Wikipedia:Featured article review/archive/May 2008

1 Kept status
2 Removed status

Kept status

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

The article was kept 18:57, 22 May 2008.

===Wayne Gretzky=== The Faggot

Review commentary

Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography, Wikipedia:WikiProject Ice Hockey, Wikipedia:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board, Wikipedia:WikiProject Arizona, Wikipedia:WikiProject Canadian football, Wikipedia:WikiProject Indianapolis, Wikipedia:WikiProject Canadian sport notified.

I believe that this does not currently meet the following Featured Article criteria:

1) Well-written: It's not bad, but it could be improved. For example, the first paragraph of the "Edmonton Oilers" section end with: "The rule was later changed." No explanation is given as to what change was made. Hyphens are used incorrectly throughout the article, and there are several noticeable punctuation problems.
2) Factually accurate: Lack of citations is a huge problem throughout the article. Notably, the "Edmonton Oilers" section has no references. Likewise, most of "Los Angeles Kings" is unreferenced and "St. Louis Blues" has no references. "New York Rangers" has only one reference. Five citations isn't enough for a career like Gretzky's (not to mention the biography of a living person). In addition, all of the other sections except "Off the ice" need more citations.
3) Proper referencing: Inconsistent formatting and lacking important information. In addition, several citations are placed incorrectly in the text.
4) Neutrality is a problem. For example: "No less an expert than Bobby Orr said..." GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:33, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

re 1- only a start, but the incorrect hyphens have been replaced by en dashes. Beyond that, your concerns are basically valid. Alaney2k (talk) 21:39, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Gretzky detractors have often claimed that Gretz wasn't allowed to be hit during his NHL career (due to his marketing value); if there's any sources for such critisims, they should be added to the article. Also, where's the mentioning of the Bill McCreary hit? Which many claimed was a major no-no. GoodDay (talk) 22:06, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I looked that up. That is old, the McCreary hit. I don't have a 'primary reference' for that, it was either in 1980 or 1981, and is mentioned later in newspaper articles. The topic of his protection might pass scrutiny. He had Sememko, McSorley. Who did the Rangers have to protect him? And what happened on the night of McCreary hitting Gretzky? That will take some digging to see if it is notable enough. Alaney2k (talk) 21:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I wonder what has changed in the article since it was given FA status to warrant another look. -- JT ^Holla! 00:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're getting at. GaryColemanFan (talk) 00:27, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

My point is, the article has been granted FA status. What has changed to make someone think that it is no longer FA worthy? -- JT ^Holla! 03:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

According to Featured Article criteria, "FAs are held to the current standards regardless of when they were promoted." The article clearly doesn't meet the criteria, so it needs to be looked at. Any FA can be examined and discussed at any time. Featured Article represent the best of Wikipedia, so while this may have been good enough in 2006, it needs a lot of work to maintain its status. Are you claiming that "the best of Wikipedia" should be exempt from upkeep? Is it okay to have poorly referenced Featured Articles? GaryColemanFan (talk) 04:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Of course not. But at one point it met the FA criteria. What about the article has changed to make it not fit FA criteria? -- JT ^Holla! 15:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

What changed was the rules on what is a FA. Personally, I couldn't stand Gretzky as a player, and I'm not all that fond of him as a coach, so I'm not the best person to look at bringing it back up to standards. Hopefully one of our other hockey project members is up to the challenge. Reso lute 05:26, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments- I started cleaning up the refs, and must agree with GaryColemanFan that there are several major issues, listed below:

1) The biggest problem is inconsistent formatting. Templates are used in fewer than half of the cites, but there are still a good number of them. A decision should be made on whether to use them or not, and some must be changed to be consistent.

2) Many dead links. All Canoe.ca or Slam.canoe.ca links (I counted five) are dead. Also dead are current refs 46 (Newark Star-Ledger), 48 (Yahoo) and 49 (The Arizona Republic). I didn't look at every link, so there could still be more.

~~I replaced all Canoe links with Internet Archive versions. Still need replacements for the other three. Giants2008 (talk) 23:41, 14 April 2008 (UTC)~~

I converted two dead links into offline news citations. The other one was removed as the part of the section it was in was deemed unnecessary. There are still two dead links in Off the ice, which I'll take care of tomorrow. Giants2008 (talk) 19:03, 16 April 2008 (UTC) Done. Giants2008 (talk) 02:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

~~3) Several sources on his endorsements look questionable at first glance, although I haven't looked at them closely. Replaced with reliable sources. Giants2008 (talk) 02:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC)~~

~~4) Current refs 10 and 33 (ESPN SportsCentury) are identical and can be combined.~~

~~Update: I did this myself. Giants2008 (talk) 19:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)~~

~~This isn't including the aforementioned lack of references in the NHL career section. Gretzky is a major figure in sports history, and deserves the best referencing possible.~~ Giants2008 (talk) 17:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I will be able to help on the look up of references. I am sure his whole career can be well referenced from the Canadian Newsstand database. Alaney2k (talk) 17:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I just performed some cleanup work on the article. Punctuation was poor for an FA; hopefully I got most of the problems fixed. I changed the POV statement mentioned to: "Hall of Fame defenceman Bobby Orr said...". I'm no prose or style expert, so more improvements are surely needed. Giants2008 (talk) 22:57, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

All citations now after punctuation. Giants2008 (talk) 23:41, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment I would like to suggest adding a 'To-do list' on the talk page of the article? Would it be a good or bad idea, though? I would want to limit it to the terms of the FA review. Alaney2k (talk) 21:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea, as long as nobody here has any objections, of course. Giants2008 (talk) 00:39, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Progress report Since being placed on review, the number of references has nearly doubled, from 48 to 93 as I write. I also listed the article at WP:LoCE, where someone will hopefully take an interest in it. There's still more work to do, but good progress is definitely being made here. Giants2008 (talk) 22:15, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I've just taken out all citation templates in the article, since most of the references didn't use them. I normally like templates, but thought they were not used effectively in this case. Giants2008 (talk) 19:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your good work. A lot of the citations may have pre-dated some of today's templates. The main thing is to be consistent, that's why I always use them. That said, there is a diverse selection. Alaney2k (talk) 19:41, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Do you think templates of some form should be put back in? I ask because you used them in your latest batch of references after I took the existing ones out. If you believe they should be used, I have no problem with that, other than the annoyance of having to change 100+ citations. You also used two different kinds of templates, which I believe is frowned upon. Let me know what you want to do. Giants2008 (talk) 00:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Long-term, it probably makes more sense to use the templates, if the template format ever changes then you don't have to rewrite, but not now. I used Citation for the References section, the cite can't handle books with editors as well. I will rewrite the cites in the text to not use templates. I did that just to see how it is written, and also did the save immediately in case you were working at the same time. I will basically paste what the cite puts out. But in the References section, we should stay with the templates. I think that the format output is the correct one according to the MOS. Alaney2k (talk) 00:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment I am trying to find a cite for the "Skalbania knew that the WHA was fading ..." sentence. That may have to be rewritten. After that, I think we have the article thoroughly cited. Alaney2k (talk) 23:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Also see what you can find for the Skills section, particularly the first paragraph. That may also need adjusting. Giants2008 (talk) 00:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, will do. Alaney2k (talk) 00:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

The Rebel League would be the best place for such a citation, I would think. I just returned that book to the library, otherwise I'd check for the citation for you. At any rate, excellent job on citing and fixing the article, guys. Reso lute 15:53, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

The Gretzky book has a good explanation. I've used Gretzky's version of events. It's more interesting this way, too. Alaney2k (talk) 18:05, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Lots of fixes needed: I haven't looked at content or citations much, but from a MOS point of view, this article is going to need a lot of work. Incorrect WP:DASHes of all types everywhere, lack of conversions on units (see WP:UNITS), WP:MOSNUM, WP:HYPHEN and ce issues (look here: At age 6 he was skating with 10-year-olds.[16] At age six, his first coach Dick Martin remarked that he handled the puck better than the ten year-olds.), MOS:CAPS#All caps, no consistency in the citations in pg. pp. p. pp etc., missing spaces in the citations (sample: Gretzky(1990), pp. 34–35), incorrect spaces on WP:MOS#Ellipses, WP:MOSNUM issues everywhere (sample: They have 4 other children: ), and much more. The article needs a serious copyedit, and when nearly finished with that, perhaps editors can go hat in hand to User:Epbr123 and ask him to help with the sigificant MoS issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:07, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

This sort of stuff has occurred only because many editors have edited the article. I would not characterize this as serious, only that we have another area to cover. This will get covered. I will add this to the To do list. Alaney2k (talk) 14:26, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are prose (1a), factual accuracy (1c), and POV (1d). Marskell (talk) 11:59, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

~~:: Sometimes the above types of comments are completely non-useful. Are you repeating what we started with? Or have you some examples to point out? Alaney2k (talk) 14:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)~~

Comment I started to copyedit, fix for MOS, and clean up reference formatting this morning. I have been working on it for four hours (it's a very long article), during much of which I had to deal with edit conflicts despite the big old {{under construction}} tag I added before I began working. I'm glad other people are working on the article, but it's extremely frustrating to have to duplicate my own work. Please respect under construction tags; with the exception of my second to last edit (which had a larger time gap from my previous one), the briefest glance at the edit history should have confirmed that I was still working on it. I have removed the under construction tag I placed; time for a break. Maralia (talk) 17:10, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I may have been one of those who interrupted. Sorry about that -- the notice actually welcomes other edits. You should have used {{inuse}} Alaney2k (talk) 17:23, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I performed a couple cleanup edits as well. Sorry if I got in the way, and thanks for the much-needed copyedit. Giants2008 (talk) 23:14, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. I've used {{inuse}} I don't know how many times, but it didn't occur to me that I used the wrong template until hours after my message above. I really should not attempt anything brain-intensive before noon and at least two cups of coffee. Sorry for getting so cranky about it. I'll try to get back to this tonight. Maralia (talk) 23:25, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I've not forgotten about this - just got distracted with rl and other wiki work. Will try to get back to copyediting today/tomorrow. Maralia (talk) 15:26, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment Are we there yet? :-) Seriously, the only part of the article I think that needs some added detail is the time period in L.A. I will focus on getting some details about that time period into the article. It is a bit under-represented considering his play in L.A. was important in later getting several NHL franchises into the area. But as for citations, we must have everything covered, no? (I have one citation to fix up, that said.) I have looked at all I could look at and I think the factual accuracy of the article is covered.Alaney2k (talk) 01:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I can see Maralia's on the job; when she says it's a keep, count me in. But, what is the source for all of the career stats at the bottom of the article, in many different sections? Those all need sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:39, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- I've added source statements for those. As Wayne is an active coach, the source for that is from hockeydb.com, considered a reliable source by the WP:Hockey hockey project. Alaney2k (talk) 14:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I've completed a copyedit, although the article is so bloody long that I wasn't as thorough as usual. I also did some work on the 'Statistics' section: moved 'International play' into the same section; refactored 'International play' from two tables to one; and put 'Coaching career' last for chrono order. Some remaining issues:

I am not comfortable with this uncited sentence in the lead: "Gretzky regularly played at a level far above his peers."
The enormous table in the 'Playing career' section is virtually impossible to edit. Would be good if someone would edit it to reduce it to one row of edit box text per year, or consider dumping it in a template or something.
I was bothered by the preponderance of hyphenated words, so I removed a slew of hyphens. I realize this could be a stylistic/EngVar issue, but (1) he's Canadian, not British; and (2) the article is so full of necessary hyphens ("17-year-old Gretzky", "All-Star") that unnecessary hyphens are unwise.
I find the list of endorsements in 'Business ventures' to be rather ludicrously exhaustive, and would really like to see it narrowed down and most of those links removed.
There appears to be no rhyme or reason to the order of the items in the succession box.
I notice half the navigational footers are currently nominated for deletion. Frankly I don't think any of them add anything, except perhaps the current coaches one. The '1998 SI Swimsuit Issue' one is incredibly worthless.

Maralia (talk) 07:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

The uncited sentence is repeated later with a cite. I'll fix that. About the playing career table, it's not clear what your goal or plan for that table is, to be able to suggest something. The succession boxes and templates are an on-going issue. Since it is a sports article, people seem to think that people want these templates and go out and edit them. There is some effort going into the creation of these templates that could be better used on editing content. It's not the ice hockey project members who are creating these, it seems to be sports fans who don't crack open books for a citation, or apply references to text, etc. ... I noticed you thought it was odd to mention that they are still married. Celebrity marriages not lasting, encyclopedic point of view, that's why that was noted. Is it inherent nowadays to assume people are still married? Maybe I'm just a bit cynical. :-) Alaney2k (talk) 14:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for adding that cite; I'm not fond of citations in the lead, but that statement is such a strong one that I feel it needs a cite there.
I went ahead and made the changes I wanted to see on the Playing career table. The appearance of the table is the same (with the exception of the last row, which I changed to what I think is a more logical title), and it reduced the editbox length of the table from 33 screens to 6. This should make it much easier to correct any data or manually fix vandalism - before, you couldn't even fit all the fields for a single year's data onto one edit screen.
I get what you mean about celebrity marriages, but it's a bit POV to say 'still married': it implies there may be reason to think otherwise.
Regarding nav footers: I'm not quite clear which are supported by the ice hockey project. I would be happy to see all of the nav footers go, with the possible exception of the Current NHL coaches one.
As to the succession boxes, I would think overall chrono order makes the most sense, although I could see an argument for subsets by award with chrono order within each subset. Additionally, I'd like to see the language cleaned up, so we don't have "Winner of the NHL Plus/Minus Award" but "Lou Marsh Trophy winner".

Maralia (talk) 16:08, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I would get rid of the list of endorsements altogether. Having a list of 30 companies adds nothing to the article, not to mention the difficulty of citing all these endorsements. The succession boxes and footers are ridiculous for major athletes like Gretzky. It's just box after box, none of which are important. Since they seem to be standard, however, I'd be cautious about removing them. As for the other header, don't guys like me always get the Swimsuit Issue to see The Great One? :) Seriously, this was probably created for models, and the athletes who have appeared in it are supposed to get it as well. It has absolutely no relevance, and doesn't seem to be a standard yet (Anna Kournikova has the template, but Maria Sharapova doesn't). I wouldn't be sad to see this go. Giants2008 (talk) 18:40, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

The endorsements may date from the time that the article was smaller. Would it be worth keeping as a split? Probably not. Let's prune the navboxes. Alaney2k (talk) 02:44, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I cut that list of companies—just free advertising.

Does anyone want to do the exceptionally boring work of ref consistency? I don't see huge issues with this article beyond that—except that Bobby Orr is the Best Ever—and would like to keep it. Marskell (talk) 21:49, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

They look pretty good except for the few that say "accessed" instead of "Retrieved on". Once that's finished, how do we go about wrapping this review up? I think it has improved considerably and should be kept as a Featured Article (perhaps even nominated for Today's Featured Article to celebrate its improvement). GaryColemanFan (talk) 04:00, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Not sure how they end, but I have made that fix. -Djsasso (talk) 04:07, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Keep as FA. The concerns I brought up when initiating this FAR have been addressed. The prose and MoS compliance are good, everything now appears to be referenced, references are properly formatted, and neutrality does not seem to be an issue. This diff shows the article's improvement during this process, which has been substantial. I believe it now meets the Featured Article criteria GaryColemanFan (talk) 14:35, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I've done more reference formatting cleanup. Some remaining issues:

The various Gretzky book citations need work. Some Gretzky cites have no year. Other cites have a year (1994) for which no Gretzky-authored book is listed; this may mean they're actually Taylor cites.
This cite needs a pub date: Gallagher, Tony. "Great One saves hockey in Phoenix", The Province, p. A81.
This cite needs a publication name: Morrissey, Bob. "Gretzky brings Kings to Hull", September 12, 1989, p. F1.

Maralia (talk) 17:38, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I did the Morrissey cite. The newspaper name was there, but it was incorrectly formatted. Giants2008 (talk) 18:50, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

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

The article was kept 20:43, 18 May 2008.

Monty Hall problem

Review commentary

Previous FAR

Notified Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics, User:Rick Block, User:Antaeus Feldspar, User:Glopk, User:Father Goose

Concerns:

1(c), factual accuracy/verifiability. Huge sections of unsourced content, including lengthy mathematical proofs. Without being cited to a reliable source, it's difficult to think that they're anything but OR.

2(c), inline citations. See also above. If these proofs are not original research, they should be directly sourced with inline citations, rather than requiring the user to hunt through the lengthy external links section to find the relevant proofs. Furthermore, the number of references in this article seems disproportionately low, given its length.

4, length. The article is extremely long, preferring apparently to offer every possible explanation of the correctness of the solution rather than picking one or two choice ones. (The objective of Wikipedia is to present verifiable facts, not to convince people of the truth where the truth may be counterintuitive.)

- Chardish (talk) 06:09, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Judging by the previous FAR, it's probably worth spending the effort up front to present a more detailed list of the problems alluded to as 1(c) and 2(c), as many sections have already had inline citations added, and the remaining spots will be more actionable if identified as such. For example, the "Decision tree" section is currently unreferenced, but this could be fixed almost trivially. Melchoir (talk) 06:52, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

...or even better. Melchoir (talk) 06:54, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes a detailed list would be good. Note that Harvard referencing is used. -- Rick Block (talk) 13:26, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Per the above, sections that appear to lack sources:

"Increasing the number of doors"

Y Done -- Rick Block (talk) 04:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
"Venn diagram"

Y Done Section merged into "Combining doors" section, with references. -- Rick Block (talk) 23:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
"Decision tree"

Y Done Section merged into Solution section, with a reference added.-- Rick Block (talk) 04:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
"Combining doors"

Y Done References added. -- Rick Block (talk) 23:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
"Simulation"

Y Done -- Rick Block (talk) 04:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
"Other host behaviors"

Y Done -- Rick Block (talk) 04:05, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
"Two players"

Y Done Section deleted. -- Rick Block (talk) 23:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

These sections comprise 12.5 kB of text, or approximately 2,280 words. (This isn't terribly pertinent, but personally I'm not much of a fan of Harvard referencing, especially on Wikipedia, since footnotes are quickly becoming the de facto standard here, if they haven't already.) - Chardish (talk) 15:04, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

"Unsourced content including mathematical proofs", creating a "verifiability" problem?? Mathematical proofs can be verified by reading them and checking them. Sources won't help with verifying them. That's just not how proofs work. Michael Hardy (talk) 15:52, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary; please read the policy on original research. Who is to verify that the proofs contained in the article are correct, free of errors, etc? This is why all information - including mathematical proofs - must be attributed to reliable secondary sources. Wikipedia is not a mathematical journal and must not publish original proofs. - Chardish (talk) 17:01, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary, these statements, which are too trivial to be publishable in a mathematical journal, are as self-verifying as a plot summary (for which see WP:WHEN. We are permitted to do our own arithmetic; this is the same thing. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:13, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, you are incorrect. While the information may be too trivial to be published by a journal of advanced mathematics, certainly there are books, lesser journals, magazines, etc. with the same information. Wikipedia is not a place to publish information that is not already published elsewhere, plain and simple. That is what no original research means in a nutshell. You will also note on the talk page of the essay you linked to a significant amount of disagreement with the claims made by the essay. Cheers. - Chardish (talk) 18:44, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

But it is exactly correct. I recommend that this disruptive abuse of WP:OR be ignored, and this review speedy closed, as nominated in bad faith, and in disregard of Wikipedia policy. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, how is this a bad faith nomination? Simply because we disagree does not mean that one of us must have sinister motives. - Chardish (talk) 21:24, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

When Infinite monkey theorem went on FAR, I found and fixed an incorrect proof that had been allowed to lie for some time. I detected the error because I was looking for sources. Monty Hall problem is a somewhat different beast, since it is already undergoing active revision on its talk page. What that implies for the FAR I can't say. But I can say that sources do help verify proofs. Melchoir (talk) 17:17, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

No, close reading verifies proofs, here and elsewhere. Close reading should be encouraged, and should not be distracted by superscript numbers, or we will wind up citing the significant number of invalid proofs in the published literature. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:13, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Close reading should be encouraged as well. It would be naive to think that an article can be maintained at a high quality merely by enforcing a certain density of citations. But it would also be naive to think that readers can be trusted to maintain quality on their own, without citations.

There is a theoretical danger that providing citations for proofs will result in some incorrect proofs gaining a veneer of acceptability. But there is a proven danger that writing proofs without citations results in some incorrect proofs never getting fixed, since they are equally well-cited as their neighbors. Infinite monkey theorem had a proof that started out correct but was complex and little-understood. It wasn't cited. An editor attempted to simplify it and broke it in the process. No one noticed. Untold numbers of people read this proof inside a Featured article and did not correct it. One editor commented on the talk page that the proof smelled, and the talk page regulars actually insisted that it was correct.

The above failure points out several intrinsic challenges for mathematical proofs on Wikipedia, which I won't get into here. The point is that citations could have prevented the problem, and citations fixed it. Melchoir (talk) 21:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

The lesson I draw from that is "use citations, where possible". If a given piece of information improves an article and is verifiable one way or another, I am prepared to not excise it. I've seen a lot of people on the talk page of the article independently derive "combining doors"-type solutions, so it must have use as a way of explaining the problem, and I consider it an alternative way of describing the basic (unconditional) solution.--Father Goose (talk) 02:45, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

See, in that case, the "combining doors" solution could simply be a popular fallacy that happens to reach the correct answer by accident. It is not obvious to me how the solution can avoid being used for different host behaviors with different probabilities -- where it is wrong. The article does say "if and only if the game host is required..." but at what point is this assumption applied?

On the talk page, Rick Block indicates that there may be sources that describe the theory behind such a solution. I for one am curious about what they have to say! Melchoir (talk) 06:20, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm given to believe (as I stated above) that it's merely a way of visualizing the basic, unconditional solution, so it is neither a popular fallacy or an accident. As for your question about "at what point is this assumption applied", is there more than one point at which it could meaningfully be applied?--Father Goose (talk) 06:50, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm saying that I don't see any place where it is applied. Here's the same section with the host behavior changed in bold:

Instead of one door being opened and shown to be a losing door, an equivalent action is to combine the two unchosen doors into one since the player cannot, and will not, choose the opened door. The player therefore has the choice of either sticking with the original choice of door with a 1/3 chance of winning the car, or choosing the sum of the contents of the two other doors with a 2/3 chance. The game assumptions play a role here — switching is equivalent to taking the combined contents if and only if the game host is required to open a door with a goat and chooses between two losing doors randomly with equal probabilities. Assume that the game host is required to open the rightmost unchosen door with a goat.

In this case, what should be ignored is the opening of the door. The player actually chooses between the originally picked door and the other two — opening one is simply a distraction. There is only one car and it does not move. The original choice divides the possible locations of the car between the one door the player picks with a 1/3 chance and the other two with a 2/3 chance. It is already known that at least one of the two unpicked doors contains a goat. Revealing the goat therefore gives the player no additional information about the originally chosen door; it does not change the 2/3 probability that the car is still in the block of two doors.

This time the conclusion is wrong. But what has changed about the argument that makes it more wrong than the version in the article?

Personally I suspect that there is a symmetry principle at work that salvages the argument and explains when it can and cannot be used. The problem is that this principle is not in evidence. The following section titled "Bayes' theorem" goes step-by-step through the derivation that P(C_1|H_13) = 1/3, and this 1/3 appears to depend on every input to the problem. It is far from obvious that P(C_1) has simply been conserved, and if so, why. Melchoir (talk) 07:49, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah. That change you made to the text changes the problem from unconditional to conditional (and very specific conditions, to boot), so that indeed the "combining doors" or even the basic explanation given in the "Solution" section can no longer be used. How to address the differences between unconditional and conditional solutions has been the subject of many weary months of discussion on the article's talk page.

You could also change the statement of the problem in the section by changing the game to the "host doesn't know" variation. Not surprisingly, the "combining doors" explanation would be invalid for that as well.--Father Goose (talk) 08:19, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

"Unconditional"? I don't know what that word means in this context. Melchoir (talk) 08:26, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

This is the topic of a long discussion on the talk page. As generally presented the problem asks about a situation given that the host has opened a door (conditional), not an overall average. Note that the argument above is still correct if the question is "what is the overall chance of winning by switching" (as opposed to "after the host has opened a door, what is the player's chance of winning"). The overall chance of winning by switching is 2/3 regardless of how the host selects between two goat doors, but if the host selects unevenly between goat doors the chances are not split evenly based on which door the host opens. I'd suggest not continuing this thread here. -- Rick Block (talk) 13:51, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I think I understand the relationship between the two versions, and I can see how it's a tough editorial call on how to present them. Back to Combining doors, then: it's currently worded to suggest the conditional problem, i.e. "...opening one is simply a distraction. There is only one car and it does not move. ...Revealing the goat therefore gives the player no additional information...". This is all post-door-opening, and why the player hasn't gained additional information about the chosen door isn't explained. Do any of the sources help? Melchoir (talk) 17:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I haven't found anything yet that is entirely satisfactory. Until recently, the entire article other than the Bayes' theorem section has presented an unconditional analysis which comes up with 2/3 as the answer (which is the same numerical answer as the conditional answer given the "equal goat" constraint on the host). Whether there's even a need to distinguish between the unconditional 2/3 and the conditional 2/3 and, if so, how has been a topic of heated discussion on the talk page. -- Rick Block (talk) 18:35, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are referencing (1c) and focus (4). Marskell (talk) 03:25, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment I've strengthened the referencing and made the article at least somewhat shorter (meant to be responsive to the identified concerns). If folks could take a look at the current state of the article and make specific suggestions for what else may need improving that would be helpful. -- Rick Block (talk) 23:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Ack! External link farm needs pruning per WP:EL, WP:NOT; here's what it looked like after the last FAR. Other than that, the article is fine. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:09, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I've severely pruned the external refs. -- Rick Block (talk) 16:58, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment: The lead does not follow WP:LEAD; it is an introduction, rather than a "concise overview" of the article. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 00:16, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with this comment. IMO the existing lead is precisely a concise overview. -- Rick Block (talk) 16:58, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment: I made some edits, mostly to avoid repetition, but they were reverted, without discussion, and I'm not entirely sure why. The lead doesn't require inline references. And it seems important to separate out a simple statement of the problem with an account of its history (which has its own section). It's true that that history section should probably be moved up; but that's better than duplicating it. Or perhaps those elements should go in the lead, so (again) the lead complies better with WP:LEAD. --05:15, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

The problem statement in the lead is a quote, and as such must be referenced (per WP:MOSQUOTE and WP:CITE#When quoting someone), as mentioned in the summary for this edit. Do you seriously have a problem with including three sentences about the origin of the problem and its relationship to an earlier (mathematically equivalent) problem in the "Problem" section? The problem statement that you have now duplicated in both the lead and this section (which are contiguous!) is as long. We can certainly discuss this on the talk page if you'd like. -- Rick Block (talk) 05:37, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not a question of length, but of logic and structure, and I think I've explained it clearly enough: there is already a section on the history of the problem; it's probably misplaced, but so be it. The section on "The problem" should best be kept for outlining the problem. Previously, it didn't even do that very gracefully, as it referred readers back to the lead. See, again, problems as per WP:LEAD. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 05:42, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

The lead was indeed rewritten a few months back to serve as an overview of the problem, to better conform to WP:LEAD. What do you feel is missing from the lead, or erroneously included in it?--Father Goose (talk) 22:05, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

The lead is to be an overview of the article, not of the problem, right? As such, for instance, I'd have thought there should be at least some reference to the "History of the problem" section and the Bayesian analysis (though to be fair this latter may be too technical). Also something on the reasons why the solution is counter-intuitive, as per the discussion in the section on "Sources of confusion." --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 22:11, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

The last paragraph of the lead is a reference to the "History" section. The Bayesian analysis is too technical to summarize in the lead, but is implicitly referred to in the last sentence ("formal mathematical proofs"). The sentence starting with "Because ..." in the paragraph immediately below the problem statement is meant to be a concise version of the "Sources of confusion" section (and the recent change from "nearly all" to "most" in this sentence considerably weakens the point - in most studies the number is 90% or more). -- Rick Block (talk) 16:38, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Closing: The article, if anything, is improved since the last FAR. Rick has worked to deal with the comments on the review. We don't have explicit comments, so this is a default keep. Marskell (talk) 20:25, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

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

The article was kept 18:36, 9 May 2008.

Exploding whale

Notified User:SandyGeorgia and Wikipedia:WikiProject Cetaceans.

previous FAR

The lack of sources seems to be the main concern — 18 sources seems kind of thin for an FA. Overall, I see more unsourced sentences than sourced, especially in the Taiwan section. I see a couple weasel words here and there ("fairly rare"). Furthermore, there are no sources in the "fiction and poetry" list at the end. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:38, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

What statements specifically do you feel require sources? Christopher Parham (talk) 03:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

The sources are given in-text rather than in the notes section, aren't they? If that's inappropriate, I suppose this review is accurate, but otherwise I don't really see that this article requires demotion. Teh Rote (talk) 17:48, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Some sentences that require sources:
"Today, beach managers tow dead beached whales to the open sea. This is done mainly for safety reasons, as the rotting carcasses have been known to attract sharks and so become a danger to beach users."
"For several years, the story of the exploding whale was commonly disbelieved and thought to be an urban legend. However, it was brought to widespread public attention by popular writer Dave Barry in his Miami Herald column of May 20, 1990... Some time later the Oregon State Highway division started to receive calls from the media after a shortened version of the article was distributed on bulletin boards under the title "The Farside Comes To Life In Oregon"."

Note also that the above sentence uses vague terms like "several" and "some time". Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:35, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The prose could use some cleanup in places and the "In fiction and poetry" seems trivia-ish. "Overall, I see more unsourced sentences than sourced..." <- Not sure I understand this argument. Sure, there are a few statements here and there where I feel a source may be useful, but the overall level of referencing isn't bad. Other than the "In fiction..." section, little has changed in the article since the last FAR. BuddingJournalist 22:42, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

TenPoundHammer, please complete the nominating instructions at the top of WP:FAR by notifying relevant WikiProjects and significant article contributors, and posting notifications back to the top of this FAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Lovely :-) I guess I'm a top editor because of cleanup work on the last FAR :-)) I don't know anything about exploding whales. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:28, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment 18 sources seems kind of thin for an FA - References are not a matter of quantity, and I think this article is adequately sourced. Its a short article on a very narrow topic; frankly I was unaware that whales could explode. I cut the "references in popular culture" section, otherwise I don't really have a problem with the page. Ceoil (talk) 14:00, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not a counting contest and given how short this article is the level of referencing is comparable to other FAs. After the cut of trivia, this practically identical to the kept version of last year. Keeping again. Marskell (talk) 18:34, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

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

The article was kept 18:36, 9 May 2008.

MTR

previous FAR

The English version of the article MTR refers to the whole MTR network after the merger with KCR network (while Chinese version have both former MTR network before merger and current MTR network). However, some of the information of KCR network was failed to be presented in the article. For example, the history of British Section of the Kowloon-Canton Railway, which is now part of MTR network, is missing. (The history of the whole MTR network should start from 1900s instead of 1960s.) -- MTRKCR (talk) 11:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, pre-merger KCR history do not belong to the MTR and so just a mentioning in the article with the main page template linked to the KCR article would be adequate. If your opinion prevails as the consensus, we could add in content from the KCR article and find references for it. --:Raphaelmak: talk contribs 12:03, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I suppose pre-merger KCR history may not belong to the MTR Corporation, but it does belong to part of MTR network's history, as KCR network is part of MTR network now. -- MTRKCR (talk) 12:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it is obvious that the pre-merger KCR network now belongs to the MTR network, and of course the history section of the MTR article must deal with the history of the MTR network. But in my opinion, since there was no such thing as MTR when the present-day East Rail Line came into operation (1911), it would be somehow illogical to include such early histories of the KCR-BS in the MTR history section. Nor was the KCR-BS (or today's ERL) part of the MTR network until 2007. The history section of the MTR, at a given point within the section, should deal with the situation, or what had happened, to the MTR network at the time described by that point, not dealing with what had happened to the present complete MTR network at that time described. So KCR network history might not be worthy of a detailed inclusion in the MTR article (though there is no problem in merely mentioning it). Any history section of articles here on Wikipedia, in my opinion, should talk about the history of the subject in relation to the definition of the subject at the time the section has progressed to. --:Raphaelmak: talk contribs 12:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

KCR lines are on lease, ownership not transferred. If we merge everything now, are we going to split up the article if the lease terminates tomorrow? Pre-merger history should go to KCR article up to the point of merger, perhaps just brief facts (say ERL was the oldest railway line) for the MTR article. And why is this issue on FARC rather than the talkpages? - Mailer Diablo 17:57, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I think there is sufficient material to retain a separate article on the pre-merger KCR and only a brief mention is necessary in this article, which should concentrate on the history of the network since its inception in the 1960s. DrKiernan (talk) 10:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Given that none of the criteria are found not met by the article (the nominator has the responsibility to cite and justify the points not met), and per the above arguments, I think that FAR is not the place for such a discussion and therefore the nomination should be closed. --:Raphaelmak: talk contribs 11:33, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

(Nevertheless!) 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) 17:28, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Somewhat belatedly, I am going to follow Raphael and DrK and keep this one. This is essentially a split/merge debate that can be taken care of on article talk. The balance of comments seem to suggest that the separate KCR article can handle the material in question. No other criteria concerns were raised. Marskell (talk) 18:27, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

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

Removed status

The article was removed 18:57, 22 May 2008.

Rajshahi University

Review commentary

Wikipedia:WikiProject Universities, User:Shmitra, Wikipedia:WikiProject Bengal, Wikipedia:Notice board for Bangladesh-related topics, Wikipedia:WikiProject Bangladeshi Universities notified.

I'm nominating this article for review as it has several inherent drawbacks. Consider this caption for one of the images:"A list of the martyrs of Rajshahi University during the Liberation war." The usage of the word "martyr" is a clear violation of NPOV. Besides there are so many citation-needed tags-Ravichandar_{My coffee shop} 10:51, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Without commenting on the article itself, I don't see much problem with the usage of the term 'martyr' in the context of the 1971 Bangladesh War. Martyr is often used to describe soldiers who die in a war. --RegentsPark (talk) 21:20, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Typical POV. The term "martyr" is serious POV. A martyr is "someone who dies fighting for a good cause". Terming the war as a battle of "liberation" or the soldiers as "martyrs" would be a violation of POV-Ravichandar_{My coffee shop} 04:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Everything is POV. The acceptable POVs are those that are supported by reliable sources. No body is a "terrorist" unless labeled so by an authority, and cited as such (see Martyrs' Cemetery or Martyrs Monument in Midway). If there is a contesting view then there would be a need for consensus or a presentation of both views. That too would have to be appropriately weighted, to prevent fringe views getting equal importance.

If you are interested to take things to that extreme "independence" is a POV, and so is "war". There has been debates going on to define these words for way too long, involving not just morons, but great philosophers as well (ooops, POV there). How do you propose to establish that "liberation" is more POV than "independence" or "revolution" (see American Revolutionary War or Irish War of Independence)? This particular stand on POVs is granted by consensus, and if you really want to change the convention I would suggest that you go for the Village Pump. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 06:00, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WTA#Extremist.2C_terrorist_and_freedom_fighter - That's not correct. We say things like "Hamas has been designated a terrorist group by the US" and so forth. If a professor writes a book saying that someone is a war criminal/freedom fighter/terrorist, then the POV is attributed to someone. The rules say that you can't state terrorist/marytr/FF/liberation as "Wikipedia POV", ie, without qualification. A lot of articles about 1971 Bangladeshis use "is a freedom-fighter" - That's not allowed just because Bangladeshi professors or Banglapedia regard it as such. A Pakistani could also use the word "reactionary" or some other perjorative term, we can't use that in WP as WP's POV. In the case of "Martyr's Cemetery" and "Patriot's Cemetary" etc, that is there because it is the official title. That doesn't mean that if we write a bio on a guy who is buried there that we use "..is a martyr/patriotic militant". Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Stuff like Munshi Abdur Rouf, Abul_Monjur and Noakhali District use disallowed nationalist POV like martyrs and freedom fighters as a statement of fact. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, but only in part. As you see yourself, it is not to be used indiscriminately. When a particular installation is designated as "martyr's cemetery" by the builders, it's fine to say so. When a particular war has been accepted as a "war of revolution" by reliable sources, better if by accepted authorities, it is fine to call it so, with appropriate citations, of course. I have real discomfort with the Bangladesh articles using POV terms in abundance, much like I dislike those elsewhere. But, that doesn't mean that I'm ready to agree to unnecessary absolutions. Not yet.

Anyways, coming back to real issue at hand, the article itself. I have a feeling that the entire "Criticism and controversy" sections needs to rewritten. No use writing something first and then finding sources to back whatever I want to put in there. I believe the contrverssy section is not addng up due to a simple reason - it is trying to be too soft and too neutral. That attempt is hardly supported by sources. The "Activities" section is even worse. Much of it is original research, which is very regrettable. Wikipedia is not a compendium of truth, it is rather a place for verifiable facts. The spirit is pretty missing here.

But, I also believe these problems are not big enough to be addressed. Let's put some work into it, and it will be fine. In the worst case scenario, it may have to go through a FARC before tidying up. Say what? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 06:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

BTW, we are not discussing other crap here, are we? Lt's keep the flaws of the rest of Bangladesh-related articles out of this discussion. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 07:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment on the word Martyr: I checked dictionary and couldn't verify the definition of the word martyr that Ravichandar has provided. The appropriate definitions that I could find from Dictionary.com are: A person who is put to death or endures great suffering on behalf of any belief, principle, or cause. or A person who suffers death or hardship for what he or she believes etc. As such I fail to understand exactly what is inherently POV about this word. Arman ^(Talk) 10:33, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

In most cases, you will only see one side calling a person a martyr, never the other. Why is this so? Because it's all a matter of opinion. We're building a neutral encyclopedia here, not some tribute pieces to Bangladeshi heroes. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not love)} 00:28, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

All that is nice and true. The only problem is that the list is described as such by the builders, and it is clearly written on the top of the list. In fact, the caption is only a literal translation of the description on the list. How do you people propose to make it NPOV? When descrbing the "United States of America" do we use a footnote that says - "United is the descriptor used by the writers of the Declaration of Independence, in which case "Independence" was another epithet used by the same group of people", and then put a couple of in-line citations to support the explanation? I am sure we don't do that. Let me see if I can make this NPOV enough for everyone. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 04:22, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

"From the Binodpur gate, the residential halls named after Nawab Abdul Latif, Shamsuzzoha and Madarbux are located to the north, while Sher-e-Bangla hall[citation needed] and the oldest dorm Motihar Hall[9] lie to the west.[citation needed]" has been tagged twice for citation. An, I have no clue why. When it was first tagged, I understood that it was for the claim of "oldest dorm" and that has been cited. If someone really wants to be silly enough to ask citations for geographic locations of the dorms per cardinal directions, Wikipedia may be in dire problem. This trigger happiness with tags doesn't seem to apply to any other featured articles here, and I believe all of them passed through community consensus. Are we sure that we need a cite to tell Belgium lies to the north of France and Spain to the south? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 04:55, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I was just commenting on the word "martyr" in a general context. I don't have a problem if you have a quote that includes the word "martyr". It's clearly being attributed to someone or something. However, the article does have other issues: it is poorly referenced (some sections do not even contain any refs), the lead is underdeveloped and there are MoS issues (discrepancies with spelling out numbers). Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not love)} 04:57, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I personally have no inclination towards using high-sounding epithets, unless it comes from a source. And, my entire argument was that since it was called so by the builders, it is perfectly alright to say so. I have tweaked the copy of the caption to that end. But, now I am faced with a new problem - this geographic location thing. Any idea about what to do about this? I have also noticed that there are problems in the article, and I am getting around to them. Pressed with time it's not happening too fast. But, its happening alright. A few more hands there would have been appreciable. But, well... Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 05:14, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

"In the 2005–06 fiscal year, the UGC granted 59 crore taka (around US$10 million) to the university; the university was expected to raise another 3 crore taka from its internal resources." I have removed this part from Organisation and administration section. It looked trivial, wasn't cited and didn't sit well with the rest of section. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 05:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Largeness of Shabash Bangladesh looks mighty suspect. Can someone provide cite? I couldn't find any. The bit on largeness may have to if there's no source supporting the fact. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 13:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Missing info - History from 1964 to present is very short. There is only one line on it. In 1964 there were hardly any students, now there are 25,000 but the growth is not documented. There appears to be an undue weight on political issues, unless it recognised that the uni is more of a political org than a uni. Also, there is no hard data on funding, commercial sponsorships, rankings etc, unlike other FAs on unis, since Unis' performances are usually compared to their competitors. Compared to other university articles, there is a lot missing. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:05, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there may be some necessary information missing. But, there is no need to continuously compare to other universities, unless that is an ironclad law. Most of these other universities seem to have their social, cultural and political impact missing from their articles. An university doesn't have to become a political organization to have a social impact. There is certainly a reason why many people refer to grad-schools instead of universities. It is a pity to find universities to play smaller social roles than Hollywood starlets, it is a bigger pity to find that endorsed as an encyclopedic standard. For now let's stick to facts, and not a comparative bias. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 04:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Well there is no ironclad law, but even without a law it's pretty obvious that for any organisation, it is normal to discuss who funds it, how heavily funded it is. And for any organisation, it is normal to measure its results and if it has succeeded, so academic indicators are usually provided. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:08, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

That part has already been agreed to. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 04:44, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are POV (1d), referencing (1c), and comprehensiveness (1b). Marskell (talk) 18:14, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Delist - The issue of "Martyr" seems only one of the many things needing fixing. The suggested concerns seem fair and the article indeed needs quite a bit of work in almost every section. I also note that there has also not been a real concerted effort to improve the article since it was FARed.. which is not reassuring. As it stands, the article certainly is not FA-grade. Sarvagnya 01:26, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

There may be other issues with the article but I don't see why you object to the way martyr is used in the caption. If the encryption translates to martyr, then what's wrong with that? --Regents Park (Feed my swans) 02:01, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmm.. if "Martyrs' monument" is what it is called.. well that is what it is called. But using "martyr" in the text as an adjective or a verb is not encyclopedic. Anyway, imo, the "martyr" issue is the least of the article's concerns. That is what I intended to suggest in my delist comment above. Sarvagnya 01:07, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Delist - Still has missing sections on history/growth, performance indicators and budget, unsourced sections, and once the info is down pat it still has (1a) and MOS to fix. But nothing new has happened since Apr 30. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:49, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Is it possible to expound a little on 1d, like Blnguyen has done for 1c and 1b? BTW, some of the "citation needed" tags may need a bit of explanation, like there's a tag for the Rokeya Hall while a source for all hostels been provided (yep, a hall is a hostel there). Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 05:07, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

And, I wouldn't mind a delisting as well. The prose isn't too good (probably that's generating this amazing hoo-haa over POVs), there's this problem with MOS (too short intro and all), not laid out well enough, not too many support (like when you say a Faculty of Biology, there's no chance of learning about that, a ring of tiny articles can solve that easily). I'd say, let this article lie low for sometime, and when the problems are fixed take it back to FAC. Say what? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 06:42, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

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

The article was removed 18:57, 22 May 2008.

De Lorean DMC-12

Review commentary

User:Jwplumley, Wikipedia:WikiProject Automobiles notified.

I worked on this a lot quite some time ago, but it has not been maintained. There are short sections, sections without citations, and personally I now feel it no longer fits the FA criteria. — Wackymacs (talk) 06:24, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are stub sections (4) and citations (1c). Marskell (talk) 19:14, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Delist lacks citations, half the citations are from a site where the author has a dislaimer saying that he is an amateur enthusiast. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:42, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Remove. Per Blnguyen, sadly. Ceoil (talk) 15:18, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

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

The article was removed 18:57, 22 May 2008.

Windows 2000

Review commentary

Notified: User:Warren, User:Jdlowery, User:AlistairMcMillan, Wikipedia:WikiProject Microsoft Windows

I am nominating this article for FAR because it no longer meets the Featured Article criteria, particularly:

1c - quite a bit of the article is now completely unsourced, including some direct quotes, almost all of the Architecture section, several chunks of the Common functionality and Server family functionality Section, almost all of the Deployment section, the entire Editions section, all of Total cost of ownership, etc.

1b and 1d - while a huge amount of the article discusses features, there is almost no information on how well received the software was, sales numbers, etc. The only reception type information is security criticisms, which seems imbalanced and lacking in neutrality to be a top level section without other reception information.

1a - could use a new copy edit as it is no longer well-written, with several grammar and spelling mistakes.

2b - seems several later sections could easily be combined into a single one. The menu was also set only show 1st headers, but I've already fixed that.

3 - excessive images, including the logo being included twice; four images of the software box, one for addition, which are completely unnecessary and seem more like decoration than anything else.

4 - 60k in length, likely because it goes into far too much detail on the software features and usage, which seems to go against the idea that Wikipedia is not a software manual and not an advertisement. The technical aspects easily take up over half the article, and could be greatly reduced for brevity. I think the blow by blow should be left to tech articles and manuals.

Collectonian (talk) 03:48, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

God forbid an article on a technical subject contain technical details! Windows 2000 is an enormous topic; Wikipedia has hundreds of articles that discuss components included with it. Because of the sheer size of the subject being discussed, each successive Windows operating system article focuses on what's new to that release, and in the case of Windows 2000, it turns out that there's quite a lot to talk about. We had the same problem with Windows Vista, whose "new features" section had to be split into seven sub-articles.

Most of the text in the Windows 2000 article is actually sourced from the book references (esp. Inside Windows 2000), but Harvard-style referencing needs to be applied to it. -/- Warren 17:46, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I really don't know why this is still featured. A lot of work has gone into it, but...
Why are there so many lists everywhere? Prose is always better. Long lists should be moved out into their own articles.
I can even see internal URLs instead of proper citation formatting (see Language and locale support sub-section, at the end of the paragraph).
Too many images - do we really need to see the boxes for every edition?
Why is there random bolding in places? Doesn't seem to comply with WP:MOS
The article is rather technical, for someone who doesn't have a clue about computers. The meaning of kernel is not explained.
Maybe I'm blind, but I don't see any mention of sales figures, and no 'reception' section?
Looks like this one needs to go back to square one to get sorted out.

— Wackymacs (talk) 06:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe the article is good, but may be too long for the average person to read. I suggest splitting it up into multiple sections just like what has been done with the Windows XP and Windows Vista articles. What if we made a section for features, editions, and support. I think this would be a great way to clean up the article a bit. We also should try and find some citations for un-cited sources. I will try to start on this soon. Jdlowery (talk) 02:29, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Like many articles in WP, it suffers from corporatese. I've started to hack away at such grotesque stuff as "While all editions of Windows 2000 are targeted to different markets, they each share a core set of common functionality" (Whatever "functionality" may means, can't even slow readers figure that what's shared is common?); "Windows 2000 can be installed and deployed to corporate desktops" (What's the distinction between installation and deployment, how does it matter whether the 'puter is on a desk or on the floor, and what's distinctively corporate about this?); and "The public received the full version of Windows 2000 on February 17, 2000" ("Received"? 17 February was a day that this member of the public spent not buying Win2k, let alone shoplifting or downloading it). However, this is going to take some time, and this rather mystical treatment of the products of large US corporations is so common across Wikipedia that I start to think that its perps aren't just forgetting they're not writing corporate image copy but instead actually like this stuff. Morenoodles (talk) 07:07, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I find that faintly insulting - I wrote most of this and I run Ubuntu at home, have been a fan of Linux for a long time. Please, by all means criticise but for goodness sake - refrain from making personal comments! - Tbsdy lives (talk) 16:01, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you feel insulted but I wrote what I thought and rather than merely criticizing have been sporadically working on the prose. Morenoodles (talk) 07:24, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate that you are doing this :-) I did say "faintly", I suppose more to point out that the following sentence is fairly personal "this rather mystical treatment of the products of large US corporations is so common across Wikipedia that I start to think that its perps aren't just forgetting they're not writing corporate image copy but instead actually like this stuff". This implies that the main author of the article is a Microsoft fan-boy! And given that I was the main author... well, you see where I'm going. The lesson to be learned here is that you can never be sure who writes an article. It's best to be specific when giving criticism and not make generalised statements like the one above. However, that said I'm sure that you didn't mean ill by it, and I'm positive it wasn't specifically directed at me. - Tbsdy lives (talk) 10:04, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment: This article seems to me to have a fairly high percentage of "sourcing" that's satisfyingly explicit. What alarms me is the percentage of this that was written by Microsoft. Great swathes of the article are in effect what Microsoft said about its own product. Much of this is very dry and I am not making accusations of advertising or similar. Still, it seems odd to me that screenfuls go by with Win2k compared to its predecessors and successors as if in a world where no non-Microsoft product is worthy of any note. True, Microsoft then had (and still has) a lock on the OS market and one shouldn't pretend otherwise (the great majority of potential customers wouldn't have looked at a non-Microsoft alternative even if it were given to them free). But I'd guess that somebody somewhere would have compared Win2k with Mac OS or even Linux or BSD, yet Linux goes unmentioned other than for price and Mac OS is not mentioned at all. Morenoodles (talk) 12:04, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- I don't think this is particularly valid. Windows 2000 was an operating system created by... Microsoft. We rely on their documentation to understand the technical aspects of the OS. I'm interested, however, in who else you suggest we should be citing? - Tbsdy lives (talk) 16:03, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  - I really don't know, as I don't claim to be an expert on OSes. Back when I was using Windows, I wasn't using books published by or with the cooperation of Microsoft, and those books (long since thrown away) were sometimes a little skeptical of the claims that MS made. Morenoodles (talk) 07:24, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
    - I'm not trying to be difficult here, but this is all a little too vague for my liking. If you could give me specific examples where there is a pro-Microsoft bias in the article then I will try to address your concerns. However, speaking of long-forgotten books being sceptical of unspecified Microsoft claims isn't really an actionable objection. - Tbsdy lives (talk) 10:04, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are referencing (1c), comprehensiveness (1b), POV (1d), images (3), and length (4). Marskell (talk) 16:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Diff since nomination, appears nothing is happening here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:08, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Remove - 1c. --Peter Andersen (talk) 16:49, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Not certain what referencing is terrible. - Tbsdy lives (