think it looks good. Tuf-Kat (talk) 03:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Question Under the Fair Use criteria is it okay to have as many as eight music samples in one article?--Peter Andersen (talk) 18:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
    • As far as I know, the number in a single article doesn't really matter. If each sample were documenting the same thing (e.g. if they were all from B-52s songs) that might weaken the claim, because you couldn't say that each recording was uniquely irreplaceable. But these aren't all documenting the same thing, they're presenting a variety of different components of the subject. Tuf-Kat (talk) 00:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. Several issues:
  • My main gripe with the lead currently is the fact it focuses on what people say about the city's music scene, rather than efficiently summarising its venues and major styles.
  • The samples also need more explanation, and a wider range of music (or splitting the huge box) would be better.
  • Prose, organisation and flow issues; one para in the Rock section starts with the B52's formation and ends with R.E.M.'s musical style. Let me know if you need some examples. CloudNine (talk) 01:24, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are prose (1a), citations (1c), neutrality (1d), and LEAD (2a). Marskell (talk) 19:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm not aware of any outstanding concerns over citations or neutrality, and I'll take a look at the other stuff this week. Tuf-Kat (talk) 21:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
    • I've made a stab at the lead. It still talks about what people have said about the city's music, but not as much and less prominently. I'll work over the prose issues momentarily. Please let me know if there are any further issues. Tuf-Kat (talk) 18:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
      • I'll try to look this over tomorrow, Tuf-Kat. Good work, as ever. Marskell (talk) 18:48, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
        • I did a bit more major surgery, including a little bit of expansion (nothing major, just a few facts here and there). Tuf-Kat (talk) 20:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Everything else looks good, but the prose is a bit rough going. Since I'm not a prose guru, I can't put a finger on it, but some of the sentences were hard to get through. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:47, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

  • I'll give it another go-through tonight or tomorrow. The changes you made look good. Tuf-Kat (talk) 03:13, 13 March 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 18:25, 13 March 2008.

Elias Ashmole

Review commentary

Notified User:PRiis‎, Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Science and academia‎, Wikipedia:WikiProject Astrology‎, Wikipedia:WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology

I stumbled across this article by clicking on a random FA from the main list. The article does not appear to meet the criteria of 1c and 2c concerning sourcing. There are no inline citations present throughout the article, although there is a list of references. The list does not document what facts, quotes, or other information it covers. The article does a good job concerning using free images, but there are also various MOS issues present in the article. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 04:52, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment: Major problems here. 1b primiraly, and also there was a glaring and deliberate falsehood in the lead.[1] [2]. Ceoil (talk) 00:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  • As for Nehrams's statement, The list does not document what facts, quotes, or other information it covers. That is simply false; it begins:
    • Both Garnett's 1891 entry in the DNB and Michael Hunter's 2004 entry in the ODNB agree on the facts of Ashmole's life. Hunter's is, however, more detailed and makes use of a wider range of sources and benefits from more current scholarship. Beresiner's article has additional details on Ashmole's connection with early Freemasonry.The most recent intellectual biography of Elias Ashmole is Vittoria Feola's doctoral thesis, "Elias Ashmole and the Uses of Antiquity", University of Cambridge, 2005.
Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Although the list has the initial paragraph mentioning that the two sources cover information in the article, it does not say specifically, along with the other sources, what they cover. The article does utilize the Harvard referencing, but more inline citations should be present throughout the article. The article would further benefit from either the Harvard references or if desired, using the citation templates, specifying what information comes from which source, page number, author, publish date, etc. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 01:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I plan on reading some material on Ashmole over the weekend, and will hopefully be able to make some edits next week to expand it further and introduce additional inline references. DrKiernan (talk) 14:06, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are references and their formatting (1c and 2c). Marskell (talk) 18:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I guess it's OK to change parenthetic citations to footnotes? Gimmetrow 23:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep I've added extra material, sources and notes, and in the process converted the Harvard references to footnotes. The remaining references in parentheses are in the footnotes, where I think they are appropriate. DrKiernan (talk) 14:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Nice work! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:02, 12 March 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 01:41, 11 March 2008.

ESRB re-rating of The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion

Jmcc has notified Geuiwogbil, Sdornan, Ember of Light, WikiProject Video Games, Hermione is a dude, MTd2, 209.253.119.2, Koalorka, NTK, Yanksox, Awareshiftjk, Piotrus, 124.191.74.29, EnemyOfTheState, Zidel333, Eusebeus, Tempshill, Nydas, 76.186.199.89, Masterhomer, 58.111.132.29, SGGH, 66.234.51.139, Petepetepetepete, Oberiko, and Marskell.

I nominate this article on the grounds that it fails to meet the criterion of high quality writing. A featured article should have prose "that is engaging, even brilliant, and of professional standard". In my opinion any article that contains sentences over 50 words long has not been properly edited. By no stretch could the word "brilliance" be applied. For example the summary contains too much detail and yet does not summarise the whole article. The key issue should be concisely and clearly stated in the first or second sentence. As I understand it a publisher of a game was forced to re-rate a game because someone else had modified it without permission. Instead the article's second sentence could best be described as oblique, saying "In their press release on the decision, the ESRB called attention to the presence, in the published edition of Oblivion, of game content not considered in the ESRB review." This failure to explain clearly and concisely this decision by ESRB persists throughout the article. The article also uses jargon which is not linked to another Wikipedia article nor is it explained in the article itself. It should be possible for someone to read a featured article on a subject with which one is unfamiliar without losing the will to live after a few sentences. JMcC (talk) 12:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Response by Geuiwogbil

  • Please notify relevant parties, as per the FAR instructions. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 14:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Jmcc, some of your notifications are untrue: User:Petepetepetepete, for example, has not "made comments about this article on its talk page". The only comments he has made of any relevance were two (1, 2) postings to the Village Pump. Please ensure that all your comments are entirely accurate. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 17:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • First rectifiable point: "the summary contains too much detail and yet does not summarise the whole article". Sub-point: What would you like covered in the lead that is not covered at present? What details would you like removed? Geuiwogbil (Talk) 15:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Second rectifiable point: the "key issue should be concisely and clearly stated in the first or second sentence". It is stated in the first and second sentences: the ESRB changed the rating; the ESRB did so because the game contained content not in the package Bethesda sent them. Now, the thought that the "publisher of a game was forced to re-rate a game because someone else had modified it without permission" is not true: the third party distributed a modification that unlocked an unused file via third party channels. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 15:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Third rectifiable point: "The article also uses jargon which is not linked to another Wikipedia article nor is it explained in the article itself." If you would identify this jargon, I could explain it. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 15:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Some further issues not explicitly raised here, but previously mentioned on article talk:
  • There are "too many" quotations "interspersed with the text", making this article "difficult to read". Using "loads of" quotes also "calls into question" whether this is really a "neutral article" or if it just recites what "people say about themselves".--Nydas(Talk) 22:12, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Sourcing isn't the problem, it's the way they're selected and worded that's the problem. The quotes used in this article (and the rest of the wording as well) make it seem like ESRB are a bunch of bumbling bureaucrats over-reacting. For example, repeatedly quotifying the phrase 'pertinent content' makes it seem more outlandish than it actually is.--Nydas(Talk) 09:18, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Nydas has personally done some work on this front. I'm not sure if he's yet satisfied with what's been done. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 15:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm not yet satisfied. In this case, excessive quote use injects non-neutral points of view and blubbery bureaucratic language into the article. The quotes in this article make the ESRB seem like reactionary, small-minded twits. They're a government agency, so they can't use the sort of emotive language that their critics use, leading to a fundamental imbalance.--Nydas(Talk) 19:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Thank you for taking the time to review this article, Jmccc. I believe it would have been possible to resolve these issues on the article talk page before bringing them up to FAR. But its done, and we're here, so lets see what can be done. I do hope we can resolve these issues quickly and efficiently. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 15:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I notified the recent contributors using article stats script but as Geuiwogbil requested I have also informed the project group. Few other people seemed to make significant many contributions. I think much has to be done to this article rather than quick fixes, hence its nomination for a review. I do not want to spend too much time re-writing an article of minor importance. The summary is trying to tell the story rather give in three of four sentences an outline of the events and their importance. Geuiwogbil states that my attempt at summarising what the article is about was incorrect. This seems to reinforce my point. If I have not understood what the article is about from the summary, then the summary has failed to its job. The fact that only the bizarre ruling by the US agency applied to this game is an important point that should be in the summary if only to show that it is a parochial event. If you cannot find terms such as modder in a conventional dictionary, it needs a link or an explanation. I have never said that the quotations are a problem, though they do make the article more difficult to read. JMcC (talk) 16:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I have rendered "independent modder" as "client". I'm not sure that captures all the reverse-engineering nuance of the original term, but it provides the basics. Another possible term: "consumer"? Geuiwogbil (Talk) 16:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • There was no general problem with your summary: you seem to have captured the basics of the affair. Where you were incorrect, though, was in detail. That is something that would have been resolved by closer reading, not something you could have taken in all at once. I am open to suggestions, however, on how you think the phrase might have been better rendered. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 16:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I know you have not said that. I am bringing it up as an issue that others have noted in regards to the article, and as one which would perhaps be relevant to a FAR. This is a general review. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 16:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • "The summary is trying to tell the story rather [than?] give in three of [or?] four sentences an outline of the events and their importance." I'd like some clarification as to what this sentence means. You are referring to WP:LEAD, correct? Geuiwogbil (Talk) 16:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • So do you feel that it doesn't convey a good narrative, or that it fails to reproduce the important parts of the affair? Geuiwogbil (Talk) 16:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Is it better, now that Krator has made some clarificatory edits? Geuiwogbil (Talk) 17:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment - I made some edits, and I think the article is now up to FA standards. It is not abnormal for an article that has recently been featured to go for FAR. A lot of people who haven't read the article before read it then, and offer comments and suggestions. User:Krator (t c) 16:48, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah, OK. Thanks for the clarification, Krator. (Krator has made some clarifying edits to the lead, and some dequotifications elsewhere.) Geuiwogbil (Talk) 16:52, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment I have included a couple of links which I feel appropriate:

  1. Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Featured_article_process_reformation_.2F_Recall_of_the_Featured_Article_Director while this discussion is about the FA procedure in general, started by NTK, it contains many comments on this particular articles quality.
  2. and of course, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/ESRB re-rating of The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion for obvious reasons.

For my own to cents, I feel the tweaks above should be enough to fix any issues, and I worry that part of the problem is that some people just don't deem the topic suitable enough for FA. I myself almost fell into that trap. SGGH speak! 17:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment - After reviewing the article, I have not been able to identify problems with the quality of sources. There are some areas where I feel the citation may have crept slightly over time, or where sentence structure has degraded over time. There are a large number of sentences that have been strung together with four or five commas. There are also a large number of quotes (even quotes within quotes) which could be rationalised. All of these issues could be resolved by a copyedit or peer review to bring it back up to scratch. If required, I would be happy to lend some assistance on this. Gazimoff (talk) 18:49, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment - The sources are lacking in this article; there aren't any from non-gaming related organisations. Here's one from CNN: [3], offering a different perspective, concentrating on Take-Two Interactive. The political fallout also needs to be covered in more depth.--Nydas(Talk) 19:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • That's more concerning. The article states that the public at large were not aware of the event, inferring that it did not get picked up by the mainstream press and hence why none are sourced. If it was picket up by the mainstream press, who had a different take on the story, it should be included and the article rebalanced to take account of this. That's more than just a simple copyedit. Gazimoff (talk) 20:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment: I think the biggest flaw of the article is that for people not familiar with the ESRB or with video games, the two lead paragraphs (a) don't call out why this event is of any interest, and (b) are super dull (IMO), comprising a narrative instead of telling the reader why it's important. The reason this event riles up some video gamers is that the makers of the game got penalized because of a mod, which raises questions of fairness. Is it fair to rate a game based on content that is not reachable? (This nicely simple question is, unfortunately, almost mooted by the "hanging corpse" art, which, as far as I can tell from the article, is available in the game as normal content, so in the case of Oblivion it's not solely about unreachable content.) I'll try to take a crack at this in the coming week or two but my time is limited unfortunately. Tempshill (talk) 19:48, 10 March 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 18:38, 10 March 2008.

Crushing by elephant

Review commentary

User:ChrisO notified; Wikipedia:WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia notified —Preceding unsigned comment added by GrittyLobo441 (talk • contribs) 05:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

To begin with, the section "Asian powers" relies on quotations more than what is acceptable for a professionally written encyclopedic entry. The first two paragraphs under the section "Cultural aspects" contain specific information that is not cited properly or at all. The section "Geographical scope" also contains very specific information yet is devoid of inline citations.

Furthermore, the content itself is not generally written to a standard I expect from a featured article.

  • "Cultural aspects": The first sentence makes the claim, "The use of elephants as executioners was inextricably bound up with the use of the animals as symbols of royal power." This has nothing to do with the sentence that directly follows it, which states, "The intelligence, domestication and versatility of elephants gave them considerable advantages over the wild animals such as lions and bears often used by the Romans as executioners." It would seem that this discussion as to why elephants are preferable over other animals for carrying out executions ties in with the next paragraph which goes on to explain why horses tend not to trample people. These thoughts are tied together and should not be separated by a paragraph break. As for the first sentence, "The use of...," I don't see where this fits in with the discussion comparing elephants to other animals vis-à-vis execution.
  • "Asian powers": This section relies entirely too much on quotations and doesn't focus on the meanings behind the quotations in a manner befitting an encyclopedic entry.

Finally, given the amount of information, more images would be ideal.

I do believe this article can easily be a good article with these suggested improvements and other similar revisions. However, I don't think it's of the quality of the majority of featured articles on Wikipedia.
—GrittyLobo441 (talk) 05:12, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll add what I said during the FAC—this article covers more than just crushing. It should either be renamed to Death by elephant, Execution by elephant, etc. or edited to focus on crushing specifically. See my comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Crushing by elephant for details. Pagrashtak 06:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't agree that the "Asian powers" section has too many quotations; what does Gritty Lobo suggest, that these rather vivid quotes are replaced by a turgid precis? More analysis and context would be good certainly. The lack of citations in places is more of an issue. The title is ok in my view. Johnbod (talk) 12:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
    • If you're ok with the title, how do you feel about this quote from the article, which does not cover crushing by elephant? Should we remove this part of the article? "The King makes use of them for Executioners; they will run their Teeth [tusks] through the body, and then taer [sic] it in pieces, and throw it limb from limb. They have sharp Iron with a socket with three edges, which they put on their Teeth at such times..." Pagrashtak 16:51, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
I think crushing is sufficiently established as the main method to take the title. The others should be, and are, redirects. Is this your only issue with the article? Johnbod (talk) 17:00, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Crushing might be the main method, but if this article is to cover all manner of executions by elephant, the title needs to reflect that. I think the comment about the amount of quotations also bears some consideration, but I don't have any major problems with the article, no. Pagrashtak 17:21, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
But it's explained in the very first sentence that all these techniques have been known, for centuries, as literally "casting beneath an elephant's feet" or "crushing by elephant". In my opinion, to change the name of the article away from a centuries old title would be a form of hypercorrection, somewhat akin to requesting a rename of the coconut article because it's technically a fruit, not a nut. --JayHenry (talk) 07:17, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • A section whose content consists of 41% (+/- 2%) quotations should not be in an article that is supposed to have "engaging, brilliant" prose, especially when that section comprises 58% (+/- 3%) of the entire article. The question is whether this article meets all featured article criteria or if it has the kind of noticeable flaws that Pagrashtak and I have pointed out. Quotations typically represent a point of view. Whether they are "vivid" is usually irrelevant unless they, though delivered in a dynamic manner, don't detract from the neutrality, propriety, correctness, and professionalism of the article and its subject matter. Considering that real encyclopedia entries typically don't have, much less rely on, quotations, I don't think this particular article, while informative, is representative of the best that Wikipedia has to offer.
    —GrittyLobo441 (talk) 08:08, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Some sweeping generalizations there, imho! I don't think it would be impossible to find similar sections in historical articles in other encyclopedias. Sources may have a POV but in history they are often all there is. Johnbod (talk) 08:50, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are citations (1c), prose quality (1a), and focus (4). Marskell (talk) 10:22, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I think this is a keep. The uncited claims are not, in my opinion, controversial. That Hannibal used war elephants is common knowledge as is the extensive use of elephants in cultural ceremonies in Asia. If someone genuinely doubts these claims, I'm confident I can find a source. The article makes use of five long quotations. I simply can't agree that less than half a dozen is still too many for an encyclopedia article, especially since they are mostly quotations of historical documents. The claim that five quotations is too many is surprising to me, and perhaps it's the quote boxes themselves rather than the quotes that are the problem? We could reformat this several ways, such as using the less obtrusive blockquote instead, or using a right floating quote box. Perhaps that would be a satisfactory compromise? In short, while this article is quirky, I don't think a rigid homogeneity is the goal in our featured content, and this satisfies WP:WIAFA by my reading. --JayHenry (talk) 05:01, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove. I stand by my previous sentiments, as no substantial changes have been made to the article. The lack of citations where proper does contribute to a sense of informality by which most articles on Wikipedia are plagued. Common knowledge is a myth. It's presumptuous and dangerous to assume that there exist facts people should know out of hand, and this is certainly no excuse for the lack of proper citation. Furthermore, considering the length of the article, five long quotations is stepping way over the line. The quick succession of these quotations disregards the style requirement for a featured article. Reformatting them, in my opinion, doesn't take away from the fact that the quotations, though they address the subject matter, contribute only in the sense that they are taken word-for-word from a cited source, as opposed to being integrated into a format befitting an encyclopedic entry as would normally be expected. For these reasons, while the article in question is certainly good, it is not among the very best Wikipedia has to offer.—GrittyLobo441 (talk) 17:13, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. I agree with JayHenry that this is within WP:WIAFA. I don't see an issue with the title, nor do I see the number of quotations as a problem. They are unusually vivid, and give a strong indication on how this practice was viewed different times. Ceoil (talk) 23:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Hold on now. Lead is insufficient, and a couple of refs lack info. It would be nice if the book sources could be given their own section (Notes followed by References, as on others). I tend to agree that its mistitled—this is Execution by elephant (and what a horrible way to be executed it is!). It is rather quote heavy, but I don't see that as a remove basis. Marskell (talk) 16:28, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Still needs work—lead is a little short, and the reference section needs tweaking per Marskell. A copy-edit would also be nice; there are a few missing commas and the occasional redundant word. I think it's pretty close though. — Deckiller 19:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - It is a nice article and I find the highlighted concerns to be largely nitpicky. --Blacksun (talk) 16:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep There really isn't any justifiable reason not to. DrKiernan (talk) 18:26, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Given the general keep sentiment, I'll try to give this a go over myself. This isn't in remove territory, but it's still not quite a keep. Marskell (talk) 18:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
    • I'd be willing to help with this as well, but it'll be a little more than a week before I'll have any time as I'm traveling at the moment. --JayHenry (talk) 03:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Actually, I think I'm just going to keep it. Reading it more closely, I think the quotes give it a rich flavour and it's hard to call that a remove basis. It's been gone over by DrK and Ceoil, and I just expanded the lead. Marskell (talk) 18:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep I thought I already had !voted. Per others. Johnbod (talk) 19:17, 10 March 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 01:09, 2 March 2008.

Cynna Kydd

Review commentary

WikiProject Australian sports and WikiProject Biography notified.

I was the primary author and FA nominator of this article, but it's plainly clear that it isn't up to FA standard any longer - among other things, it's gotten quite out of date. I haven't got around to fixing it recently, and I don't know when I will, so it's probably time to get it off the FA page. Rebecca (talk) 22:54, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Rebecca dearest, leave this tidy little article alone until someone else complains—she ain't perfect, but she's alright. Michael talk 10:15, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

While what Rebecca is doing is honourable, I'd rather not see it go...anyways, a few suggestions for keeping it up, if I may (and if anyone wants to do it).

  • The first paragraph of the lead could be expanded to include her "greatest" highlights in her career or something like that
  • A free image would be good

I suppose there isn't much else I can say except sourcing! I'll go through and add some {{fact}}s to it - hope this helps...— Dihydrogen Monoxide (Review) 23:25, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

    • Blnguyen's updates have actually pretty much addressed the issues I had with the article. The lead still could do with a little bit of work, and maybe a little more detail on the recent updates, but it's no longer out of date. The remaining problems are relatively small, and I'll see if I can have a go at them in the next couple days. It'd be great if we could actuall